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

[rashomon]

And, as I have said elsewhere, MacDonald' storyline was certainly plausible.

Oh no, it wasn't. Go through it closely and you'll discover that JMD's story has more holes in it than his pj top. It is among the most idiotic stories ever concocted by a perp in criminal history.
Which is also the reason why not one single MacD supporter on message boards has ever been able to come up with a time line (taking into account all the evidence) which would match JMD's story. And the reason for this is evident: they can't. It cannot be done.

Or that the State that later tried him was NC, which is infamous for prosecutorial misdeeds (saying things nicely).

Wudge, don't let your personal grudge cloud your objectivity: I'm from Germany, but I can assure you that JMD would have been convicted just the same (and probably also in less than seven hours) if a German prosecutor had handled this case.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Oh no, it wasn't. Go through it closely and you'll discover that JMD's story has more holes in it than his pj top. It is among the most idiotic stories ever concocted by a perp in criminal history.
Which is also the reason why not one single MacD supporter on message boards has ever been able to come up with a time line (taking into account all the evidence) which would match JMD's story. And the reason for this is evident: they can't. It cannot be done.

Wudge, don't let your personal grudge cloud your objectivity: I'm from Germany, but I can assure you that JMD would have been convicted just the same (and probably also in less than seven hours) if a German prosecutor had handled this case.

I have to agree. If this case were in Texas, he'd already be dead.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

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

Thanks darlin!

 

[Wudge]

Thanks darlin!

(salute)

 

[Bunny]

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

Sorry, Wudge, attempting to make me run down the whole case for you won't work. You allege prosecutorial misconduct in this case, yet Mac's own lawyers haven't been able to show that, and the courts have never found that to be true in any way, so, since you made the allegation, I believe it's up to you to show the proof of that.

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?

Hang on, Wudge. Instead of trying to turn the discussion in another direction, let's take things one at a time, okay? My question to you came first. It was, basically, how do you explain the defense's complete silence now about the hair fragment in Kim's nail scrapings, when for years they've held that hair up as proof of "intruders"? Your question to me didn't answer that.

Re: the unsourced hair fragment found somewhere on Kris, I'll go ahead and answer you now and then you can answer my question. As has already been said, not a single lab tech who saw Kris's nail scrapings before Glisson did has ever described finding any hair under her fingernails. Even Glisson wasn't sure about it, and put a ? mark after the word "hair." Given that there's no evidence a 5mm hair fragment was found under the nail, and given that she wasn't bathed and had been to Rosalie Edwards' house that night and may also have been at the stables where the pony was kept, and that her hands weren't bagged when she was taken from the house, and that a fiber from MacDonald's pajamas was found under her nail, the hair means nothing in terms of Mac's innocence.

But cementing the issue of the significance of this hair is the fact that it did not match the DNA profile of either of the people MacDonald claimed murdered his family, and remains unsourced. Until MacDonald can source this hair (and the other two unsourced hairs) to a specific person, and until he can also provide other corroborating evidence that that specific person murdered his family, it will remain forensically worthless.

Finally, should some miracle occur and the hair is at some point sourced to someone and other corroborating evidence does show that that same person murdered Kristen (which IMO will never happen), then MacDonald will have an enormous amount of explaining to do, since he would have to explain not only how he and this other person murdered her, but would also have to explain why he covered up for this person all these many years.

 

[JTF]

Wudge: So, you've read the documented record, yet appear to have no knowledge of the fact that at trial, defense expert John Thornton, agreed with Paul Stombaugh's conclusions regarding bloody cuff impressions in Areas A, B, and F on the blue bedsheet. Since you probably have no idea what I'm referring to, Areas A and B consisted of bloody impressions from the right pajama cuff of Jeffrey MacDonald and Area F is the left pajama cuff of Colette MacDonald. You also appear to not know or care for that matter, that the evidence for hair fragment #7 being found under Kristen's fingernail is specious at best. As has been pointed out to you already on this board:

1) Several lab technicians, including Dillard Browning, looked at the fingernail scrapings from Kristen before Janice Glisson looked at them 6 months after the murders, and not one of them saw this hair fragment.

2) Kristen's hands were not bagged prior to her body being transported from the crime scene.

3) Kristen was not bathed prior to going to bed on February 16, 1970.

4) Kristen was active on February 16th as she went to see the pony with her father and she even visited neighbors at 7 p.m.

Still waiting for that timeline. JTF.

 

[Bunny]

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

Sorry again Wudge, but the crime scene was certainly not "totally unprotected." And, no medic, MP or investigator put 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in MacDonald's pajama top which matched 21 holes in Colette's chest, nor did any medic, MP or investigator create MacDonald's bloody footprint exiting (and not entering) Kristen's room, nor did anyone present at the scene put MacDonald's blood in front of the kitchen cabinet where the surgical gloves were kept. No medic, MP or investigator put fibers from his pajamas on the murder club outside, none of them removed all trace evidence of intruders, none of them scattered fibers underneath Colette and throughout the MB and inside the bedclothing or underneath Kristen's fingernail. And of course none of them forced MacDonald to demonstrate for the next 36 years the consciousness of his guilt.

[Neal] testified...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.

You might want to re-read the trial transcripts, since Neal was hugely contradicted, and did not move any bodies. He did turn Kristen over to check for wounds in her back, and was immediately admonished to touch nothing. He was accompanied from room to room and testimony shows he did not move Colette nor Kimberly and I don't remember anything about his "removing their clothing" as you indicate. But even disregarding all that, photos were taken before Neal touched anyone.

I do not have the transcripts available to me, and I do not know if they can be found on the web.

Yes, they're on the web, along with countless other documents from this case. Christina Masewicz was the first (and only, to my knowledge) person to make most of this information available:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

You may also want to view the extraordinary list of MacDonald's lies and the other contradictions in this case at:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

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.

Yes, I shook my head too, but it was in disbelief. LOL! Aside from the fact that his account does not match the accounts of the people who observed him, and that he couldn't really seem to account for what he was doing with the blue pajama top while checking Colette, and that he didn't even bring a stethoscope with him (in fact, I don't believe he brought any instruments at all), his account is truly remarkable.

Hence, the forensic evidence simply cannot be deemed to be reliable...

Can you tell us how Neal checking for a pulse after crime photos were taken accounts for the 48 holes in MacDonald's pajama top, or the pajama fibers on the club, or MacDonald's bloody footprint, or the fiber under Kris's nail and the other 1099 or so evidentiary items that proved to a jury (and appeals courts) that MacDonald committed these horrendous crimes?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

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, do you have any links for these bits of info? I'd like to check out policy in North Carolina about what the prosecutor's office must hand over. Thanks.

 

[Wudge]

Sorry, Wudge, attempting to make me run down the whole case for you won't work. You allege prosecutorial misconduct in this case, yet Mac's own lawyers haven't been able to show that, and the courts have never found that to be true in any way, so, since you made the allegation, I believe it's up to you to show the proof of that.


Hang on, Wudge. Instead of trying to turn the discussion in another direction, let's take things one at a time, okay? My question to you came first. It was, basically, how do you explain the defense's complete silence now about the hair fragment in Kim's nail scrapings, when for years they've held that hair up as proof of "intruders"? Your question to me didn't answer that.

Re: the unsourced hair fragment found somewhere on Kris, I'll go ahead and answer you now and then you can answer my question. As has already been said, not a single lab tech who saw Kris's nail scrapings before Glisson did has ever described finding any hair under her fingernails. Even Glisson wasn't sure about it, and put a ? mark after the word "hair." Given that there's no evidence a 5mm hair fragment was found under the nail, and given that she wasn't bathed and had been to Rosalie Edwards' house that night and may also have been at the stables where the pony was kept, and that her hands weren't bagged when she was taken from the house, and that a fiber from MacDonald's pajamas was found under her nail, the hair means nothing in terms of Mac's innocence.

But cementing the issue of the significance of this hair is the fact that it did not match the DNA profile of either of the people MacDonald claimed murdered his family, and remains unsourced. Until MacDonald can source this hair (and the other two unsourced hairs) to a specific person, and until he can also provide other corroborating evidence that that specific person murdered his family, it will remain forensically worthless.

Finally, should some miracle occur and the hair is at some point sourced to someone and other corroborating evidence does show that that same person murdered Kristen (which IMO will never happen), then MacDonald will have an enormous amount of explaining to do, since he would have to explain not only how he and this other person murdered her, but would also have to explain why he covered up for this person all these many years.

Nope, as the entirety of my original post was deleted earlier today, I will limit it now to: arguing twenty-five year old mouse farts are not of interest to me. I only commented on this case as regards my opinion that I would have MacDonald free with the more likely person behind bars being Blackburn.

As for linking a valid and reliable conclusion of guilt deductively, it cannot be done. For the reliability of the conclusion cannot exceed the reliability of the evidence.

Regarding MacDonald's defense team, I never thought they were a dream team. However, if O.J.'s dream team were in place, the corruption of the crime scene that was allowed to occur here would have had them drooling. They would have had to wear bibs while questioning witnesses.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, do you have any links for these bits of info? I'd like to check out policy in North Carolina about what the prosecutor's office must hand over. Thanks.

You won't find much. The media would not generally find a State policy to withhold evidence to be newsworthy. (chuckle)

http://www.newsobserver.com/208/story/249929.html

 

[KrazyKollector]

You won't find much. The media would not generally find a State policy to withhold evidence to be newsworthy. (chuckle)

http://www.newsobserver.com/208/story/249929.html

So this "conspiracy" involves the media also? (chuckle)

:boohoo: :boohoo: to Mackie and his conspiracy theories.

 

[rashomon]

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.

If it is true that you have read the trial transcripts, then you didn't read them thoroughly enough, for exactly the opposite was the case: both the prosecution's and the defense's expert agreed that the bloody cuff imprints came from JMD's and Colette's pajamas. Imagine you are a defense lawyer and your own expert fully agrees with the prosecution's expert on a totally incriminating piece of evidence against your client. This is the worst possible case scenario for every defense lawyer.
No difference of opinions, geez, imagine that.

 

[Bunny]

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.

I think you were being asked for proof of the witness coercion you allege happened in this case. Do you believe that this affidavit from Britt (which, by the way, the defense had in January 2005 but did nothing with until December) is proof that this alleged event occurred, even though a hearing hasn't even been held or even granted on this issue?

 

[Wudge]

I think you were being asked for proof of the witness coercion you allege happened in this case. Do you believe that this affidavit from Britt (which, by the way, the defense had in January 2005 but did nothing with until December) is proof that this alleged event occurred, even though a hearing hasn't even been held or even granted on this issue?

Do I think it is that the alleged witness coercion and attendant obstruction of justice is likely to be true? Yes, and I say that biased by my familiarity with what prosecutors do to gain convicvtions in NC, basically, anything goes.

The whole State is a bastion of prosecutorial misconduct and corruption. Putting innocent people behind bars is considered a sport there.

 

[Wudge]

If it is true that you have read the trial transcripts, then you didn't read them thoroughly enough, for exactly the opposite was the case: both the prosecution's and the defense's expert agreed that the bloody cuff imprints came from JMD's and Colette's pajamas. Imagine you are a defense lawyer and your own expert fully agrees with the prosecution's expert on a totally incriminating piece of evidence against your client. This is the worst possible case scenario for every defense lawyer.
No difference of opinions, geez, imagine that.

I don't have exact recall of their word-by-word testimony, but for the recall I do have, they did not testify that the left cuff "did" make the impression. Might have or could have is not "did".

 

[Wudge]

So this "conspiracy" involves the media also? (chuckle)

:boohoo: :boohoo: to Mackie and his conspiracy theories.

For the most part, do I believe that LE and D.A. offices have an unholy alliance with the media? Yes.

It is an arrangement of: you give us leaks, and we will will turn a blind eye to your corruption.

 

[azwriter]

In addition...

McDonald claimed that he awoke hearing Collette crying, "Jeff! Jeff! Why are they doing this to me?" and also the girls crying "Daddy! Daddy! Daddy!" And I think he also said that when he awoke, the hippie intruders were standing over him.

That all of these things would happen simultaneously is impossible. clearly. And what the girls cried out according to him, is consistent with his attacking them. And how easy is to to believe that what Collette cried was "Jeff! Why are YOU doing this to me?" Isn't that more believable than her calling out what he said if she were being attacked by strangers? Wouldn't she scream "Help!" and not ask HIM why THEY were killing her?

No one knew this case better than Freddy Kassab who originally defended McDonald. But it was McDonald's statements and the transcripts which convinced Kassab in a million ways why McDonald was guilty.

LisaF, I could not agree more. McDonald wasn't clever enough to make up something his family was saying. Therefore, like you claim, he repeated what they were saying to him as he attacked and killed them.
If Collette was being attacked, wouldn't she shout at and ask her attacker, why are you doing this? Common sense tells you that if she shouted anything to her husband, it would be a plea for help from him. As for the children, if a stranger was attacking them, they would probably call out for their mother for help first. Shouting "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy!" would be what they would be saying if it was their dad attacking them. He's a creep for holding on so long to his lies. LIked your post.

 

[sharpar]

For the most part, do I believe that LE and D.A. offices have an unholy alliance with the media? Yes.

It is an arrangement of: you give us leaks, and we will will turn a blind eye to your corruption.

:slap:

Still you are stating opinion as fact. Your opinions have been shown to be
incorrect on numerous points yet you dont apologize, dont conceed an error
in your thinking and ignore things for which the only answer is because he
did it. Now there is a grand conspiracy of LE , Judical and media .

You say alot but little is verifiable fact . You are like most of his supporters in that respect. They also feel the need to make known they have brilliant analytical minds and the rest of us are deluded peasants whose intellect and reading comprehension is questionable.

I am happy to see your overt consending remarks have abated. Now I would like an acknowledgement that you were not correct on the points where source and link were made available to you . No one is perfect
admitting an error in thought is not only gracious and considered good manners in discussion but enhances rather than diminishes your credibility and you have added to your personal knowledge . Not a bad thing at all !

As Bunny answered your questions - please answer the ones of hers you
did not address .

BTW Bunny I vote you class president ! You probably know his shirt size
whether he used starch and what he had for dinner the entire week. :clap: :clap:

 

[Wudge]

:slap:

Still you are stating opinion as fact. Your opinions have been shown to be
incorrect on numerous points yet you dont apologize, dont conceed an error
in your thinking and ignore things for which the only answer is because he
did it. Now there is a grand conspiracy of LE , Judical and media .

You say alot but little is verifiable fact . You are like most of his supporters in that respect. They also feel the need to make known they have brilliant analytical minds and the rest of us are deluded peasants whose intellect and reading comprehension is questionable.

I am happy to see your overt consending remarks have abated. Now I would like an acknowledgement that you were not correct on the points where source and link were made available to you. No one is perfect
admitting an error in thought is not only gracious and considered good manners in discussion but enhances rather than diminishes your credibility and you have added to your personal knowledge . Not a bad thing at all !

As Bunny answered your questions - please answer the ones of hers you
did not address .

BTW Bunny I vote you class president ! You probably know his shirt size
whether he used starch and what he had for dinner the entire week. :clap: :clap:

My beliefs are beliefs, not facts. (duh).

If you think I read whatever source and link you are referring to, you are sadly mistaken, yet again.

And maybe I missed a few things. Like, are you Bunny's security guard? Is voting for grade school President now open? Juvenile things like that.

 

[sharpar]

My beliefs are beliefs, not facts. (duh).

If you think I read whatever source and link you are referring to, you are sadly mistaken, yet again.

And maybe I missed a few things. Like, are you Bunny's security guard? Is voting for grade school President now open? Juvenile things like that.

Thank for the admission of a possible error on your part . See that wasnt painful ? You have some manners though you often choose not to use them.
It's a mystery why though, since you have not been treated badly here and certainly not by me. If you arent going to debate politely then few will be interested in doing so. Do you totally lack a sense of humor ? Are you shoes too tight ? Why the personal attacks which you have to know is against tos - are you one that are immune from the rules ? The easy guideline is this attack the post not the poster.........
My remarks to Bunny were tongue in cheek and not some indicator of
my maturity . I guess you dont recognize a compliment probably never receiving many. You dont KNOW any thing about me yet are making incorrect and condesending assumptions. Could this be a particular trait of your personality hhmmm I wonder .
Why not read only listening to one side makes it much harder to form an
informed belief.
You seemed to have missed my point, you were given verifiable facts on this case and you respond in return with beliefs and opinions. WHY ?
Do you not have facts that support your beliefs ?
And please if you would go back and answer the questions you may have missed . then we can continue ..........