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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I have a question. I do believe he's guilty, but the noise they must have made confuses me. Maybe he killed silently, but there is no way she wasn't screaming her head off, especially regarding the danger to her children. Were their next door neighbors out that night? Maybe I'm forgetting it, but did anyone ever testify to hearing anything?
 
TEEANDCEE: CID investigator William Ivory twice interviewed neighbors who lived directly above the MacDonald residence and they reported hearing Colette's angry voice. Later that morning, they were awakened by Jeffrey MacDonald either sobbing or laughing. One thing is for certain, none of MacDonald's neighbors heard the sound of 6 hippie home invaders assaulting 4 people inside a cramped apartment. Colette certainly showed tremendous courage by attempting to protect Kimmie in the master bedroom and Kristen in her bedroom. She endured at least one punch to the face, a thrust to the chest with a club, at least two vicious blows to the head with the club in the master bedroom, and several blows to her arms/head with the club in Kristen's room.

Colette didn't have the opportunity to make much noise due to several factors.

- The fact that this was a rage killing indicates that inmate attacked his wife suddenly and without warning

- The fiber/blood evidence indicates that Colette and inmate initially grappled which resulted in Colette tearing her husband's pajama top

- The totality of the tear was 72 inches in length and resulted in the pocket dislodging from the garment and 81 fibers dispersing in the bedroom

- Colette was then knocked out after receiving a vicious blow to the temple by her club-wielding husband

- Inmate probably thought that Colette and Kimmie were dead or near death, so he went into the living room to contemplate his next move/cover story

- He re-read the Manson article in Esquire and remembered meeting his brother's 4 roommates at Fire Island in the Summer of 1969

- The 4 roommates were composed of 2 white males, 1 black male, and a female who had long blond hair and wore a floppy hat

- The roommates were investigated by the CID in late 1970 and cleared as suspects (e.g., airtight alibis, no matching fingerprints)

- Inmate decided to conflate the details of the Manson murders with the physical descriptions of his brother's roommates

- Inmate transported Kimmie in the blue bedsheet, placed her back in her bed, and then clubbed/stabbed Kimmie to death in her bed

- Blood evidence indicates that inmate was walking to the kitchen to launder the blue bedsheet when he heard Colette staggering into Kristen's room

- Inmate caught up with Colette in Kristen's room, broke both her arms and fractured her skull with the club, and subsequently transported her
from Kristen's room to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet

Colette's final moments on this earth were both heroic and horrific. It took 9 1/2 years to get MacDonald before a jury, but justice was finally served.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
McDonalds failed attempts are like a Hydra in the throes of death. Enough already! ugh
 
Murtagh21, thanks for taking the time to answer and type that out. I've read Fatal Vision, but I must have forgotten that neighbor interview. Your post lays it out very clearly. I never once thought the hippies did it if only due to the noise that scenario would have made. It's a fascinating tragedy. We are all talking about it decades later.
 
TEEANDCEE: You're welcome. McGinniss made no mention of the "New York Four" in Fatal Vision. The following is a topic from my website that discusses the link between MacDonald's mythical hippie home invaders and Jay MacDonald's roommates at Fire Island.

The CID reinvestigation uncovered a number of potential suspects, but two groups of people came to the forefront. The New York Four consisted of Kenneth Barnett, Annette Cullity, Gary Burnett, and Joseph Lee. The Stoeckley group consisted of Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, Don Harris, Dwight Smith, Cathy Perry, Bruce Fowler, and Allen Mazzerolle.

NEW YORK FOUR

Law enforcement officers arrested Kenneth Barnett, Annette Cullity, Gary Burnett, and Joseph Lee in Suffolk County, New York on May 9, 1970. The Suffolk County police subsequently contacted the CID due to the fact that these four individuals matched the physical descriptions of the intruder suspects in the MacDonald murders. CID agent Bennie Hawkins subsequently traveled to Suffolk County to discuss the case with police officials. Hawkins discovered that these four individuals had rented a house in Fire Island with Jeffrey MacDonald's brother, Jay, in the Summer of 1969. Jeffrey MacDonald had visited his brother during that summer and was seen conversing with people who matched the descriptions of the New York Four at the Shortstop Bar in Long Island.

Joseph Lee was an African-American male, Gary Burnett and Kenneth Barnett were Caucasian males, and Annette Cullity was a Caucasian female. Lee was seen wearing an army field jacket and Cullity was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots. The number of intruders, their racial make-up, and their clothing items all matched the descriptions provided by Jeffrey MacDonald. Hawkins obtained fingerprint exemplars of the New York Four and their prints did not match any of the prints found at 544 Castle Drive. In December of 1970, Jeffrey MacDonald and his lawyer, Judge Rodgers, went to the Suffolk County Police Department to read the May 9, 1970 arrest report. This trip occurred several months after the completion of the Article 32 hearings. Despite the New York Four matching the descriptions of the four intruders, MacDonald never publicly commented on this visit to the Suffolk County Police Department.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
I think the thing I find the most freaky is that Helena Stoekley was seen hanging around outside that particular night in the rain, wearing the same thing MacDonald described, and he certainly couldn't have known that. Now, one may say that it was common for girls in 1970 to wear long blonde wigs, a floppy hat, and white boots, but c'mon. I'm willing to chalk that up to a coinky-dink, but you have to admit it's a freaky one. If MacDonald was conflating the "NY 4" with his Manson-esque talltale, how strange there was also a local group that was out that night that ALSO matched the "NY 4" in style and dress and also happened to at least somewhat match descriptions given by MacDonald.
 
I think the thing I find the most freaky is that Helena Stoekley was seen hanging around outside that particular night in the rain, wearing the same thing MacDonald described, and he certainly couldn't have known that. Now, one may say that it was common for girls in 1970 to wear long blonde wigs, a floppy hat, and white boots, but c'mon. I'm willing to chalk that up to a coinky-dink, but you have to admit it's a freaky one. If MacDonald was conflating the "NY 4" with his Manson-esque talltale, how strange there was also a local group that was out that night that ALSO matched the "NY 4" in style and dress and also happened to at least somewhat match descriptions given by MacDonald.
Why couldn't MacDonald have seen Helena on his way home from work or gotten the description from someone else?? And yes floppy hats, white gogo boots, even long blonde wigs were common back then. Long blonde wigs still are today. Obviously MacDonald also knew or knew of the NY4.
 
MADELEINE: The testimony of MP Ken Mica did NOT link Helena Stoeckley to the woman viewed a quarter of a mile away from 544 Castle Drive on 2/17/70. In addition, despite multiple confessions, Stoeckley NEVER confessed to being the "woman on the street corner." In some of her confessions, Stoeckley claimed that she left the crime scene in Bruce Fowler's blue mustang whereas in other confessions, she claims she left the crime scene in Maggie Mauney's car. None of Stoeckley's confessions have her leaving the crime scene on foot and standing on a street corner a quarter mile away from 544 Castle Drive.

Ken Mica described a woman who did not resemble Stoeckley, his sighting was extremely brief, and he viewed this woman through a rain-soaked window in a moving vehicle. It is important to note that MacDonald gave two descriptions of the mythical home invaders, one in 1970, and another more concrete description in 1979. His descriptions do not match the physical characteristics of Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, and Dwight Smith. His descriptions do, however, match the physical characteristics of the New York Four. Even MacDonald advocate and Fatal Justice co-author Fred Bost, admitted that MacDonald's description of the black male intruder looked nothing like Dwight Smith.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Why couldn't MacDonald have seen Helena on his way home from work or gotten the description from someone else?? And yes floppy hats, white gogo boots, even long blonde wigs were common back then. Long blonde wigs still are today. Obviously MacDonald also knew or knew of the NY4.

Those were my thoughts back when we initially heard MacD's description of the intruders -- that he had seen some folks (possibly Helena, et al) hanging around his neighborhood or somewhere else on the base or near it -- some time fairly recent to the time he savagely murdered his family. He could have seen & remembered them because they were so alien to what he was used to seeing on base and because people "like that" really bothered him for many reasons. That was just my thought all along.

Put it on the shelf, MacDonald, put it on the shelf.
 
Whether inmate used the New York Four or hippie-type individuals he saw in Fayetteville, crime scene analysis made the source of inmate's hippie home invader story a moot point. Not a single piece of SOURCED evidence links Kenneth Barnett, Annette Cullity, Gary Burnett, Joseph Lee, Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, Don Harris, Dwight Smith, Cathy Perry, Bruce Fowler, and/or Allen Mazzerolle to the crime scene. No DNA, no hair, no blood, no fibers, no fingerprints, no bloody footprints, nothing, nada, zip.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
that yeah the *advertiser censored* did it, but that Thurgood Marshall and two of the other justices were right in the 1982 ruling? That's my view on it.
 
guy sounds like a fanatic. Yes its hard to lose your family but threatening to order a hit on an ex-in-law!? Also his last comment on the judges is revealing - guy sounds like Archie Bunker.
 
guy sounds like a fanatic. Yes its hard to lose your family but threatening to order a hit on an ex-in-law!? Also his last comment on the judges is revealing - guy sounds like Archie Bunker.

If it wasn't for Freddy Kassab it is highly likely that Jeffrey MacDonald would have got away with murdering his family. Freddy Kassab initially supported MacDonald and it was only through MacDonald's actions after the murders that Freddy became suspicious. Once Freddy read the Article 32 Hearing information that was the final straw for him and he knew that MacDonald was the murderer. He also didn't order a hit on his ex-in-law but it was a very frustrating time for Colette's family and I can understand Freddy's saying in the letter that "he wouldn't allow the convicted murderer of my daughter and granddaughters to go unpunished".

I was very impressed with the conviction and resolve that Freddy Kassab had to get to the bottom of who murdered his loved ones. Who wouldn't want someone like Freddy Kassab looking out for them?
 
I just finished reading Fatal Vision. It had been a few years since the last time, and something I had overlooked other times, and that has caught my attention. McDonald speaks three times, in different contexts, about his doubts about whether Colette had sex with other men or he was the one. If he had omitted the issue nobody wonders, it is not something that most people discuss, even when talking about his life. Once might be acceptable. But three times is clearly excessive.

In all cases, he says he does not know the answer, never asked it to Colette, and he does not care. But the fact that he repeated three times I think it's proof that he cared a lot.

Perhaps the issue could play a role in the events of that night.
 
MC: Nice find. MacDonald advocates have continually used the lack of motive as "proof" that inmate is some sort of tortured innocent. Apart from the fact that ALL of the physical evidence points to inmate as being the lone perp, several potential motives were discovered post-trial. In 1998, Pep Stevenson stated in a documentary that Colette admitted her knowledge of her husband's cheating ways. In addition, Colette contacted her mother shortly before the murders and asked if she could bring the children with her for an extended visit. If you combine this scenario with inmate's use of Eskatrol and Kimmie wetting the master bed, you have a combustible situation during the early morning hours of February 17, 1970.

IMO, Colette confronted inmate about his sexual conquests, she threatened to leave him and take the children with her, and then pointed to her packed suitcase in the closet as proof that she was serious about leaving him. That suitcase was found by Colette's dresser and blood spatter evidence demonstrates it was placed at that location AFTER all the blood was shed. Kimmie wetting his side of the master bed coupled with the amphetamine-induced rage flowing within him, resulted in a rage reaction that left 3 people dead.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
I'm not sure where this is going to lead, if anywhere at all, but it looks like ol' Mac might possibly be trying to get some help from a fellow inmate.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/2015/2015-06-01-doc384_EDNC-niblock-request.html

James Niblock was convicted in 2003 of wire fraud, and ordered to pay almost $10 million in restitution. He filed an appeal in the Fifth Circuit, claiming that he was "actually innocent of the offense of conviction because the Government withheld favorable evidence," and that "Because he is alleging a claim of actual innocence, [he] asserts that the savings clause of § 2255 is applicable."

In May 2012, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court, and ruled that "Niblock has not shown that his claim "is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which esablishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense...Thus, he has not shown that he is entitled to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255."

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/11/11-50903.0.wpd.pdf

If Mac is planning on relying on this guy for help, he must be getting really desperate.
 
Looks like Niblock is attempting to use inmate's legal machinations as a means to get out of his concrete bunker before 2020. This idiot can't even get the little things right. For example, inmate's 2006 petition is NOT his 2nd 2255 petition, but his 3rd 2255 petition. Inmate's 4th 2255 petition was put forth in 2009, and Judge Fox shot that down on 5/18/15.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
1,613
Total visitors
1,692

Forum statistics

Threads
600,540
Messages
18,110,268
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top