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

[angelmom]

McDonald is guilty as sin.

I will never forget going back and forth until I got to the point in the book where Collette's father went into the house and saw the display of greeting cards on the dining room table. Jeff had described a violent physical altercation with multiple people as he desperately tried to save his family, but the cards were all still standing perfectly. The father stamped his foot hard and they fell over.

The rest was gravy in my mind. There was no massive assault in that house by drug ridden cult members. There was only the predecessor of Scott Peterson and the devil himself.

 

[MsRusty]

I'm going to reread the book.
I know the first time I heard about this case was in Parade magazine I want to say back in '79. And while I did/do find the case interesting, I don't think I ever really followed it. I did read the book, but I think at the time I read it was when all the controversy about it was going on. I remember seeing the case on either Dateline or one of those shows. On that one they interviewed Helena and I want to say on there she was admitting to having been at the house. I'm remembering little details as I read them here, but not sure where I heard them originally. I'll just read the book again and see which way it leads me. Was this book ever updated like some crime authors, that reissue the book with the new info?

 

[MsRusty]

There was only the predecessor of Scott Peterson and the devil himself.

See, at the risk of getting bashed here, I have my doubts about his innocence too. But please before anybody says anything about that, I didn't follow that case at all, only what was given on the news. I didn't go out of my way to follow it, if I had I might have a different or more definate opinion. I guess cases like these are hard for me to comprehend because I can't fathom how one can kill their spouse AND CHILDREN!! Why not get a divorce? Maybe I just don't like to believe that there can be these kinds of people amongst us.

 

[SeekingJana]

OK, am I wrong, or are their a lot of similarities between the McDonald murders and the Sam Sheppard case? He's the one I was trying to remember who had a son who was trying to either clear him or definitly prove his father's guilt for the murder of his mother through DNA testing.

I don't remember very many details from the Sheppard case but wasn't he also a doctor? I know it was a famous case a long time ago. I seem to remember that he said he blacked out and some intruder killed his wife. I guess his son lived. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but wasn't it said for a time that the Jeffrey McDonald case was almost a copycat case to the Sam/ Marilyn Sheppard case? That maybe McDonald had gotten most of the plans from the Sheppard case?

Help me out here!!

Edited to say- Read up on the Sheppard case in Crime Library if you aren't familiar with it and think the McDonald case is interesting. It's the case which the show " The Fugitive" was based on.. The Sheppard case is fascinating, and happened in 1954. Lee Bailey was Sheppard's attorney, and he lost the case. There are 50 YEARS worth of twists and turns to the case, and MANY similarities to the McDonald case. I definitely think Jeff McDonald had studied the Sheppard case in depth and that his murdering of his entire family may have a lot of copy cat elements.
JMO.

FWIW, I think both men killed their wives!

 

[believe09]

OK, am I wrong, or are their a lot of similarities between the McDonald murders and the Sam Sheppard case? He's the one I was trying to remember who had a son who was trying to either clear him or definitly prove his father's guilt for the murder of his mother through DNA testing.

I don't remember very many details from the Sheppard case but wasn't he also a doctor? I know it was a famous case a long time ago. I seem to remember that he said he blacked out and some intruder killed his wife. I guess his son lived. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but wasn't it said for a time that the Jeffrey McDonald case was almost a copycat case to the Sam/ Marilyn Sheppard case? That maybe McDonald had gotten most of the plans from the Sheppard case?

Help me out here!!

Edited to say- Read up on the Sheppard case in Crime Library if you aren't familiar with it and think the McDonald case is interesting. It's the case which the show " The Fugitive" was based on.. The Sheppard case is fascinating, and happened in 1954. Lee Bailey was Sheppard's attorney, and he lost the case. There are 50 YEARS worth of twists and turns to the case, and MANY similarities to the McDonald case. I definitely think Jeff McDonald had studied the Sheppard case in depth and that his murdering of his entire family may have a lot of copy cat elements.
JMO.

FWIW, I think both men killed their wives!

I could have sworn the DNA did not match in the Shepherd case, whereas in the McDonald case there was no foreign DNA in the house...

 

[Jolynna]

I could have sworn the DNA did not match in the Shepherd case, whereas in the McDonald case there was no foreign DNA in the house...

There were three hairs in the house (one of them on a child's hand) with DNA that did not come from any family member. Shoeckley and and the hippies were excluded from being the source of those hairs also.

IF any one of the three hairs had come from Shoeckley or any of the hippies (who would have no reason to ever have been in contact with a MacDonald or in their house) MacDonald would have been exonerated.

Any residence, including the MacDonalds would be expected to include hairs from people other than those that live there. We pick up hair and fibers at our jobs and everywhere else we go. After Jeffrey called for help the house was full of hair shedding investigators, the military and emergency crews.

No foreign DNA other than the three easily transferred hairs was found. The U.S. Dept. of Justice says nothing new from their tests conflicts with the evidence presented or the jury verdict.

 

[southcitymom]

This case this has always reminded me of the Darlie Routier case. In both crimes, it is hard to find or fathom a motive, but the blood evidence of both cases is overwhelming. Routier and MacDonald are guilty of slaughtering their children, wounding themselves and claiming the boogeyman did it.

 

[Jolynna]

This case this has always reminded me of the Darlie Routier case. In both crimes, it is hard to find or fathom a motive, but the blood evidence of both cases is overwhelming. Routier and MacDonald are guilty of slaughtering their children, wounding themselves and claiming the boogeyman did it.

You are right. These cases are alike. We may never know why. But, the blood trails show who and how.

 

[southcitymom]

You are right. These cases are alike. We may never know why. But, the blood trails show who and how.

It took a while for the blood evidence in Routier's case to "win me over." I was desperate for a motive (still am, in fact), but blood doesn't lie. It's eerie how similar the cases are - MacDonald and Routier must share similar psychopathologies. And - in both cases - diet drugs/amphetamines.

I've finally stopped trying to figure out the why - I doubt I will ever be satisfied with it.

 

[curious1]

Yup-because Joe McGinnis mislead McDonald that he would be writing a book that was pro Jefferey's case so he was given unfettered access to McDonald. Which does not make the trail of evidence any less real. There was a whole lot of attorney/client privileged information as well...it is still a fascinating read and it was not due to Joe McGinniss that McDonald was convicted. And convicted, and his appeals have been denied by the Supreme court....not because of his "innocence" mind you, but because he wanted the double jeopardy rule to apply to his case.

IMO McDonald benefited from a contaminated crime scene, destroyed evidence (his pajama bottoms) and poor medical examination while in the hospital (was he high on amphetamines or diet pills), which is why he received an additional 9 years of freedom after his family was slaughtered. In the end, justice was done I think.

Peace to all

IIRC McGinniss actually went into this thiking McDonald was innocent and after interviewing him and seeing all the evidence changed his mind.

 

[NewMom2003]

This case this has always reminded me of the Darlie Routier case. In both crimes, it is hard to find or fathom a motive, but the blood evidence of both cases is overwhelming. Routier and MacDonald are guilty of slaughtering their children, wounding themselves and claiming the boogeyman did it.

I agree.

A big part of me wants to believe that MacDonald is innocent. Every time I see the American Justice episode profiling this case, I just think there is no way he could have done this. Sadly, by the end of the show I'm convinced he did.

I used to think that there was no way a parent could do anything like that to their own child. Sadly we see what some parents are capable of every day by the threads that are posted in Crimes in the News.

 

[Jules]

LesleeGP and I met in North Carolina a few years ago (to go to a Keith Urban concert) and we drove down Castle Drive past MacDonald's house. Gave me the creeps thinking of the MPs all running around February 17, 1970.

I fully believe he is guilty. Between the blood and the PJ top - that's what did it for me.

And, I agree, this case is so similar to Darlie's. Both cases are very sad.

 

[Jules]

IIRC McGinniss actually went into this thiking McDonald was innocent and after interviewing him and seeing all the evidence changed his mind.

Yes, that's true. That's why MacDonald sued him - because he felt McGinniss lied to him about the way he would be portrayed in his book. The more McGinniss was around MacDonald, the more he believed him guilty of the murders.

 

[nanandjim]

Yes, that's true. That's why MacDonald sued him - because he felt McGinniss lied to him about the way he would be portrayed in his book. The more McGinniss was around MacDonald, the more he believed him guilty of the murders.

No wonder! MacDonald is guilty, IMO!!

 

[robinparten]

The last time I fully looked into this case, I was convinced of his guilt, but is has been a while. As far as a motive goes, I have heard he was tired of having a family, liked to have affairs, etc. Also, I believe I heard at one point there was some conjecture that perhaps Collette walked in on MacDonald and one of the children, who was in bed with him, and perhaps she caught him abusing the girl, which lead to an argument and a physical confrontation. I remember thinking that theory made sense to me at the time, though I cannot remember details.

 

[Nova]

The father-in-law became upset when he was finally allowed to read the transcripts from the military trial. Kassad knew from his step-daughter that much of the facts MacDonald gave were false. Colette NEVER KNEW Jeffrey wasn't going to Russia to box. She had been told Jeffrey would NOT be able to be with her when their 3rd baby was born because of a trip to Russia Jeffrey made up....

(Emphasis added.) That was exactly the lie I meant above when I said JM had begun telling "bad lies" (meaning lies he was almost certain to get caught in telling).

Any Army team traveling to Russia (or anywhere behind the Iron Curtain) in 1970 would have been big news. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but it sure wouldn't have happened without lots of media coverage. Although Nixon had made overtures to Moscow and Peking, we were fighting "Communism" in Vietnam at the time.

It was a very, very stupid story to tell the pregnant wife and, to me, indicates a man spinning out of control.

 

[Nova]

I thought his story of getting creepy crawled by the Wal-mart knockoff generic Manson-oids ("LSD is Groovy!!" one of them was supposed to have said during the attack according to McDonald) was so utterly lame and contrived im surprised anyone gave it a moments credence.

Are you old enough to remember 1970, kline? I'm not being condescending. But it was a very strange time and hard to explain now. Folks believed a lot of things that seem laughable now.

(ETA that I fear I sound like an old fart here, asking if you remember the 60s. My point is just that the country was so polarized, the Manson crimes so shocking, the various civil rights movements caused such change and it was becoming clear that the government was lying to us, to murderous effect. To the generation that was raised in the authority-respecting 40s and 50s, the world seemed to be completely mad. So while I think the MPs DID suspect MacDonald from the first, if some people believed the crazy hippies story, it was because so many seemingly crazy things were happening at the time. With hindsight, of course, we know that hippies didn't go around killing people (children!) for no reason. Not even the Manson Family did that.)

 

[Nova]

The writer and the publishing Co were sued and lost.

Not true, Amraann, though MacDonald's supporters have repeated that claim so often, it's no wonder most of us can chant it by heart.

The publisher's insurance company forced a settlement in the middle of the trial before the case went to the jury. This is pretty common and I have personally worked on cases where a resolution was imposed in that fashion.

Basically, all big companies carry litigation insurance and the insurance company has to pay the cost of trial and any judgments. All policies for litigation insurance include a provision that the insurer can force a settlement if the offer is lower than the costs of continuing. So if finished the trial will cost $1 million, say, but the plaintiff is willing to settle for half of that, the insurer can demand that the settlement be accepted. (If the insured refuses, the insurer is off the hook for any additional costs.)

This is what happened in MacDonald v. McGuinness, and the writer still believes the eventual verdict would have been in his favor. But the doctor's supports like to claim it as a victory.

But the issue in that trial wasn't actually the truth of the book. It was a suit for breach of contract. The doctor claimed that the writer misled him by claiming he believed in the doctor's innocence. The writer responded that he started out believing MacDonald was innocent, but changed his mind after he was given access to all the evidence. MacDonald claimed that the writer should have announced it as soon as he changed his mind and that failure to do so was fraud. That was the issue before the jury when the settlement was reached.

MacDonald's supporters also like to claim that the writer "was forced to admit" under oath that some things (including the possibility of amphetamine addiction and rage) were speculation. But the matters they cite for this purpose were clearly described as speculation in the book itself; or at least it was always clear to me.

 

[Nova]

This case this has always reminded me of the Darlie Routier case. In both crimes, it is hard to find or fathom a motive, but the blood evidence of both cases is overwhelming. Routier and MacDonald are guilty of slaughtering their children, wounding themselves and claiming the boogeyman did it.

Exactly. I think you can divide the "pros" and "antis" in both cases into two distinct groups: those who believe some parents are capable of such things think MacDonald and Routier are guilty, those who simply can't fathom it think them innocent.

So what does it say about me that I think both are guilty as sin?

(Glad to see you posting. I thought about you with all the terrible weather this weekend, but I didn't think an email from me would help you survive a tornado. :blowkiss: )

 

[angelmom]

Are you old enough to remember 1970, kline? I'm not being condescending. But it was a very strange time and hard to explain now. Folks believed a lot of things that seem laughable now.

(ETA that I fear I sound like an old fart here, asking if you remember the 60s. My point is just that the country was so polarized, the Manson crimes so shocking, the various civil rights movements caused such change and it was becoming clear that the government was lying to us, to murderous effect. To the generation that was raised in the authority-respecting 40s and 50s, the world seemed to be completely mad. So while I think the MPs DID suspect MacDonald from the first, if some people believed the crazy hippies story, it was because so many seemingly crazy things were happening at the time. With hindsight, of course, we know that hippies didn't go around killing people (children!) for no reason. Not even the Manson Family did that.)

Nova, you know I love you and rarely disagree with your well-reasoned and experienced POV, but what do you call Sharon Tate's near term baby?

I wasn't there for the Summer of Love since I was busy being born in July of that year, but I know that the Manson Family absolutely did that.

Not to say that all hippies were murdering crazies, but I can see how people could be afraid or think that the world as they knew it was changed. So actually I am agreeing with about 90% of your post. :blowkiss: