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

[believe09]

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.

i think the one in the childs hand was from a doll....

 

[believe09]

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.

This is how i recall it as well...

 

[nanandjim]

This is how i recall it as well...

Wow, me, too. I can't believe that Nova and I agree on something!

 

[nanandjim]

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.

What I envisioned was that the daughter, Kimberly, (?), was sleeping in her parents' bed and wet it. When a "hopped up on speed" Jeffrey came to bed, he was really mad. He roughly awakened Collette and started to yell at her, demanding that the sheets be changed. She instinctly picked up something (brush on nightstand?) and hit him with it. That enraged him. He then proceeded to beat her to death. I think that the little girl had been told to go to her room initially, but when she heard the commotion and screaming, she came to the door. He accidently hit her with the board that he was hitting Collette with. Once he realized what he was doing, he had to then continue on and kill the baby, which they say had evidence of hesitation wounds (like he didn't want to stab her). He then staged the scene to be like the Manson murders (which was detailed in a magazine that he had on his coffee tabe).

I personally think MacDonald was full of himself. He liked the appearance of being married, but he didn't like that his wife was pregnant yet again. Like Scott Peterson, he wanted to be a Playboy; and his wife and kids were weighing him down.

MacDonald did himself in. Didn't Freddy Kassab watch him make the rounds on the talk show circuit telling a different story than what he was told. Freddy worked and worked to get the case reopened and have MacDonald (who he first supported a la Laci's family) prosecuted.

...This is how I remember it...

 

[Lanie]

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.

I was 5/6 years old in 1970. I also grew up on Air Force bases. I would imagine Marine bases would be the same. It is a very sheltered life. There were those striped bars and manned guard shacks at every entrance. We had a sticker on our car to get in, and if we had people visiting from off-base, we had to go through channels, the guards would have the names, and they would have to be on the list to be allowed entrance. You got an id card when you turned 10, and you had to show it to the guard if you were on foot. Every base I ever lived on was completely fenced. I'm sure if you were just completely determined to sneak on, you could have, but if you are just out to randomly kill someone, it seems easier to me to do it off base.
Lanie

 

[mollymalone]

I was 5/6 years old in 1970. I also grew up on Air Force bases. I would imagine Marine bases would be the same. It is a very sheltered life. There were those striped bars and manned guard shacks at every entrance. We had a sticker on our car to get in, and if we had people visiting from off-base, we had to go through channels, the guards would have the names, and they would have to be on the list to be allowed entrance. You got an id card when you turned 10, and you had to show it to the guard if you were on foot. Every base I ever lived on was completely fenced. I'm sure if you were just completely determined to sneak on, you could have, but if you are just out to randomly kill someone, it seems easier to me to do it off base.
Lanie

That was my first huh? moment when I read about the case. Just how did those "hippie" types get on base, especially hopped up on drugs? It made no sense to me at all. The DNA and the rest of the evidence convinced me long ago that he's where he should be.

 

[southcitymom]

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: )

Hiya Nova! We survived, but a quarter of a billion dollars of damage downtown and the loss of life - very shaking. I love email from you whether I'm experiencing natural disasters or not! :blowkiss:

 

[Nova]

Hiya Nova! We survived, but a quarter of a billion dollars of damage downtown and the loss of life - very shaking. I love email from you whether I'm experiencing natural disasters or not! :blowkiss:

But I know what it's like every time we have an earthquake out here. 90% of the time afterwards is spent reassuring well-meaning loved ones that we have not fallen into the sea.

So when there's nothing I can do, I tend to wait... (I assume you know that if your house is blown to Oz, you and hubby and the boys can always come live with me.)

 

[Nova]

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:

Angel, we don't disagree here either. I just worded that post very badly. I meant that hippies didn't go around invading random houses, though that was what folks originally thought had happened with the Manson killings. Later investigation showed Manson chose those houses specifically and the killings were intended to instigate "Helter Skelter." (Or at least that's what he convinced the followers. I think it's possible Manson just got off on the idea of getting others to kill for him, but whatever.) The point is Manson had been to the Tate house and knew the LoBiancos. (BTW, he also knew somebody at the apartment house in Venice where the family went, but failed to carry out any murders.)

Despite the supposed sighting of a "hippie in a floppy hat" on the night of the murders and Helena Stoekley's tortured memory, the notion that a group of hippies chose an apartment on a Marine base at random to commit homicide is ludicrous now. But in the wake of the "random" Manson killings, it probably seemed more credible.

(Some have theorized the MacDonald family was not chosen at random, but that the crazed hippies were looking for drugs because MacD was a doctor. This makes slightly more sense, but fails to explain why easier targets elsewhere weren't chosen instead. And, of course, none of the hippie theories explain the blood evidence or why the wife and children were "overkilled" while the muscular doctor was allowed to live.)

 

[Nova]

This is how i recall it as well...

I'm sure of it because the case was discussed at length in a legal book that also discussed a case I had worked on personally, so I read it carefully. I've also read interviews where McGuinness discussed his disappointment with the outcome.

 

[Nova]

I was 5/6 years old in 1970. I also grew up on Air Force bases. I would imagine Marine bases would be the same. It is a very sheltered life. There were those striped bars and manned guard shacks at every entrance. We had a sticker on our car to get in, and if we had people visiting from off-base, we had to go through channels, the guards would have the names, and they would have to be on the list to be allowed entrance. You got an id card when you turned 10, and you had to show it to the guard if you were on foot. Every base I ever lived on was completely fenced. I'm sure if you were just completely determined to sneak on, you could have, but if you are just out to randomly kill someone, it seems easier to me to do it off base.
Lanie

Thanks, Lanie. I'm reluctant to say a raid by "crazed hippies" was impossible, because I'm not an expert on bases and I know the base in North Carolina is very, very large. But I've always thought it extremely unlikely.

It's also one thing to "raid" (I can't think of a better word at the moment) the Tate house, which sat on the side of a canyon, some distance from the neighbors. It's quite another to raid a duplex apartment when people are living on the other side of a thin wall...

 

[Nova]

Wow, me, too. I can't believe that Nova and I agree on something!

It had to happen eventually. Law of averages, you know.

Seriously, I think you and I agree more often than not when it comes to true crime cases.

 

[gaia227]

I was wondering what you guys and gals think about this case. Apparently it received a lot of national attention when the murders happened and during the trial and I am sure some of you remember it.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/1.html

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/

I have mixed feelings about it but actually lean towards believing that Jeffrey did not kill his wife and two daughters. The crime scene was so traumatized by investigators that it was nearly impossible to glean much from it. Colleen (wife) was found with wig fibers and shirt fibers which were not any place else in the house. There was fresh wax drippings which her consistent with Jeffrey's account that there was a woman there holding a candle and couple that with the MP who saw the woman in the floppy hat outside the home before he even entered and got a description just to name a few. Collette had skin and hair under her nails which did not match her husband's and he had no scratches on his body. Jeffrey himself had pretty substantial injuries including a collapsed lung.
Probably the most shocking is that Helena Stoeckley confessed more than once that she was there during the killings and it was herself, her boyfriend and 2 Ft. Bragg soldiers. They were upset with Jeffrey because he was refusing Methadone treatments to opiate addicted soldiers. The boyfriend had a serious heroine habit he had picked up in Vietnam. She passed a polygraph. She told the FBI and the prosecution and the defense was never given this information and it was not allowed in court.
Her last and final confession was taped shortly before she died. She was threatened by the prosecution that if she told her story to the jury he would put her in prison for the rest of her life so she went on the stand and lamely said she didn't remember what she was doing. Her boyfriend also confessed to the murders. He died shortly after Helena.

I think there is no doubt Jeffrey MacDonald got an unfair trial and the prosecution and judge were very unfair to the defense. It is a shame that after all this time he has lost his appeals and not been given another trial. There is enough new evidence that has come to light that should constitute another look.

 

[kemo]

gaia, get your copy of Fatal Vision and reread the section on the trial. Pay attention only to the evidence presented and the testimony. Compare Dr Jeff's testimony as to what happened with the actual evidence found at the scene.

Yea, at a time when drug crazed hippies were running around, it was hard to imagine that a clean cut, Green Beret Doctor, could possibly do something like that, but it happened. All his charm and self assurance can't change the physical evidence.

 

[gaia227]

Thanks Kemo - I actually do plan to read the book to learn more about the case. I tend to believe clean-cut, 'normal' types like Jeffrey are more likely to commit murder than a group of tripped out hippies - REAL hippies that is. The Manson clan may have called themselves hippies and been part of the counter-culture but they were miles apart from nature loving, pot smoking hippies - they were a cult. I know from personal experience that someone high on heroine is pretty unlikely to go on a murderous rampage - all you wanna do is sit there, smoke cigarrettes and snooze. On the flip side someone who is going through opiate withdrawal is not going to have the energy to commit murders like these. This type of violent crime I would attribute more to someone high on cocaine or meth and maybe I can see it happening while on acid.

I don't have an firm opinion yet as to what I think but I still do think, just based on what I have read so far, that there may be enough evidence and new information to at least grant Dr. MacDonald another trial. I am having a hard time finding information which is non-bias to either side. Everything I find is either staunchly supportive of his guilt or just as against his guilt so of course both sides are going to present the evidence which supports their belief which makes it hard to get the whole picture.

 

[thelmadawg]

This is one case I would like to see retried. I'm no fan of Dr. M -- he seemed to be arrogant, controlling and certainly unfaithful. But, I, too, think there's enough hinky about the trial to warrant a fresh look.

Wonder if it will ever happen.

 

[justthinkin]

IIRC, two months after the murders, Dr. McDonald had a new Corvette, a new girlfriend, and a new state.

BTW, Helena Stoeckley's dna didn't match any collected at the crime scene. Yep, this character needs a new trial like Darlie Routier needs a new trial. JMO.
McDonald was and is guilty as sin.

 

[kemo]

I think the best refernce is Fatal Vision, by Joe McGinness because he provides a very detailed account of the trial, including a lot of vebatim testimony. The rest of book is the full background story with all of the juicy detgails of Dr Jeff's life after the Murders. If you want to decide guilty or innocent; cut to the chase and only read the section on the trial. It will tell you a lot. You can compare Dr Jeff's account against the forensic evidence. You can try to figure out why "drug crazed hippies" would brutally beat to death a young child in her mother's bed, then move her to her own bed. (I don't think drug crazed hippies would care that that the child had earlier wet her parents bed but it could offer an explaintion why her father would "pop".)

You can then read Fatal Justice by Jerry potter and Fred Bost. They take the "Pro Jeffery McDonald" position. They tend to misrepresent the case against him and "play down" the foresnic evidence. Instead, they offer a lot of little details that might support the defense but hardly blow out the prosecutions case. Their big "bombshell" is that they offer up two alternate "suspects" that could have been the mystery "hippies". There was never any evidence against these hippies, but they are perfect as alternate suspect becase they are dead and can't proclaim their innocence.

I think anyone who read Fatal Justice without being familiar with the real evidence presented at the trial would think McDonald got a raw deal.

 

[ScorpRising]

Hmmm... It's been a long time since I read Fatal Vision. I think it was the first true crime book I read. (I was 8 and had to read it in my grandmothers bedroom while pretending to watch TV.)

I always felt, despite the evidence, that Jeffery didn't kill his family. I will have to re-read and see if my perspective has changed in the 2 decades since I read the book.

 

[gaia227]

IIRC, two months after the murders, Dr. McDonald had a new Corvette, a new girlfriend, and a new state.

BTW, Helena Stoeckley's dna didn't match any collected at the crime scene. Yep, this character needs a new trial like Darlie Routier needs a new trial. JMO.
McDonald was and is guilty as sin.

It was 1970 so DNA was not in use yet. Did they save evidence and test it later?

I agree his behavior after the murders was obnoxious.