Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5690 Nov 3, 2010
joejam wrote:
get this off the jonbenet ramsey forum. i don't know about it and do not care.
Especially since they have their own board to chat on now, joejam. One dedicated to nothing but MacDonald. Why come to the JBR board?

“Never say Never”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#5691 Nov 3, 2010
I agree...I punch in Jonbenet Ramsey on Topix and get Jeffrey McDonald....when I don't even know who that is.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

New Britain, CT

#5695 Nov 4, 2010
Where was all this whining when Henriboy started the Mac Is Innocent thread BEFORE I began this particular thread? If discussing the mass of evidence which demonstrates that Jeffrey MacDonald is a cold-blooded killer makes you uncomfortable, go to Henriboy's thread. His delusional thought process would make a few posters feel right at home.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#5696 Nov 6, 2010
Jeffrey MacDonald had 7 weeks to prove his "factual innocence" back in the Summer of 1979, and his defense team failed miserably. When the prosecution presents 1,100 evidentiary items to a jury, you need to come up with something better than Jeffrey MacDonald was not capable of slaughtering his entire family.

For the past 31 years, MacDonald has hired 5 separate legal teams to represent him at various appellate hearings. The totality of their "new" evidentiary arguments? A grand total of 9 unsourced fibers and 3 unsourced hairs. Considering that the prosecution only presented 60 percent of their case file at the 1979 trial and have sourced 3 hairs found in crucial areas to Jeffrey MacDonald, the argument for "factual innocence" seems rather weak.

As mentioned in prior posts, the 4th Circuit Court...

1) Ruled that the 1979 trial was error-free and that there was "ample warrant" for the verdict.

2) Ruled that the government did not knowingly suppress evidence.

3) Stated that the evidentiary arguments presented by the defense were "specious."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5697 Nov 6, 2010
JTF wrote:
Jeffrey MacDonald had 7 weeks to prove his "factual innocence" back in the Summer of 1979, and his defense team failed miserably. When the prosecution presents 1,100 evidentiary items to a jury, you need to come up with something better than Jeffrey MacDonald was not capable of slaughtering his entire family.
For the past 31 years, MacDonald has hired 5 separate legal teams to represent him at various appellate hearings. The totality of their "new" evidentiary arguments? A grand total of 9 unsourced fibers and 3 unsourced hairs. Considering that the prosecution only presented 60 percent of their case file at the 1979 trial and have sourced 3 hairs found in crucial areas to Jeffrey MacDonald, the argument for "factual innocence" seems rather weak.
As mentioned in prior posts, the 4th Circuit Court...
1) Ruled that the 1979 trial was error-free and that there was "ample warrant" for the verdict.
2) Ruled that the government did not knowingly suppress evidence.
3) Stated that the evidentiary arguments presented by the defense were "specious."
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF
I can hardly wait until the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals makes their decision. If they follow the usual pattern, it will be denied. Jeffrey MacDonald deserves to be just where he is.
Henri McPhee

Manchester, UK

#5698 Nov 6, 2010
JTF wrote:
Jeffrey MacDonald had 7 weeks to prove his "factual innocence" back in the Summer of 1979, and his defense team failed miserably. When the prosecution presents 1,100 evidentiary items to a jury, you need to come up with something better than Jeffrey MacDonald was not capable of slaughtering his entire family.
For the past 31 years, MacDonald has hired 5 separate legal teams to represent him at various appellate hearings. The totality of their "new" evidentiary arguments? A grand total of 9 unsourced fibers and 3 unsourced hairs. Considering that the prosecution only presented 60 percent of their case file at the 1979 trial and have sourced 3 hairs found in crucial areas to Jeffrey MacDonald, the argument for "factual innocence" seems rather weak.
As mentioned in prior posts, the 4th Circuit Court...
1) Ruled that the 1979 trial was error-free and that there was "ample warrant" for the verdict.
2) Ruled that the government did not knowingly suppress evidence.
3) Stated that the evidentiary arguments presented by the defense were "specious."
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF
The 4th Circuit Court doesn't seem to know much about right judgment.

The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

New Britain, CT

#5699 Nov 6, 2010
"The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice."

Not according to the CID, FBI, several Justice Department lawyers, the Kassab family, the Stevenson family, Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, several 4th Circuit Court judges, a 1979 jury, and anyone who has taken the time to read the documented record in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5700 Nov 6, 2010
"The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice."

The gross miscarriage occured when MacDonald did not get the death penalty. If it had been available in the state of NC, he would surely have gotten it at the time of conviction. Too bad, it was not availabe as tax payer's money would not be paying for his upkeep today had it been.
Kitty B

Arlington, MA

#5701 Nov 13, 2010
In my fascination with this case, I came across a book titled "I Accuse; the Torturing of an American Hero."
This book was 'written' by another poor idiot who came too close to MacDonald and fell under his 'charisma.' MacDonald 'designed' the book--and of course, he compares his life to the Dryfus case in France.
I would bet that if one looked up the library recors of the institution he was in at the time, you'd find that he had read a book on the Dryfus case. But what on earth makes MacDonald call himself an "American Hero"?
Heroes do not slaughter little girls and pregnant women. MacDonald DID. He is one of sickest people on earth.
Henri McPhee

Windsor, UK

#5702 Nov 14, 2010
Kitty B wrote:
In my fascination with this case, I came across a book titled "I Accuse; the Torturing of an American Hero."
Heroes do not slaughter little girls and pregnant women. MacDonald DID. He is one of sickest people on earth.
The MacDonald case was the biased prosecution and conviction of an innocent man. At the very least it wasn't a fair trial.

Prosecutors need to be whiter than white, not crooks like Blackburn, or like dishonest postmen like Murtagh.

Judges can be mistaken and unfair as in the MacDonald case.

There neeeds to be experienced and specialist homicide detectives in these high profile and difficult murder cases. Not rookie homicide detectives who are apt to jump to conclusions, as happened in the Ramsey case and in the OCCK cases in Michigan and in the MacDonald case.
Patricia Fox

Atlanta, GA

#5703 Nov 14, 2010
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
The MacDonald case was the biased prosecution and conviction of an innocent man. At the very least it wasn't a fair trial.
Prosecutors need to be whiter than white, not crooks like Blackburn, or like dishonest postmen like Murtagh.
Judges can be mistaken and unfair as in the MacDonald case.
There neeeds to be experienced and specialist homicide detectives in these high profile and difficult murder cases. Not rookie homicide detectives who are apt to jump to conclusions, as happened in the Ramsey case and in the OCCK cases in Michigan and in the MacDonald case.
The bottom line is that this was an OVERKILL. The REPEATED stabbing of his wife and daughters was PERSONAL Do you really believe that after this FRENZIED SLAUGHTER, anyone would have left an EYEWITNESS? They would have made sure MacDonald was dead before they left that house of horrors.
Gwyka

Sturgeon Bay, WI

#5704 Nov 14, 2010
Inmate himself has stated that he didn't have the luxary of determining how many pounds per sq inch of pressure the "assailants" applied, to try and explain the differential in injuries (he had a bump on his head, while Colette and Kimberley had severe skull fractures; he didn't have any injuries to his arms or hands, while both of Colette's arms were broken and her fingers severely bruised from defending herself).

Also, his supporters have tried to explain the huge differential in injuries by claiming that the "clult" wanted him to remain alive so he would suffer the horror of losing his family.

Both are ridiculous.
oftenwonder

United States

#5705 Nov 16, 2010
OneWhoCares wrote:
"The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice."
The gross miscarriage occured when MacDonald did not get the death penalty. If it had been available in the state of NC, he would surely have gotten it at the time of conviction. Too bad, it was not availabe as tax payer's money would not be paying for his upkeep today had it been.
Absolutely! Well written, OWC.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5707 Dec 3, 2010
oftenwonder wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely! Well written, OWC.
Thank you Oftenwonder. I hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. We probably will not hear from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
until the first of the year. I've been busy over the holidays but I wish the decision would come down BEFORE Christimas.

stormangel

Forest City, NC

#5708 Dec 4, 2010
That would be a wonderful Christmas gift for Inmate to be turned down.
Kitty B

Arlington, MA

#5710 Dec 14, 2010
I find it just amazing that there are still people out there, some of them seemingly intelligent, who are still being taken in by this murderer. There is so much information available if one is actually interested in the truth, and yet this "camp" of MacDolald's simply refuses to see it. And there is so much evidence that beyond simply convicting him of the brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two little girls--which the jury had no trouble at all in doing at trial--evidence that shows him to be a psychopath, a compulsive liar, a man in love with himself and only himself. Until the day he dies or confesses--and I doubt he ever will confess--there will be followers who are blinded by this con artist who thought he was just too smart to get caught. So smart, he doesn't deserve to be in prison. He really does believe that the 'real tragedy' was in his conviction, not in the murders of his own wife and daughters. All the evidence is there, if you will just open your eyes and LOOK at it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5711 Dec 15, 2010
Obscurite Grise wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of impotence: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.ph...
==========
Old 10-30-2005, 06:56 AM #1068
Lily Remy
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've emailed this thread to my lawyer. I'm going to sue this site right out of existence. Breach of privacy, posting personal details with malice aforethought, you name it. You won't wiggle out of this one Jenny. You should have banned this psycho bozo, instead of polite posters. Now you'll pay the price for your error.
Reply With Quote
==========
Five years on and that site's still sitting there.
Both names Lily and Remy come from a Harry Potter book...not very creative is it?

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5712 Dec 15, 2010
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>
Both names Lily and Remy come from a Harry Potter book...not very creative is it?
In actuality, they’re two characters that form part of the backstory of Indiana Jones, so if J.K. Rowling lifted them for her books, no, Rowling wasn’t very creative.(I’ve never read Harry Potter and never will.)

http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Indiana_Jo...

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5714 Dec 15, 2010
Obscurite Grise wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at least Rowling could write well enough to be published. By an actual publishing house, that is.
True, she was published and her books were a phenomenon, but it took her more than fourteen years to find a publisher and more than two hundred rejections. Many people told her,“No one would want to read Harry Potter.” No one jumped on her work out the gate. J.K. Rowling has nothing to do with Jeffrey MacDonald.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#5717 Dec 15, 2010
Uh, I warned you people on another thread that Jeter was just another hat for 5150 Renoir. She was about to slither over here eventually, because this case and her obsession with MacDonald is the whole reason that nut ever came here to Topix in the first place.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jonbenet Ramsey murderer 3 hr robert 502
Chief Kolar's AMA on Reddit 5 hr Steve Eller 114
Snaps on Patsy's jacket? 6 hr Blackstone Again 4
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Mon ICU2 127
Media misrepresenting Chief Mark Beckner's remarks Mon Legal__Eagle 128
Pageants not about beauty Mon ICU2 1
I Know You Are Lying by Mark McClish Mon Just Wondering 2
More from around the web