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

[Madeleine74]

MacDonald had no motive to kill his family.

He didn't have a motive until after he beat up his wife so badly he thought she was dead (she wasn't yet). It was an argument/fight that escalated into violence tht night. His daughter Kimberly was hit by the slat of wood he wielded (this slat of wood likely came from the master bedroom closet), Kimberly's blood found in the MBR, near the doorway. He may have hit her by accident at first. Either way, it was at that point he had a decision to make: turn himself in and face the consequences of this fight that got out of control OR try to make it look like a crime committed by others. That was the point where motive comes into play. It's why MacDonald got 2nd degree murder for Collette & Kimberly (i.e. crime of passion or rage, not premeditated) and 1st degree murder for the youngest (premeditated). The knife and ice pick come into play after Collette is beat up, then hit by the club and Kimberly is hit by the club in or near the MBR. The knives and ice pick are part of the staging. He left one knife (a bent paring knife from the kitchen) in the MBR. He took the ice pick and another knife, wiped them on the bathmat in the bathroom (impressions of the wiping are on that mat), then opened the back door and threw out the wiped ice pick and knife behind some bushes next to his apartment and threw out the slat of wood. He left the back door unlocked, which provided the excuse that the "hippies just walked into his house." There was no break-in.

Consider that all the weapons belonged to and came from the MacDonald apartment:

- The slat of wood matched the slats from under one of the kid's beds--it had the same paint on it as was used to paint one of the beds.
- Paring knife from kitchen
- Hickory knife from kitchen drawer
- Ice pick from top of refrigerator (MacDonald denied they owned an ice pick, but 2 witnesses said the family had one & they had used it at the MacDonald apartment)

How would HS know about the broken horse if she wasn't in the house?

Supposedly pictures from inside the house, including one showing the broken horse, was published in the paper and this was before HS started saying she was there. She could have seen the picture or heard details of the crime. She was one of the, if not the, top informants for the PD at the time. She was leading a double life--drug addict/drug dealer/cult member and secret informant to the PD. A psychiatrist diagnosed her as having a "schizoid personality disorder."

 

[wonders]

[/B]

Good morning, wonders! I don't think NC had a law back then to charge for an unborn child's death. IIRC, and don't quote me on this, a law was recently enacted. Someone correct if I am wrong please.

wm

Good morning to you too waltzingmatilda. Right, someone answered that yesterday. There were no laws on the books at the time for unborn children.

 

[wonders]

This happened years before I was even born, so please excuse my ignorance on this case. I have read and seen various crime shows about the JM case, but don't recall anything about abuse of the wife or children. Was there a history(police reports, ER visits) of spousal abuse in this case?

Wouldn't an autopsy looked for sexual assault on the bodies? In the JonBenet case, the doctors claimed she showed signs of previous sexual abuse. So did the McDonald girls show any signs of previous sexual abuse? Had Colette mentioned that she suspected him of abusing the girls? Or, did these accusations start after he was arrested and convicted of the murders?

A previous poster mentioned that they believed it all started w/the accidental killing of KM. Why do you believe that?

Sorry if my questions are repetitive or dumb, but some of the posts piqued my curiosity.

Hi jjw, First of all you have great questions that I'm unable to answer but someone will be able to.
As far as the abuse goes, I can tell you from my personal experince that when the cops showed up at my house one time all they did was shine a flashlight in my face and soon after left. It was such a different time back then.

 

[QueenD]

Just to clarify my earlier comment on this, I'm not saying he should get a new trial or that I support him getting a new trial (I don't), but it wouldn't bother me if he did because, other than the cost of a trial (which I agree is not money well spent), I think he'll still be found guilty. Of course I could be wrong and it's always possible a new jury of 12 might see it differently. Anyway, as long as he is never released or declared "not guilty," that's the most important thing to me. I think his chances of actually being granted a new trial are somewhere between slim and none.

If the jury is picked from pinalleas county florida.:floorlaugh:

 

[believe09]

If the jury is picked from pinalleas county florida.:floorlaugh:

That was awesome.

 

[hollyjokers]

The sexual abuse theory came well after his conviction, and was due in large part to advances in testing that determined it was 5 year old Kimberly who wet the bed, while JM had insisted all along it was Kristen.

 

[hollyjokers]

Also, he was examined by a psychiatrist early on for Bernie Segal. The psychiatrist said he didn't believe MacDonald had committed the crimes as he shows no sign of psychosis, but then went on to say MacDonald had some weird sexual hang ups, and was possibly a latent homosexual. Which was why he went out of his way to be uber-macho.

Not a psychiatrist, but I don't think he had to be psychotic to commit the crimes. A short burst of rage that had disastrous consequences. The stabbings, the ice pick, overkill was all simply following through on a plan to save HIMSELF.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

An interesting quote from this article



BBM

If Stoeckly's hair was not consistent with any of the crime scene evidence, that pretty much rules her out. So are McDonald's defenders still trying to accuse her of the murders? If she had been there that night, her hair would have been left at the crime scene.

I thought she said she was wearing a wig and a 22 inch synthetic hair was found.

From what I have read she passed polygraphs.

I dont think anyone ever accused her of murder. She is the one who said she was there but didnt murder anyone.



IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

He didn't have a motive until after he beat up his wife so badly he thought she was dead (she wasn't yet). It was an argument/fight that escalated into violence tht night. His daughter Kimberly was hit by the slat of wood he wielded (this slat of wood likely came from the master bedroom closet), Kimberly's blood found in the MBR, near the doorway. He may have hit her by accident at first. Either way, it was at that point he had a decision to make: turn himself in and face the consequences of this fight that got out of control OR try to make it look like a crime committed by others. That was the point where motive comes into play. It's why MacDonald got 2nd degree murder for Collette & Kimberly (i.e. crime of passion or rage, not premeditated) and 1st degree murder for the youngest (premeditated). The knife and ice pick come into play after Collette is beat up, then hit by the club and Kimberly is hit by the club in or near the MBR. The knives and ice pick are part of the staging. He left one knife (a bent paring knife from the kitchen) in the MBR. He took the ice pick and another knife, wiped them on the bathmat in the bathroom (impressions of the wiping are on that mat), then opened the back door and threw out the wiped ice pick and knife behind some bushes next to his apartment and threw out the slat of wood. He left the back door unlocked, which provided the excuse that the "hippies just walked into his house." There was no break-in.

Consider that all the weapons belonged to and came from the MacDonald apartment:

- The slat of wood matched the slats from under one of the kid's beds--it had the same paint on it as was used to paint one of the beds.
- Paring knife from kitchen
- Hickory knife from kitchen drawer
- Ice pick from top of refrigerator (MacDonald denied they owned an ice pick, but 2 witnesses said the family had one & they had used it at the MacDonald apartment)

Supposedly pictures from inside the house, including one showing the broken horse, was published in the paper and this was before HS started saying she was there. She could have seen the picture or heard details of the crime. She was one of the, if not the, top informants for the PD at the time. She was leading a double life--drug addict/drug dealer/cult member and secret informant to the PD. A psychiatrist diagnosed her as having a "schizoid personality disorder."

Frankly I dont think a drug addict was sitting down reading newspapers or magazines.

The photo was shown but they did not mention the spring was broken even though it was.

HS said she knew it was broken because she sat on it, iirc.

Strange that the Judge found her unreliable yet it came out later on that other police agencies found her very reliable and had depended on her to make over a 100 busts in drug cases.

So she is conveniently incompetent in other criminal cases but then she isnt in the JM case.

Which two witnesses said they had seen the icepick? I know at first Colette's family was adamant that they didnt own one and years later they said they did.

IMO

 

[Madeleine74]

I just read that MacDonald failed a polygraph in April 1970. This was given to him by a polygraph expert (Cleve Backster), setup by MacDonald's attorney at the time, Bernie Segal. Backster was sworn to silence and never spoke of it for 17 years until he was subpoenaed in the civil trial in MacDonald vs McGinniss case by the defense. Backster had told Segal:

"The results [of MacDonald's examination] were very unambiguous. They were not borderline at all. In my opinion he was being deceptive … concerning the questions relating to the crime [and so] I told him I could not be of help to him in his defense because he had failed the polygraph test …”

http://www.joemcginniss.net/the-1989-epilogue

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

MacDonald had no motive to kill his family. Just because he was taking diet pills doesn't make him a murderer. I have been taking perscription diet pills now close to 3 weeks and yes they keep you awake at night but I haven't felt like killing anyone at all. I just don't think him taking diet pills had anything to do with the murders. Granted that I don't really know what happened in that home that night since I wasn't even born until July of 1970.

I had asked my mom about this case since she was pregnant with me at the time. She said she remembers it very clearly and that everyone thought he was guilty. She did say she remembered HS's claim that she was in the house that night. How would HS know about the broken horse if she wasn't in the house?

i have always believed he was guilty but that has always been a sticking point with me...hiw did she know about the dang broken rocking horse? That still bothers me!

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

oh...sorry everyone...I see Madeleine answered this question earlier! I should read thru the WHOLE thread before I jump in.....thanks everybody for all the good info....I had forgotten so much about this case!

And thanks Madeleine!

 

[Madeleine74]

i have always believed he was guilty but that has always been a sticking point with me...hiw did she know about the dang broken rocking horse? That still bothers me!

1. Pictures from the bedroom (showing the broken rocking horse) had been allegedly published in the newspaper back then. HS could have seen them.

2. HS was an informant for the FPD (Fayettevlle PD) at the same time as this all was happening. She had frequent contact with investigators and could have learned something that way as well.

Things weren't so tightly controlled back in 1970. Info about the crimes, crime scene, details were much easier to obtain than it is now.

 

[hollyjokers]

Which two witnesses said they had seen the icepick? I know at first Colette's family was adamant that they didnt own one and years later they said they did.

IMO

The teenaged neighbor who babysat the girls testified she's used that ice pick to break up Popsicles & Colette's mom had also used it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The sexual abuse theory came well after his conviction, and was due in large part to advances in testing that determined it was 5 year old Kimberly who wet the bed, while JM had insisted all along it was Kristen.

I don't understand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hollyjokers]

Um, JM repeatedly said Kristy was in bed with Colette. When he went in to bed after 2 am, he found that she had peed on his side of the bed. He put her in her own bed, then went out & slept on the couch. I believe during the April 1970 interrogation he was asked about it again (I think maybe the investigators mixed up the girls' names & he corrected them, maintaining that it was Kristy). Years later it was determined that the urine could not have come from Kristy, but from Kimmy or Colette & Colette was ruled out. So there is the question of why would he lie about something as seemingly mundane as that.

Hope that helps ?

 

[jjw]

Um, JM repeatedly said Kristy was in bed with Colette. When he went in to bed after 2 am, he found that she had peed on his side of the bed. He put her in her own bed, then went out & slept on the couch. I believe during the April 1970 interrogation he was asked about it again (I think maybe the investigators mixed up the girls' names & he corrected them, maintaining that it was Kristy). Years later it was determined that the urine could not have come from Kristy, but from Kimmy or Colette & Colette was ruled out. So there is the question of why would he lie about something as seemingly mundane as that.

Hope that helps ?

Did both girls have trouble with bed wetting? If both did, then he might have just been confused about which one it was. Don't understand why people would assume that was proof of sex abuse.

I need to stop reading Websleuths right before bedtime. Some of these stories freak me out. :nerves:

 

[katydid23]

Did both girls have trouble with bed wetting? If both did, then he might have just been confused about which one it was. Don't understand why people would assume that was proof of sex abuse.

I need to stop reading Websleuths right before bedtime. Some of these stories freak me out. :nerves:

It is not 'proof' of sexual abuse. But it often happens when little kids are about to be routinely abused. Sometimes out of fear or anger or avoidance.

 

[fullmoon]

The photo was shown but they did not mention the spring was broken even though it was.

48 Hours addressed this. One of the crime scene photos that shows the rocking horse indicates that none of the springs was broken. The photo is shown on the show. It will be repeated on the OWN network on Sept. 25 either at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. (Not sure since the scheduling on OWN notes both times. Those interested may want to set your DVRs from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. just to play it safe).

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is not 'proof' of sexual abuse. But it often happens when little kids are about to be routinely abused. Sometimes out of fear or anger or avoidance.

But far more kids just simply wet the bed for no reason at all. Considering its often heredity ...wouldn't be surprised if they both wet the bed.