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

[MissJ]

This man is a monster. Not only was he injured only slightly, greeting cards that were standing up on a shelf in the room where his great fight took place were still standing...this is what convinced his FIL of his guilt. Go read on Collette's brother's sight all the real evidence. HS was mentally ill, it is documented. People like HS often admit to things they didn't do. Four drug crazed "hippies" wouldn't be ABLE to pull off this murder if they tried.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tor-killing-pregnant-wife-daughters-1970.html

The truth is, there is nothing new out there,' said Stevenson, 73, who declined to say where he lives, saying he receives death threats. 'There is nothing. Do you know how much DNA is in my home and your home? The mere discovery of DNA has nothing to do with a man's guilt.'

ITA!!!

 

[madeleine]

http://karisable.com/mac2.htm

A bloody adult palm print found on the foot board of Jeffrey and Colettes bed on the morning of the murders. The print did not match Jeffrey, Colette, Kimberly or Kristen. It also did not match any of the people known to be at the murder site that morning. Despite extensive efforts by the FBI, the source of this bloody palm print continues to remain unidentified according to CID lab reports, CID lab notes, prosecution memo, FBI report on palm print.

Is this a fact?Does anyone know more about it?Thanks in advance

 

[madeleine]

I always thought he's guilty as sin but something just crossed my mind....why so many weapons?

(1) Three types of weapons were involved in the attack on Colette

(A) A blunt object with a square contact area
(B) A knife
(C) An ice pick

(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kimberly:

(A) A blunt object with flat surfaces.
(B) A knife



(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kristen:

(A) A knife
(B) An ice pick like piercing object.

Even if IMO it was a rage attack/overkill....why did he change weapons?

 

[JenniferTx]

I always thought he's guilty as sin but something just crossed my mind....why so many weapons?

(1) Three types of weapons were involved in the attack on Colette

(A) A blunt object with a square contact area
(B) A knife
(C) An ice pick

(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kimberly:

(A) A blunt object with flat surfaces.
(B) A knife



(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kristen:

(A) A knife
(B) An ice pick like piercing object.

Even if IMO it was a rage attack/overkill....why did he change weapons?

All the different weapons and the candle wax being found made me think he actually was innocent.

 

[katydid23]

All the different weapons and the candle wax being found made me think he actually was innocent.

EXACTLY what he wanted you to think. Interesting there were all those weapons, but no blood left by any of the assailants. If some stoned intruder,tried to kill my babies, I would perhaps die, but I would leave some of THEIR blood behind trying to save my family. And you don't think a green Beret would injure an intruder trying to kill his little girls?

 

[katydid23]

I always thought he's guilty as sin but something just crossed my mind....why so many weapons?

(1) Three types of weapons were involved in the attack on Colette

(A) A blunt object with a square contact area
(B) A knife
(C) An ice pick

(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kimberly:

(A) A blunt object with flat surfaces.
(B) A knife



(1) Two types of weapons were involved in the attack on Kristen:

(A) A knife
(B) An ice pick like piercing object.

Even if IMO it was a rage attack/overkill....why did he change weapons?

He wanted people to think a group of intruders entered the home. Just like he saw in the magazine on his coffee table while he was thinking up his alibi.

 

[Cappuccino]

All the different weapons and the candle wax being found made me think he actually was innocent.

There isn't really anything unusual about finding candle wax inside a family home.

Three different weapons being used by a clever killer who had time to stage the crime scene, and whose story was about three drug crazed hippies breaking in, would be expected IMO. MacDonald is plenty clever enough to think of that.

 

[madeleine]

That's one of the things that make me think he did it,so many drugged intruders leave NO DNA,no prints,no hairs....impossible
Yes I know they found some hairs that don't match Jeffrey but they don't match Helena,Greg and the others either!

I have to revisit this case,there are so many details I forgot...

 

[madeleine]

EXACTLY what he wanted you to think. Interesting there were all those weapons, but no blood left by any of the assailants. If some stoned intruder,tried to kill my babies, I would perhaps die, but I would leave some of THEIR blood behind trying to save my family. And you don't think a green Beret would injure an intruder trying to kill his little girls?

If I remember correctly they didn't find Jeffrey's blood either (location he claimed he was attacked at)
kinda impossible too

 

[madeleine]

This man's story is driving me insane!

So he claims that he pulled the knife out of her and threw it .(the Geneva Fort Knife was found on the floor of the master bedroom BUT there was only a minute trace of Colette MacDonald's Type A blood on the handle of the knife.)

Look how bent the blade is,wth....a blade doesn't bend like this during a stabbing...and how come didn't they find her blood on it?

Me thinks this is one of those big fat lies of his.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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...

There is a Jeff MacDonald site ran by Christina Masewicz that is pretty go read. I've corresponded with Mr. Steven a few times and in one he mentioned JM was a bully and that was why Colette wanted to go for a visit with their mother.

 

[Nova]

There is a Jeff MacDonald site ran by Christina Masewicz that is pretty go read. I've corresponded with Mr. Steven a few times and in one he mentioned JM was a bully and that was why Colette wanted to go for a visit with their mother.

I can well believe it. Do you remember the name of the site?

 

[Madeleine74]

Christina Masewicz's Web site: www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

 

[Madeleine74]

Christina Masewicz wrote a book as well and has followed the case for over 35 years.http://www.websleuths.com/forums/Christina Masewicz's Web site: www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/

 

[Nova]

Thanks, guys, I will definitely check it out.

 

[Armchair14]

An insight regarding this case recently occurred to me after years of following it. It must have been brought up by others, assuming the facts of the case (at least in this regard) as recounted in Fatal Vision are accurate.

Dr. MacDonald maintained that after struggling with the alleged assailants he blacked out and when he came to he immediately went to check on his family, attempting mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to his wife in their bedroom (after his regaining consciousness in the living room). According to Fatal Vision, when the MPs arrived the house was completely dark and they turned on the lights. If MacDonald’s account was true, after coming to wouldn’t one think that the first thing he would have done is turned on the lights, certainly in the bedroom while assessing his wife’s condition and then ministering to her? And before calling for help?

If these facts are true, then this pretty much dispels even the thinnest lingering doubt I might have entertained to now. Has this been brought up before? If so, Does MacDonald offer any explanation as why he would have stumbled around in the dark without even switching on a single light before (according to him) passing out yet again before the MPs arrived?

 

[Nova]

Good point, Armchair. The only problem isn't with your reasoning but with your source: the Army CID investigation was so sloppy (and overcrowded), I don't know I could convict Dr. M based on CID witnesses alone. I'm not accusing them of lying, just of being disorganized.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Thank You !
I lived in Berkeley California in the 60's and 70's. I was not only surrounded by Hippies, I was one myself. Believe me, savagery and murder were the last things on our minds. lol

 

[Mrs G Norris]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55pXxxRt70k"]Larry King Live - Jeffrey MacDonald: In his own words - YouTube[/ame]

It's hard not to do a little amateur statement analysis on this ... as in when he says his older daughter is quoted as saying 'daddy daddy daddy' then his wife says 'jeff jeff w' w' why [pause] are they, doing this to us' ... flows a little better and is more believable if you assume he is quoting what was happening but it was 'jeff jeff why are you doing this to us'. I've always thought this - it's classic psychopath behaviour to twist the truth just a little but to base the lie on actual events that come as close to the truth as possible.

Oh and all the blame the hippies / black man / vagabonds in this case drives me crazy. Putting it all back into the social context of the time, it's all too obvious he's just going along with the societal threats that his 'peers' would have accepted as threatening at the time.

And yes, the home invaders come in and attack the most vulnerable members of the family first, leaving the fit army doctor asleep on the couch until he is roused.

I wonder if he wishes he could go back and revise his version of events that he is now forced to stick with ....