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

[believe09]

I like the comment here that states (to paraphrase) that if a Green Beret couldnt overcome 4 drug addled hippie intruders without disrupting a mantel of Christmas cards, the Green Berets would have scrapped the whole program.

MacDonald was a wimp. At the end of the day his most impressive showing in his life is the murder of 3 females who were significantly physically weaker than he was. And yet Colette's arms were broken, her skull was shattered and she still managed to make it to the bedroom of her last living child to protect her.

Jeffrey MacDonald claims he lay unconscious on the floor of his hallway while his family was slaughtered because of a nick between his ribs and a bump on the head.

We need a life sized eyeroll smiley here. Wimp and a murderer. That is what his fellow inmates have seen for the last 40 years, that is what the world has seen the last 40 years. jmvho.

 

[JeannaT]

I'm inclined to believe he deserves a new trial. I followed this case when it happened, and so really have forgotten the details in the decades that followed - but one thing I've learned about crimes like this is some things that were originally considered "indesputable" are in fact, untrue.

Detectives can contaminate or misinterpret evidence, things that seem to be impossible can be possible, and things that are key are overlooked or not given enough weight.

I'm for a retrial. As I am in a lot of cases where there is clear division in the public eye.

Also, i am really so disheartened at the many death row inmates in Texas who are now being freed with a review of the evidence. It just keeps happening, that the prosecutor, judge and jury gets it wrong. Sometimes on purpose.

 

[borndem]

:clap:

Fantastic article! Can't refute the physical evidence. Did y'all notice the bit where the Post article author mentioned the hair with bloody root that was in Collette's hand... it was DNA tested by the defense and the DNA of the hair matched Jeffrey MacDonald! D'oh!

:floorlaugh:

bbm

:silly:


:great:

:woohoo:
:cheers:

Too much??!! N'ahhhhh!!

 

[Nova]

I think lot of people have a very set image in their head of what families with domestic violence problems, especially those that lead to murder look like. Poor, co-habiting, previous convictions, drug problems, little education etc, etc.

No one likes the idea that families that have these things happen can be just like their own.
MacDonald was a nice middle class Army doctor who went to Princeton, with a nice middle class family. The world doesn't feel like a safe place when he can suddenly turn on his whole family and then lie about it.

Well, said. I don't know whether Dr. M was a regular physical abuser of his wife. For one thing, it doesn't appear he was home all that much.

But I have no doubt that he "snapped" for some reason on the night of the murders. Maybe the fact that Collette had gone to her psych class and Dr. M was left alone to babysit did something to fuel his rage...

 

[Nova]

I'm inclined to believe he deserves a new trial. I followed this case when it happened, and so really have forgotten the details in the decades that followed - but one thing I've learned about crimes like this is some things that were originally considered "indesputable" are in fact, untrue.

Detectives can contaminate or misinterpret evidence, things that seem to be impossible can be possible, and things that are key are overlooked or not given enough weight.

I'm for a retrial. As I am in a lot of cases where there is clear division in the public eye.

Also, i am really so disheartened at the many death row inmates in Texas who are now being freed with a review of the evidence. It just keeps happening, that the prosecutor, judge and jury gets it wrong. Sometimes on purpose.

Jeanna, since I am so obviously pro-Dr. M's guilt, I just want to add that I can't keep straight all the charges of prosecutorial misconduct over the decades. I have no argument against a retrial. I can only hope it ends with the same verdict.

 

[believe09]

The outcome wont change, the physical evidence isnt going to change, and it will be another dog and pony show where MacDonald can draw the eyes of the world in true FICA fashion.

It makes me sad that Colette, Kimmy and Kristy cant rest in peace in any fashion. When they become a mere footnote in the story of Jeffrey MacDonald, the world is becoming a very troublesome place. Enough of him. Enough time and energy. These days he shouldnt qualify for more than a line across the ticker on CNN.

 

[Nova]

The outcome wont change, the physical evidence isnt going to change, and it will be another dog and pony show where MacDonald can draw the eyes of the world in true FICA fashion.

It makes me sad that Colette, Kimmy and Kristy cant rest in peace in any fashion. When they become a mere footnote in the story of Jeffrey MacDonald, the world is becoming a very troublesome place. Enough of him. Enough time and energy. These days he shouldnt qualify for more than a line across the ticker on CNN.

I don't disagree, believe, except to say I don't think Colette and the children have been prevented from resting by Dr. M's legal antics. I just don't believe in a God who would punish the victims that way.

Colette's brother, on the other hand, has represented Colette's family every step of the way, especially since his parents died. I don't think he can be admired too much! And I'd like to think I would be just as devoted to justice for my sister (but of course I hope never to be tested).

 

[Trident]

Jeanna, since I am so obviously pro-Dr. M's guilt, I just want to add that I can't keep straight all the charges of prosecutorial misconduct over the decades. I have no argument against a retrial. I can only hope it ends with the same verdict.

I'm wondering if our whole "system, jury system," needs to be revamped. I believe any and all factors, evidence should be allowed, maybe considered by a panel of less than 12, or more than 12, then a jury of judges, about 3, then someone in charge of the whole mess, not given judging powers, just there to be sure the entire proceeding goes the way it should - ANY and ALL evidence brought to light.

I believe McDonald is guilty, having read the "book", but I also believe if all the evidence had been allowed in, it might have been a different trial. After that, maybe one appeal, and IF there is further GOOD evidence, another panel, citizens from another state, maybe, should be enpaneled.

BTW, this make up of jurors/judges/whatever, is not set in stone; I simply believe our jury system no longer works.

Give him a new trial. What do "we the people" have to lose except more time and money? The waste we see in other areas of our gov't would more than cover the importance of a man's life.

 

[robinparten]

Well, said. I don't know whether Dr. M was a regular physical abuser of his wife. For one thing, it doesn't appear he was home all that much.

But I have no doubt that he "snapped" for some reason on the night of the murders. Maybe the fact that Collette had gone to her psych class and Dr. M was left alone to babysit did something to fuel his rage...

I believe Brian Murtaugh hit the nail on the head in his account of what he believed happened the night of the murders, which he recounted in the Washington Post article. MacDonald snapped when he saw Kimberly wet the bed, Collette tried to defend her daughter by grabbing the rusty knife, he got the board, and went for Collette and hit Kim by mistake with a deadly blow. Once Kim was mortally wounded, he made the choice to keep going and stage the scene by killing his whole family. That scenario fits the physical evidence. Although Kim could have wet the bed in fear as to what she saw playing out between her mother and father - we will never know for sure, because MacDonald sure won't say. I tend to think she had simply wet the bed in her sleep though, since Collette had brought that up in her class earlier in the evening.

 

[believe09]

I agree Nova, I guess I meant the friends and family of Colette, Kimmy and Kristy cant rest. As you all have noticed for sure, I am emeshed in this case. I think that MacDonald represents a specific kind of offender and human being. I think he and FICA share incredibly similar character traits and they have been indulged all their lives, convinced that they are special when in fact they are flawed...probably more than the average Joe. I would be empathetic towards them and how difficult it must be to have to lie and lie and lie to cover your essential self, BUT they both murdered what was best in them. For convenience sake.

It makes me ill.

 

[JeannaT]

I'm wondering if our whole "system, jury system," needs to be revamped. I believe any and all factors, evidence should be allowed, maybe considered by a panel of less than 12, or more than 12, then a jury of judges, about 3, then someone in charge of the whole mess, not given judging powers, just there to be sure the entire proceeding goes the way it should - ANY and ALL evidence brought to light.

I believe McDonald is guilty, having read the "book", but I also believe if all the evidence had been allowed in, it might have been a different trial. After that, maybe one appeal, and IF there is further GOOD evidence, another panel, citizens from another state, maybe, should be enpaneled.

BTW, this make up of jurors/judges/whatever, is not set in stone; I simply believe our jury system no longer works.

Give him a new trial. What do "we the people" have to lose except more time and money? The waste we see in other areas of our gov't would more than cover the importance of a man's life.

I don't think it ever worked. We certainly wouldn't use this system to decide whether to buy a type of car - we wouldn't get two opposing people with clear prejudice to stand up in front of us and argue for their side, hand-picking facts and in many cases not allowing pertinent information into the discussion. It's ridiculous. Yet we expect a jury to decide something much much more important than a car purchase exactly that way.

An orchestrated debate between prosecutor and defense is NOT a good way to determine the truth in a crime, as we are seeing more and more as the Innocence Project is freeing one convicted innocent person after another.

 

[borndem]

I'm inclined to believe he deserves a new trial. I followed this case when it happened, and so really have forgotten the details in the decades that followed - but one thing I've learned about crimes like this is some things that were originally considered "indesputable" are in fact, untrue.

Detectives can contaminate or misinterpret evidence, things that seem to be impossible can be possible, and things that are key are overlooked or not given enough weight.

I'm for a retrial. As I am in a lot of cases where there is clear division in the public eye.

Also, i am really so disheartened at the many death row inmates in Texas who are now being freed with a review of the evidence. It just keeps happening, that the prosecutor, judge and jury gets it wrong. Sometimes on purpose.

bbm

IMHO, I don't think retrials should be reflective in any way of the public eye or their opinion. A few may know the defendant personally and feel that he "couldn't have done it" or that "he's a jerk and he probably did it"; some may know of only the actual evidence of the trial without innuendo or incorrect information; but I think the majority know what has been reported, written in books or articles, or word of mouth, and may very well misinterpret or misunderstand what the evidence or testimony means.

I think it must be based on prior case law and precedents, and/or new evidence or new methods of testing the evidence, and other matters of law about which the public (me included) knows nothing and/or cannot correctly interpret. And there's usually an expert on each side of the argument -- just to make it interesting or frustrating. Or both!

DNA evaluation and means to test it have come a long way since JM went on trial, and that may be good & sufficient cause for re-trying him, but that would be based on science and verification.

It will be interesting for us to see what happens in this one, I think, and we're all just waiting, waiting -- aren't we?!

 

[Madeleine74]

An orchestrated debate between prosecutor and defense is NOT a good way to determine the truth in a crime, as we are seeing more and more as the Innocence Project is freeing one convicted innocent person after another.

If witness testimony and evidence presentation is not the right way, then what method would you suggest to determine the truth in a crime?

 

[Nova]

I agree Nova, I guess I meant the friends and family of Colette, Kimmy and Kristy cant rest. As you all have noticed for sure, I am emeshed in this case. I think that MacDonald represents a specific kind of offender and human being. I think he and FICA share incredibly similar character traits and they have been indulged all their lives, convinced that they are special when in fact they are flawed...probably more than the average Joe. I would be empathetic towards them and how difficult it must be to have to lie and lie and lie to cover your essential self, BUT they both murdered what was best in them. For convenience sake.

It makes me ill.

believe, I am just as invested as you are. I have read Fatal Vision at least 8 times and I am itching to read it again along with Morris' new book (but I don't have time right now).

Speaking of the murders, it is usually said that Dr. M HAD to kill little Kristy to support his story of killer hippies. But if it is true the baby slept through the battle between her parents and the deaths of her mother and sister, why couldn't Dr. M just have said the "hippies" overlooked the baby in their killing frenzy? After all, Kristy was small and asleep.

The answer of course is that Dr. M just didn't want to be burdened with a baby to raise. So either he killed her to support his alibi or he killed her to enable his desired "bachelor" lifestyle. Either way...

 

[Nova]

I don't think it ever worked. We certainly wouldn't use this system to decide whether to buy a type of car - we wouldn't get two opposing people with clear prejudice to stand up in front of us and argue for their side, hand-picking facts and in many cases not allowing pertinent information into the discussion. It's ridiculous. Yet we expect a jury to decide something much much more important than a car purchase exactly that way.

An orchestrated debate between prosecutor and defense is NOT a good way to determine the truth in a crime, as we are seeing more and more as the Innocence Project is freeing one convicted innocent person after another.

Well, as the saying goes, "Our justice system is the worst possible--EXCEPT for every other system."

What would you do instead? (Serious question. I'm not trying to be flippant.)

***

Let me just add that my jury experiences have been very positive: fair evaluation of the evidence, a clearly collaborative approach to understanding the facts, gentle reminders that we have to put aside our prejudices and follow the law, etc. I've heard horror stories from others and of course we know that high profile cases have their own problems, but my personal experience is that the system works.

And what the Innocence Project shows most of all is that juries put too much faith in coerced confessions (one-fourth of those exonerated by the IP). We need new jury instructions concerning confessions after hours of interrogation.

 

[momrids6]

Maybe Jeffrey MacDonald was innocent after all
In a rare interview, co-counsel Wade Smith reflects on the murder case that's long captured America's imagination

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/30/maybe_jeffrey_macdonald_was_innocent_after_all/

Just FYI; I don't know much about the case.

 

[katydid23]

I'm inclined to believe he deserves a new trial. I followed this case when it happened, and so really have forgotten the details in the decades that followed - but one thing I've learned about crimes like this is some things that were originally considered "indesputable" are in fact, untrue.

Detectives can contaminate or misinterpret evidence, things that seem to be impossible can be possible, and things that are key are overlooked or not given enough weight.

I'm for a retrial. As I am in a lot of cases where there is clear division in the public eye.

Also, i am really so disheartened at the many death row inmates in Texas who are now being freed with a review of the evidence. It just keeps happening, that the prosecutor, judge and jury gets it wrong. Sometimes on purpose.

I am all for giving most death row inmates chances for a new trial. But imo, McDonald isn't one of them. Let's not waste those precious resources on him, when there are plenty sitting in prison, who have not had anyone look closely at the evidence yet. JMO

 

[Nova]

Maybe Jeffrey MacDonald was innocent after all
In a rare interview, co-counsel Wade Smith reflects on the murder case that's long captured America's imagination

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/30/maybe_jeffrey_macdonald_was_innocent_after_all/

Just FYI; I don't know much about the case.

Thanks for posting that, but the journalist's assertion that "raging hippy killings" were commonplace in 1970 is the worst nonsense. They may have been commonplace in the imaginations of pro-war hawks, but where are the killings?

There's the several Manson attacks and a stabbing at Altamont, then what? One family of four set upon on the opposite coast? In a duplex in the middle of one of the largest army bases in the country (not friendly territory for hippies in 1970), without alerting the neighbors with all their "chanting"?

The journalist and the defense attorney also conveniently ignore all the lies Dr. M told his father-in-law and the lies his in-laws found in the Army transcripts (when they finally got them, months after the Army hearing). Maybe the Army didn't convict Dr. MacDonald, but his in-laws knew he wasn't telling the truth.

 

[JenniferTx]

Has the judge decided yet if he is going to grant a new trial for MacDonald?

 

[Landonsmom02]

Has the judge decided yet if he is going to grant a new trial for MacDonald?

Not yet. It will be sometime in 2013 before he makes his decision.