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

[Jules]

JTF, so very glad to see you here! And Cami and Rash and oftenwonder...gee, this place is getting to feel more like home every day.

And to Jules and Sharpar and robinparten and the others here, nice to meet you folks!

Back atcha Bunny. This case, and Manson, are the first cases I've followed. I was only 4-5 years old when the crimes occurred, but got interested in them as I got older. I'm fascinated with the whole "why do people do the things they do." Or, as my family says, TOO fascinated.

 

[sharpar]

In this area, you're like a little leaguer telling Babe Ruth that he does not know how to hit home runs.

:sick:

Weak Evidence ? Please specify what you consider weak evidence.

You mean the laws of physics dont apply to Castle Drive? The prosecution proved beyond any doubt that what Dr Macdonald claimed to have happened was impossible.
Perhaps the army should look at their training programs, a green beret because he was woke up was unable to defend his family ? A trained solider, trained to kill an enemy quickly and quietly using a arsenal of methods, a doctor with a more than cursory knowledge of where the human body is vunerable, a young healthy, mature american male in prime physical condition was unable to subdue even one hippie intruder ? Did not tear a piece of their clothing, didnt grab a handful of their hair didnt mark or wound any of them in any way that required medical attention ? This is reasonable to you? :doh:

Thank you for the welcome Bunny !

 

[rashomon]

Back atcha Bunny. This case, and Manson, are the first cases I've followed. I was only 4-5 years old when the crimes occurred, but got interested in them as I got older. I'm fascinated with the whole "why do people do the things they do." Or, as my family says, TOO fascinated.

Hi Jules. With me, the Manson and the MacDonald murders were also the first cases I have followed. And the two books about the cases, 'Helter Skelter' and 'Fatal Vision' are among the best true crime books ever written.
Both books offer tremendous insight into what made the murderes tick.
For this is also one of the main reasons why (like you) I'm interested in true crime: to explore why people act like they do.
It is also interesting to compare Manson and Macdonald.
Take Manson for example: unwanted as a child, neglected, abused, pushed around in foster homes - it would have been a wonder if Manson hadn't ended up as a criminal of some sort.
But Jeffrey MacDonald? An apparently normal childhood in a small American town. Straight-A student, voted 'most likely to succeed' and 'most popular', breezed through Princeton in three years, great wife, sweet kids, elite soldier, with a brilliant career in medicine lying ahead of him - and he destroyed it all, following a brief moment when he had lost control and irreparable damage was done. All this sounds so incredible, which is also why many of his supporters have clung to that credo "someone like Jeffrey MacDonald could not have done this". But yet he did.
If anyone is the living example of the saying "appearances are deceiving", it is Jeffrey MacDonald. That's what makes studying true crime cases so fascinating because they teach us to look behind the surface of things and persons. MacD is the classic sociopath who was wearing a perfect mask in public. And although JMD didn't have a Manson-like childhood, the MacDonald family life was not as normal as it seemed at first sight. Imo his was a pretty disfunctional family in which the emotional needs of the children were not met, with a father who was a very detrimental role model for JMD.

 

[Wudge]

:sick:

Weak Evidence ? Please specify what you consider weak evidence.

You mean the laws of physics dont apply to Castle Drive? The prosecution proved beyond any doubt that what Dr Macdonald claimed to have happened was impossible.
Perhaps the army should look at their training programs, a green beret because he was woke up was unable to defend his family ? A trained solider, trained to kill an enemy quickly and quietly using a arsenal of methods, a doctor with a more than cursory knowledge of where the human body is vunerable, a young healthy, mature american male in prime physical condition was unable to subdue even one hippie intruder ? Did not tear a piece of their clothing, didnt grab a handful of their hair didnt mark or wound any of them in any way that required medical attention ? This is reasonable to you? :doh:

Thank you for the welcome Bunny !

By definition, a case brought nine years later using arguably inculpatory evidence is going to be looked at askance. To say nothing of the fact that H. Stockley and her band of druggies fit nicely into MacDonald's storyline.

Add in withheld evidence and witness coercion by a prosecutor and we have all the ingredients for, yet another, rigged NC case.

 

[rashomon]

All you can say about this case -- or most any circumstantial evidence murder case based on weak evidence -- is MacDonald might have committed the murders, or MacDonald might not have committed the murders.

What gives you the idea that the MacD case was based on weak evidence? The contrary was the case: there are few circumstantial evidence murder cases where such an overwhelming amount of forensic evidence against the defendant was presented in court. Couple this amount of damaging evidence (which in no way added up with the story JMD had concocted) with the lack of evidence pointing to intruders, and it becomes clear why it took the jury less than seven hours to find MacD guilty.
The prosecution has the burden of proof, and they did an excellent job, because unlike the prosecution in e. g. the Simpson case, they were able to sum up their experts' testimonies in a manner so that the jurors as laypeople could understand it. And even the prosecution experts themselves were mostly very clear and understandable in their testimony.

Therefore it is not true that MacDonald 'might or might not have committed the murders'. Evidence is real and tangible. Which is why not everything is possible and within the realm of possibility in a circumstantial evidence murder case. The bloodstain analysis of the blue bedsheet for example makes JMD's innocence an impossibility.

BTW, there have been defendants who were convicted on far less forensic evidence than JMD. I forgot the name of the murderer who was found guilty because of some incriminating carpet fibers, but you can ask poster JTF about it.

Hello JTF and Oftenwonder, great that you have come over here too!

 

[JTF]

Wudge: You may have followed the "case closely" via newspaper articles and television snippets, but it's clear from your posts that you have not put the time in to read the documented record. If you had read the case record, you would know which evidentiary items were discovered via FOIA and which items were presented at trial. Similar to the MacDonald camp, you lump in items discovered via FOIA with items presented at trial to present a fictional argument that MacDonald did not get a fair trial. Just a little reminder, MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours in a trial that lasted 7 weeks. In addition, all the "evidence of intruders" presented by the MacDonald defense post-trial, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED HIM IN 1979. What do the saran fibers have to do with the fact that Colette's blood was on her husband's pajama top in 4 locations before it was torn? What do woolen fibers have to do with the fact that the 48 puncture holes in Jeff's pajama top matched the ice pick wound pattern in Colette's chest? What does an unsourced hair fragment found in an unknown location on Kristen's body have to do with the fact that bloody pajama cuff impressions from both Jeff's and Colette's pajamas were found on the blue bedsheet? Your posts are very similar to how MacDonald advocates/groupies present their arguments. Stick to message and ignore the ominous evidentiary items which point towards MacDonald's guilt. Still waiting for that murder timeline, big guy.

JTF.

 

[Wudge]

What gives you the idea that the MacD case was based on weak evidence? The contrary was the case: there are few circumstantial evidence murder cases where such an overwhelming amount of forensic evidence against the defendant was presented in court. Couple this amount of damaging evidence (which in no way added up with the story JMD had concocted) with the lack of evidence pointing to intruders, and it becomes clear why it took the jury less than seven hours to find MacD guilty.
The prosecution has the burden of proof, and they did an excellent job, because unlike the prosecution in e. g. the Simpson case, they were able to sum up their experts' testimonies in a manner so that the jurors as laypeople could understand it. And even the prosecution experts themselves were mostly very clear and understandable in their testimony.

Therefore it is not true that MacDonald 'might or might not have committed the murders'. Evidence is real and tangible. Which is why not everything is possible and within the realm of possibility in a circumstantial evidence murder case. The bloodstain analysis of the blue bedsheet for example makes JMD's innocence an impossibility.

BTW, there have been defendants who were convicted on far less forensic evidence than JMD. I forgot the name of the murderer who was found guilty because of some incriminating carpet fibers, but you can ask poster JTF about it.

Hello JTF and Oftenwonder, great that you have come over here too!

If the evidence is strong, you do not go to trial nine years after the fact. And, as I have said elsewhere, MacDonald' storyline was certainly plausible. Even moreso since H. Stoeckley supported it, and especially now that DNA has not been able to match a hair found under Kristen's fingernail to any MacDonald family member.

Of course, this says nothing of the fact that MacDonald had already been found innocent in an Article 32 hearing conducted by the Army in 1970. Or that the State that later tried him was NC, which is infamous for prosecutorial misdeeds (saying things nicely).

All in all, reasonable doubt was and remains more than sufficient for an acquittal.

 

[nanandjim]

MacDonald is guilty and will die in prison where he belongs.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge: You may have followed the "case closely" via newspaper articles and television snippets, but it's clear from your posts that you have not put the time in to read the documented record. If you had read the case record, you would know which evidentiary items were discovered via FOIA and which items were presented at trial. Similar to the MacDonald camp, you lump in items discovered via FOIA with items presented at trial to present a fictional argument that MacDonald did not get a fair trial. Just a little reminder, MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours in a trial that lasted 7 weeks. In addition, all the "evidence of intruders" presented by the MacDonald defense post-trial, has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED HIM IN 1979. What do the saran fibers have to do with the fact that Colette's blood was on her husband's pajama top in 4 locations before it was torn? What do woolen fibers have to do with the fact that the 48 puncture holes in Jeff's pajama top matched the ice pick wound pattern in Colette's chest? What does an unsourced hair fragment found in an unknown location on Kristen's body have to do with the fact that bloody pajama cuff impressions from both Jeff's and Colette's pajamas were found on the blue bedsheet? Your posts are very similar to how MacDonald advocates/groupies present their arguments. Stick to message and ignore the ominous evidentiary items which point towards MacDonald's guilt. Still waiting for that murder timeline, big guy.

JTF.

I started by watching the Dick Cavett show in 1970. I later followed the case closely in the 80's and have maintained coverage for 25 years, thank you. And I read the trial transcripts far before the web was born, thank you.

To me, this case was built on smoke, mirrors, a ton of mouse farts and prosecutorial misconduct (it's NC, expect no less). And no one, anywhere, has ever produced dispositive evidence or premises that could support deductive linking to a valid and reliable "guilty" conclusion.

As such, in my mind's eye, reasonable doubt exists to a great degree.

 

[Jules]

Hi Jules. With me, the Manson and the MacDonald murders were also the first cases I have followed. And the two books about the cases, 'Helter Skelter' and 'Fatal Vision' are among the best true crime books ever written.

Hi rashomon. Nice to meet you. I agree that both of those books are fantastic and two of my favorites. Not pleasant in the subject matter, but well written and give the reader lots of insight into both Manson and MacD.

I started out with Manson and then MacD and did compare the two as you have. It's not just the crime that draws me in, it's the whole picture - their upbringing, way of life, etc., and these two differ in just about every aspect.

Manson never really stood a chance in life. He was unwanted, shuffled around, and chose a life of crime at a very young age. MacD, on the other hand, as you said, was seemingly brilliant in just about every aspect of his life. However, I think both Manson and MacD were controllers. They needed to be in control of everything. With Manson, it was the control over his followers - he controlled everything they did - from what they ate and thought down to their sex lives. With MacD, it was his control over Collette. When she discussed their home issues with her professor at her class the night she was killed, then came home and told MacD what the professor said, I can only imagine how ticked he was. I believe that put him in a fit of rage that ended in her death.

 

[Bunny]

To say nothing of the fact that H. Stockley and her band of druggies fit nicely into MacDonald's storyline.

You're joking, of course.

Her candle dripped blood and not wax. The people she claimed were there were shown not to have been there. Gunderson didn't even bother investigating the people she named. No fingerprints on the hobby horse she supposedly tried to ride. "Black wool" on Colette which supposedly came from her, yet she didn't go near Colette according to her story (and according to Posey she was wearing a white hat, white boots and white blouse). Stoeckley claiming she wore a skirt but then saying she wore pants; coming in through the kitchen door (which was found to be locked when investigators arrived, with no sign of forced entry); Dwight Smith discounted even by the defense as a suspect; Mazerolle in jail during the murders; Mitchell in two rooms at once. The weapons in two rooms at the same time. Oven mitts flying of their own accord back down the hallway after the murders. They supposedly came to the apartment to get drugs from Mac but left without taking any of his stash. They wanted to leave him alive to teach him a lesson but yet were "frightened" when they learned he was still alive. One of them took Mac's pajama top off, put it on his own body while committing the murders and stabbing Colette through it, then put it back on Mac before leaving him there in the hallway. No blood or fibers in the living room where Mac claims the top was torn and where he claims to have been repeatedly clubbed and stabbed. Stoeckley's account was at direct odds with MacDonald's stories, and the court found that Gunderson and Beasley had done cut-and-paste jobs on the tapes (and of course Stoeckley later recanted, but that's ok since even Gunderson says her statements were statements and not "confessions"); they brought no weapons with them...Mac didn't even recognize Stoeckley when shown her picture either in 1970 or 1971, yet even though by 1979 she'd changed quite a bit, Mac claimed to a reporter during the trial that he recognized her face and her voice...the male intruders were completely silent during the "attack" and never said anything to Mac (contradicting Stoeckley's statements, I do believe)...not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever found to support Mac's stories of six or more intruders being in the apartment that night, and DNA results showing that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's nor any other "intruder's" DNA profile matched any of the "crucial" exhibits the defense wanted tested...

I could go on (and on and on and on), but why bother. Yep, you've got to be joking, all right. Hard to assume anything else.

 

[Bunny]

And I read the trial transcripts far before the web was born, thank you...And no one, anywhere, has ever produced dispositive evidence or premises that could support deductive linking to a valid and reliable "guilty" conclusion.

Interesting that you supposedly read the transcripts more than a decade ago yet somehow totally seemed to have missed the outcome. Of course evidence and "premises that could supprt deductive linking to a valid and reliable 'guilty' conclusion" took place in 1979, when the jury returned from deliberations and declared MacDonald guilty of murdering Colette, Kim and Kristen.

Not a single one of MacDonald's many, many attorneys has ever managed to make even the slightest dent in that verdict, and one of those attorneys even declared, twice, that MacDonald got a fair trial. The appeals courts also pointed out that nowhere on the record has MacDonald officially even challenged the jury's verdict. He has presented his "new evidence" over the years, but by 1985 even Wade Smith and Segal admitted they'd abandoned all but four of their claims, because they "were wrong" about those. His later "new evidence" claims in the 1990s also amounted to nothing at all, as you can easily tell even if you haven't read the decisions, since Mac of course remains in prison where he belongs.

Sorry, but if there's supposed to be some evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in this case, it's pretty strange that in all these many years, none of Mac's many lawyers has ever been able to show that, and not a single court has ever found it to be true. I wonder why that is.

By the way, I see that you have absolutely no answer at all to the question I asked you (twice, I believe) about the defense's deafening silence these days regarding the hair fragment in Kim's nail scrapings. Did you miss those posts somehow, or are you just not wanting to answer that question for some reason? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, if you have any explanation for it.

 

[Bunny]

Of course, this says nothing of the fact that MacDonald had already been found innocent in an Article 32 hearing conducted by the Army in 1970.

That's not correct. MacDonald was not found "innocent," and of course regardless, it wasn't a trial, only an investigative procedure. Mac was not happy with the outcome. He wanted Rock to declare him "innocent," but Rock couldn't do that. Since the imprints on the bedding and other evidence were not known at that time, and since Segal and Eisman apparently got away with a lot of things that would never have been permitted during a real trial, all Rock could do was, in essence, either "check the box" as true or not true.
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]Per MacDonald's own attorney, Bernard Segal: "The point is, [Colonel Rock] is not a judge. He is an investigating officer."[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]Judge (now Justice) Blackmun summed up the function of an Article 32 proceeding in one sentence: "The proceeding was what its description indicated, namely, an investigation." As the Dept. of Justice noted, "The investigating officer merely recommends whether or not a court-martial should be convened and his recommendation that charges be dismissed for lack of evidence did not constitute a 'trial' which precluded civilian trial of the serviceman."[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]Despite his claims that the Army "exonerated" him, the MacDonald camp also implies that the Army was involved in a vast conspiracy and was determined to blame the crimes on him.[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]The outcome of the 1970 Article 32 hearing, which took place before much of the evidence was known, was that the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. Jeffrey MacDonald was not exonerated at the Article 32 military hearing.[/size][/font]

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

 

[Wudge]

Interesting that you supposedly read the transcripts more than a decade ago yet somehow totally seemed to have missed the outcome. Of course evidence and "premises that could supprt deductive linking to a valid and reliable 'guilty' conclusion" took place in 1979, when the jury returned from deliberations and declared MacDonald guilty of murdering Colette, Kim and Kristen.

Not a single one of MacDonald's many, many attorneys has ever managed to make even the slightest dent in that verdict, and one of those attorneys even declared, twice, that MacDonald got a fair trial. The appeals courts also pointed out that nowhere on the record has MacDonald officially even challenged the jury's verdict. He has presented his "new evidence" over the years, but by 1985 even Wade Smith and Segal admitted they'd abandoned all but four of their claims, because they "were wrong" about those. His later "new evidence" claims in the 1990s also amounted to nothing at all, as you can easily tell even if you haven't read the decisions, since Mac of course remains in prison where he belongs.

Sorry, but if there's supposed to be some evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in this case, it's pretty strange that in all these many years, none of Mac's many lawyers has ever been able to show that, and not a single court has ever found it to be true. I wonder why that is.

By the way, I see that you have absolutely no answer at all to the question I asked you (twice, I believe) about the defense's deafening silence these days regarding the hair fragment in Kim's nail scrapings. Did you miss those posts somehow, or are you just not wanting to answer that question for some reason? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, if you have any explanation for it.

Please cite the chain of incontrovertibkle facts/premises and deductive linking that produces your alleged valid and relibale conclusion of "guilty".
(best of luck)

Regarding the withholding evidence, that is formal State policy in NC. As such, I certainly am not surprised that their Courts are not bothered by it.

As for DNA results, I take Kirsten's to be the most significant. Do you not? Or do you think a foreign hair inserted itself under her fingernail?

 

[sharpar]

Wudge -

One parital hair in no way makes him innocent .
You neglected to mention that the hair doesnt match Jeff's suspects either. Why did you omit that fact ?

Waiting 9 years or 19 years or 99 years does not change the evidence and is no indication of innocence.

Article 32 and the states murder case -- not the same thing so two different conculsions doesnt mean he is innocent either.

What withheld evidence and what witness coercion ? You keep saying it but its meaningless without the specific facts. Back these charges up with supporting documentation. Both are crimes and someone would have been charged and proven guilty . If you cant offer proof then its only your opinion and not fact and does not indicate he is not guilty.

Where is the proof that NC is famous for prosecutorial misdeeds ? You keep
saying it - surely there is written evidence - listing of all the prosecutors found guilty of misdeeds serving sentences or other sanctions being applied to them.
You cant keep stating your opinions are facts. If they are your opinions then state them as such. If they are facts then provide links and sources.
So we can verify the truth of what you are saying.

 

[KrazyKollector]

:sick:

Weak Evidence ? Please specify what you consider weak evidence.

You mean the laws of physics dont apply to Castle Drive? The prosecution proved beyond any doubt that what Dr Macdonald claimed to have happened was impossible.
Perhaps the army should look at their training programs, a green beret because he was woke up was unable to defend his family ? A trained solider, trained to kill an enemy quickly and quietly using a arsenal of methods, a doctor with a more than cursory knowledge of where the human body is vunerable, a young healthy, mature american male in prime physical condition was unable to subdue even one hippie intruder ? Did not tear a piece of their clothing, didnt grab a handful of their hair didnt mark or wound any of them in any way that required medical attention ? This is reasonable to you? :doh:

Thank you for the welcome Bunny !

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Sometimes I think it's useless to argue with people who have their own "agenda". We need to remember the saying, "you can lead a person to logic, but you can't make them think".

The jury did a GREAT and difficult job in the MacDonald case. As hard as it was to fathom how a father could brutally murder his sweet, innocent children and his loving, caring, becoming independant and pregnant wife, they saw the evidence, they heard the testimony and they reached the just, fair and correct conclusion. The man was/is a monster, a butcher and a first class lying son-of-a-biscuit-eater. :loser: :bang:

Of course, that's JMNSHO. :blowkiss:

 

[Wudge]

That's not correct. MacDonald was not found "innocent," and of course regardless, it wasn't a trial, only an investigative procedure. Mac was not happy with the outcome. He wanted Rock to declare him "innocent," but Rock couldn't do that. Since the imprints on the bedding and other evidence were not known at that time, and since Segal and Eisman apparently got away with a lot of things that would never have been permitted during a real trial, all Rock could do was, in essence, either "check the box" as true or not true.
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]Per MacDonald's own attorney, Bernard Segal: "The point is, [Colonel Rock] is not a judge. He is an investigating officer."[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]Judge (now Justice) Blackmun summed up the function of an Article 32 proceeding in one sentence: "The proceeding was what its description indicated, namely, an investigation." As the Dept. of Justice noted, "The investigating officer merely recommends whether or not a court-martial should be convened and his recommendation that charges be dismissed for lack of evidence did not constitute a 'trial' which precluded civilian trial of the serviceman."[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]Despite his claims that the Army "exonerated" him, the MacDonald camp also implies that the Army was involved in a vast conspiracy and was determined to blame the crimes on him.[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif][size=-1]The outcome of the 1970 Article 32 hearing, which took place before much of the evidence was known, was that the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. Jeffrey MacDonald was not exonerated at the Article 32 military hearing.[/size][/font]

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

An Article 32 hearing has the same presumption of innocence standard as Federal and State criminal courts; i.e., the presumption (innocent) remains in force unless ruled otherwise, which did not occur until 1979.

As for the cover-up, that was first talked about by MacDonald on Cavett's 1970 show, which appears to have incited CID investigators (Murtaugh et al) to have launched a re-investigation -- arguably, illegally so -- after MacDonald was discharged from the Army.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Wudge, she's making some sense here. I'd like to hear the answer to her questions as well.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge -

One parital hair in no way makes him innocent .
You neglected to mention that the hair doesnt match Jeff's suspects either. Why did you omit that fact ?

Waiting 9 years or 19 years or 99 years does not change the evidence and is no indication of innocence.

Article 32 and the states murder case -- not the same thing so two different conculsions doesnt mean he is innocent either.

What withheld evidence and what witness coercion ? You keep saying it but its meaningless without the specific facts. Back these charges up with supporting documentation. Both are crimes and someone would have been charged and proven guilty . If you cant offer proof then its only your opinion and not fact and does not indicate he is not guilty.

Where is the proof that NC is famous for prosecutorial misdeeds ? You keep
saying it - surely there is written evidence - listing of all the prosecutors found guilty of misdeeds serving sentences or other sanctions being applied to them.
You cant keep stating your opinions are facts. If they are your opinions then state them as such. If they are facts then provide links and sources.
So we can verify the truth of what you are saying.

In a hearing related to the prosecutorial misconduct (that's saying it lightly) that took place in the capital murder case of Alan Gell, North Carolina's senior prosecutor, Jim Coman, testified under oath on the witness stand that North Carolina's policy is that prosecutors do not have to turn over evidence to the defense that is not "exonerating" (in and of itself).

I think that's pretty clear, don't you? Though if you know of that being the policy in another state, please advise.

As regards "witness coercion", as I have said elsewhere, that is covered by James Britt's (a former deputy U.S. Marshall) affidavit covering Blackburn threatening to prosecute Helena Stoeckley for murder, if she told her story on the witness stand.

Can you say: obstruction of justice?

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, she's making some sense here. I'd like to hear the answer to her questions as well.

Just for you luv. You know that if I do not answer a question, I am probably trying to be nice. And you did delete my post wherein I stated I did not want to argue over 25 year old mouse farts

Moving on, you simply cannot validly reason from the inherent unreliability of forensic evidence that was obtained from a totally unprotected crime scene.

That MacDonald's hair might have been found anywhere is certainly not surprising. Obviously, there would have been many of his hairs throughout and present in every nook and cranny of their residence. But most telling was the (in my mind) absolutely extraordinary testimony of the Doctor who was called to the murder scene before the massive amounts of blood had coagulated.

His name, if my memory serves me well (and I think it still does), was Dr. Neal; an admitted amateur to crime scenes as I recall.

He testified that, before his arrival or upon his departure, there were not even fundamental body position lines drawn around the bodies. He trestified that he rolled and otherwise significantly moved all of the the bodies (including moving Colette's hand and arms to roll her body) without even thinking about what their original position was. He also testified that he removed their clothing and went from body to body without washing his hands or otherwise protecting the bodies from transference contamination, etc., etc., etc.. In other words, crime scene contamination was virtually assurred based on his actions alone.

I do not have the transcripts available to me, and I do not know if they can be found on the web. But his testimony was so extraordinarily honest, that I remember re-reading it over and over and over and then setting the transcripts down, shaking my head.

Hence, the forensic evidence simply cannot be deemed to be reliable, and thus, valid and reliable conclusions are not possible. It is as simple as that. To do so would represent putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.

As for the alleged "cuff" evidence, where one witness saw an alleged cuff imprint, other witnesses did not agree. A difference of opinions, geez, imagine that.

Neting it all out, the case was and remains but fool's gold, and reasonable doubt was and remains more than plentiful.