Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5718 Dec 15, 2010
candy wrote:
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.
You seem pretty obsessed yourself. Iím a MAN. If your research skills were even miniscule you could find the crime blog I write with my real name and photo. My name is not what you wrote. I have no obsession with Jeffrey MacDonald. Heís an old man whoís right where he belongs and is going to stay right there. He hasnít even deserved an entry in my blog for years now. Heís passť. Old news.

You should try reading up on the case and posting about it sometime.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5719 Dec 15, 2010
joejam wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you...I so agree.
I so agree, too, joejam. The MacGroupies donít even discuss MacDonald on this board.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5720 Dec 16, 2010
Derek Jeter Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
I so agree, too, joejam. The MacGroupies donít even discuss MacDonald on this board.
Well, Gabrielle, we tried to discuss the case until you hijacked this thread earlier this year and spouted off with your off topic crap. The only time you wanted to discuss the case was when you were outed, which is typical of you on all the threads. It must suck to have nothing but the internet in your life. Too bad you lied about still writing to Jeffrey MacDonald. He would deserve that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5722 Jan 27, 2011
candy wrote:
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.
Thanks for the warning candy. I am sorry that her obsession with the MacDonald case brought her to this thread. We have a discussion board that she has been banned fron and that is why you don't see many postings here.

She has a history of doing this. It is a crying shame that decent people can not carry on discusssions and debates without trolls disrupting and causing trouble for the serious posters.

We are still waiting to hear the 4th circuits COA's decision.
I think we know what the answer will be. When a person like Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, the truth always comems out and the general public is aware of all hidden details in every aspect of the guilty person's persoanl life.
cody

Washington, MI

#5723 Feb 24, 2011
Patricia Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Damn good point !
I watched this case for a while back in the day.
I think he's guilty.
But, this post of your's is so, so true.
GSK

Waukee, IA

#5724 Feb 27, 2011
She never said she saw him kill his family just that she confessed to a neighbor that she was in the group that killed the MacDonald
family. Now im not saying he is innocent just that a lot dose not add up. The only reason investigators wrote Stoeckley off was because she was an addict.
OneWhoCares wrote:
Henri - Give me a break.
All of the "alleged" suspects were questioned and cleared a way back when. They were given polygraphs and statements taken. If you want to believe Helena - why not believe the statement she made saying that she saw MACDONALD kill his family. That is but one of the many crazy statements she made. There is NO EVIDENCE of any of them in the apartment. That is NOT a theory it is a FACT.
Another FACT you seem to overlook is that MacDonaldís very own hair was found clutched in Colette's hand.
Want to explain the baby's blood on his eyeglasses?
WV Sleuth

United States

#5727 Feb 27, 2011
Oh, and you ARE? Why don't you up and DIE already, you puke?
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#5728 Feb 27, 2011
GSK wrote:
She never said she saw him kill his family just that she confessed to a neighbor that she was in the group that killed the MacDonald
family. Now im not saying he is innocent just that a lot dose not add up. The only reason investigators wrote Stoeckley off was because she was an addict.
<quoted text>
That's a sensible comment.

The idiot Judge Dupree said that Helena Stoeckley and her murderous boyfriend at the time, Greg Mitchell, were probably courting on a bridge at the time of the MacDonald murders! There is no evidence of that.

The Army CID were told to investigate Helena Stoeckley after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 but they never did properly.

There was blood all over the crime scene of the MacDonald murders. That wasn't Dr. MacDonald's fault. The idiot Judge Dupree said that a speck of blood on Dr. MacDonald's glasses somehow proved he was lying about saying he wasn't wearing his glasses at the time. That's also nonsense from Judge Dupree.

The hair in the hand of Colette had been tested several times in the years prior to the 2006 DNA testing. It was found then not to be Dr. MacDonald's hair. Then MacDonald prosecutor Murtagh at the Justice Department allowed the FBI to tamper with the vials before the items were tested at the AFIP lab and suddenly it became a MacDonald hair. It was forensic fraud to prevent Dr. MacDonald winning an appeal.

This is from a previous posting of mine on this Topix forum:

"This is how thoroughly and competently Bill Ivory, one of the Army CID so-called bungling investigators investigated one of the real culprits in the MacDonald murders case, Helena Stoeckley.

I find this transcript from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 quite amusing. It reminds me of how thoroughly, and properly, and professionally Boulder cop Jane Harmer investigated Fleet White and his guests, Gaston and Cox, in the Ramsey case:

Q How about her manner of demeanor? Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q Candid and open. Is that right?
A Right.
Q And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory. I don't underestimate that for a moment. What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A I could not--I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A I've never tried it. I do not know.
Henri McPhee

Bristol, UK

#5729 Feb 27, 2011
There is a highly technical discussion of the hair in the hand business in the MacDonald case at this website:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5731 May 9, 2011
There are some interesting quotes about the law on the internet which remind me of the MacDonald case:

"When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.~Norm Crosby"
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5732 May 9, 2011
More quotes:

"Having your fate rest in the hands of a jury is the same as entrusting yourself to surgery with a mentally retarded doctor.~Bill Messing, quoted in Dream World, by Fred Woodworth

Good lawyers know the law; great lawyers know the judge.~Author Unknown"

Since: Jun 11

Philadelphia, PA

#5733 Jun 12, 2011
I am an avid follower of this atrocious crime, and I firmly believe that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty. I also feel he was behind the murders of the Eastburn family (a mother and two daughters) because he was calling and mailing their babysitter.

MacDonald is right where he belongs. In his 48 Hours interview, he claims he is innocent, but he never denied that he killed Colette, Kimmy and Kristy.

JTF, I went to your website and I think you have done a remarkable job.
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5734 Jun 13, 2011
Angelkitten wrote:
I am an avid follower of this atrocious crime, and I firmly believe that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty. I also feel he was behind the murders of the Eastburn family (a mother and two daughters) because he was calling and mailing their babysitter.
MacDonald is right where he belongs. In his 48 Hours interview, he claims he is innocent, but he never denied that he killed Colette, Kimmy and Kristy.
JTF, I went to your website and I think you have done a remarkable job.
That simply isn't true. Dr. MacDonald did deny killing anybody at the MacDonald Grand Jury in 1975:

"Because I didn't spend the rest of my life, you know, praying on the graves you tell me I don't love my family. And that means I must have killed them. That's not true.
Oh, it's a lot of shit. I didn't kill Colette. And I didn't kill Kimmie, and I didn't kill Kristy, and I didn't move Colette, and I didn't move Kimmie, and I didn't move Kristy, and I gave them mouth to mouth breathing, and I loved them then, and I love them now. And Colette didn't kill them either. And you can shove all your fucking evidence right up your ass."

I don't know much about those Eastburn murders, which I think were also at Fort Bragg in about 1985. I do know that Dr. MacDonald was in prison at the time of those murders and that the suspect convicted and put on death row for it was later proved that he couldn't possibly have committed the Eastburn murders.

Another American gross miscarriage of justice. The innocent get convicted while the guilty go free.
Leandra

La Crosse, WI

#5735 Jun 14, 2011
Angelkitten wrote:
I am an avid follower of this atrocious crime, and I firmly believe that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty. I also feel he was behind the murders of the Eastburn family (a mother and two daughters) because he was calling and mailing their babysitter.
MacDonald is right where he belongs. In his 48 Hours interview, he claims he is innocent, but he never denied that he killed Colette, Kimmy and Kristy.
JTF, I went to your website and I think you have done a remarkable job.
Whatever gave you the idea that Jeffrey MacDonald was behind the Eastburn murders?
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5736 Jun 14, 2011
I don't know enough about those Eastburn murders at Fort Bragg to have a definite opinion as to the guilt or otherwise of Hennis.

He was originally tried, and later released, and then he resumed his career in the Army and he had a wife and kids.

About 2005 Hennis was investigated again for the Eastburn crimes and in about April of this year he was convicted again of the Eastburn murders.

He was convicted on what the North Carolina prosecutors say was recent discoveries of his DNA in the body of an Eastburn murder victim.

The trouble is I do have my doubts and very little confidence in North Carolina prosecutors and judges, and also very little confidence in the integrity of the Justice Department.

Hennis was cleared on the crime scene DNA evidence, and on other evidence, in about 1989. DNA weas first used in court cases in 1977. Then magically a DNA sample is discovered that is supposed to prove there is DNA which belongs to Hennis. We know nothing about the chain of custody of that DNA sample or if it's in fact fabricated and forensic fraud.

Let me just say that I believe the DNA investigation in the Ramsey case was honest, though there might have been other forensic fraud involved. I believe there was forensic fraud and DNA fraud in the MacDonald case.

There is some background information to all this from an article on the internet:

February 11, 2009 7:11 PM Army Probes Possible DNA Fraud

(AP) The Army is investigating allegations that a civilian forensic examiner at the Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory at Fort Gillem, Ga., falsified DNA test results.

The allegations, if true, would throw into doubt hundreds of criminal cases dating back at least a decade.

The examiner on June 2 admitted to making a false entry on a control sample used during one DNA examination, and the laboratory is now reviewing 479 or more cases the accused examiner has worked on since he began in 1995, according to an announcement Friday by the Army Criminal Investigation Command, or CID.

The examiner was suspended from duty in May after the allegations surfaced. His name was not released.

The lab at Fort Gillem is the only Army facility that performs forensic examinations in support of military criminal cases. It provides services to all military investigative agencies and is the only accredited full-service crime lab in the federal government outside the FBI.

This was not the first indication of potential problems at Fort Gillem. The examiner now under investigation was temporarily suspended from DNA case work in January 2004 when contamination was detected in his testing process, officials said. After "remedial action and retraining" he was returned to work in September 2004.

No other details of the earlier suspension were released Friday.

"We are taking every step necessary to ensure we have an independent, impartial review of the issues at hand," said Chris Grey, a CID spokesman. "At this time the incident appears to be isolated to one individual examiner, but we want to take very step necessary to make certain that is the case."

The CID investigation is being led by the command's Standards of Conduct Office, and the Pentagon's inspector general has been asked to conduct an independent review of the CID probe once it has been completed."
James

Falls Church, VA

#5737 Jun 18, 2011
People need to let this case go. It happened over 40 year ago. Dr. MacDonald isn't getting out so move on with you lives. He did it but I just don't understand why people still need to discuss it. It just gives MacDoanld more pub.
James

Falls Church, VA

#5738 Jun 18, 2011
And Henri you must be one of Mac's butt buddies or something. People that think he didn't do it are just dumb as hell. The physical evidence showed that whoever wore that top was the person who did the crime. Quit sucking mac's balls and get over it that he's never getting out and he's rigth where he belongs.
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5739 Jun 18, 2011
James wrote:
And Henri you must be one of Mac's butt buddies or something. People that think he didn't do it are just dumb as hell. The physical evidence showed that whoever wore that top was the person who did the crime. Quit sucking mac's balls and get over it that he's never getting out and he's rigth where he belongs.
The "top" or pajama top so-called evidence was manufactured evidence and forensic fraud by Stombaugh of the FBI. The pajama folding experiment was never mentioned in the Article 32 proceedings in 1972 in which the the Army CID was ordered by Colonel Rock to investigate Helena Stoeckley, but never did.

This is what the forensic expert Dr Thornton thought about the "top" theory at the MacDonlad trial in 1979:

More from Dr Thornton with regard to Ms Green:

Q I asked you whether you had read testimony of Shirley Green in regard to the reconstruction experiment that she said she did in terms of putting 48 probes into holes in the--rather, taking 48 holes in the pajama top and making them fit into 21 holes.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you at that time the question of whether you had an opinion as to whether or not she did in fact do what she said she did, and you said you had an opinion in that regard.
A Yes.
Q And what was that opinion?
A I consider her reconstruction to be impossible. I consider it to be conceptually unsound and contrived.

Q Is it possible, based upon your knowledge, information, and training, for Ms. Green, using the information that she had, to have made the reconstruction of the pajama top as she did? Is it possible for her to have done that and done it correctly--moving the 48 holes into 21?
A No.
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5740 Jun 18, 2011
This is what Judge Dupree thought about the North Carolina prosecutor "top" theory in the MacDonald case, from a previous posting of mine on this Topix forum:

This is part of what Judge Dupree said about the pajama folding matter. The Court in this is Judge Dupree:

THE COURT: If he told me that you could arrange 48 places and arrange those same 48 so they would still go into those 21 holes other than the way that they say they arranged them in this case, I wouldn't believe it. But, now, thankfully, I don't have to make that decision, nor will that opinion ever be expressed to this jury.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if there is another way to reconstruct it--and if it was tough enough to do it one way--I think this is merely the conservative nature of the laboratory examiner. It is like the hair could have come--the same thing with respect to the threads.

THE COURT: If I have ever heard a man disclaim, not one time but fifty, old Stombaugh kept saying that, "I only said it could be."

MR. MURTAGH: That is right, sir.

THE COURT: Now, you have been up here so long I forgot what you came for.

MR. SEGAL: A break, Your Honor. I said "purported expert." I am sorry for that. I really did not intend any derogatory inference by that. But my point was responding to the Government's objection that it is speculation.
Henri McPhee

Blackpool, UK

#5741 Jun 18, 2011
A previous posting of mine on this Topix forum about the 'top' matter:

This is what Plexus said about the pajama top MacDonald case theory in 2007. I couldn't have phrased it better myself:

"I probably wouldn't have so much doubt about MacDonald's guilt if it weren't for one single ridiculous "theory" about what happened that night :

That MacDonald took off his pajama top, laid it across Colette's chest , and then stabbed her with an ice pick through the PJ top

Yeah, right, that makes perfect sense ....

This is so ludicrous that it casts doubt on all of the rest of the MacMurder Crowd's "Theories"

Mix in a few facts like the babysitter changing her story about whether or not she ever saw an ice pick in the home , and an admitted accomplice to the crime suddenly developing amnesia *only* for the hours the crime was committed , and developing that amnesia only *after* being threatened by the prosecutor and , well , you've got what they call REASONABLE DOUBT if & when MacDonald ever gets a re∑trial."

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
News GLOBE: JonBenet Ramsey Murder Was Inside Job - ... 1 hr robert 2
John Ramsey Role 4 hr Justice1313 21
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) 4 hr Justice1313 1,048
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 4 hr ICU2 154
Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ramsey case, ... (Aug '13) Apr 15 Steve Eller 326
Chief Kolar's AMA on Reddit Apr 14 Just Wondering 157
Karr's Christmas Message Apr 12 candy 8
More from around the web