Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7529 Oct 13, 2012
Shortly after inmate was denied parole, I decided to send my first e-mail to inmate's website. The e-mail inquired about inmate's explanation for the bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet and much to my surprise, Kathryn, not Char Laba responded to my inquiry.

Rather than provide a salient explanation for this damaging evidentiary issue, Kathryn told me that she was not going to get into an e-mail debate with me and that I should read Fatal Justice to educate myself about the "true" facts of this case. This response or lack thereof is an example of why I believe that the bedding evidence is THE most important piece of the Government's case against MacDonald. The fact that none of the MacDonald case documentaries (e.g., 48 Hours, Court TV, A&E, False Witness) makes mention of the bedding evidence also places it as THE most underrated aspect of this case.

1) The multi-colored bedspread contained massive direct bleeding stains from Colette.

2) The blue bedsheet contained 28 blood stains with several of them being massive direct bleeding stains from Colette.

3) Of the 28 blood stains, 26 of them were from Colette and the two remaining blood stains were from Kimmie.

4) Five bloody impressions found on the blue bedsheet were sourced to the pajama cuffs of both Jeffrey and Colette MacDonald.

5) Inmate claimed he did not touch the blue bedsheet on 2/17/70.

6) Two bloody impressions from inmate's right pajama cuff were found on the blue bedsheet.

7) A bloody impression from inmate's left pajama cuff was found on the blue bedsheet.

8) A bloody impression from Colette's right pajama cuff was found on the blue bedsheet.

9) A bloody impression from Colette's left pajama cuff was found on the blue besheet.

10) In the opinion of Paul Stombaugh, the bedsheet contained a bloody bare shoulder and chin impression.

11) In the opinion of Paul Stombaugh, the bedsheet contained two bloody hand impressions.

12) A bloody head hair matching the DNA profile of Kimmie was found on the multi-colored bedspread.

13) A bloody head hair matching the DNA profile of Colette was found on the multi-colored bedspread. This head hair was found twisted with a bloody pajama seam thread sourced to inmate's pajama top.

14) A bloody finger section from a surgeon's glove was found in the bundled bedding.

15) The blood found on the finger section was Type A, the same blood type as Colette. The word PIG was written on the master bed headboard in Colette's blood.

The bedding evidence clearly demonstrates that someone wearing inmate's pajama top transported Kimmie and Colette back to their respective bedrooms in the bedding. The individual wearing inmate's pajama top also came in direct contact with the bedding, Kimmie, and Colette. The individual who used the bedding for transport also put on a pair of surgeon's gloves and wrote the word PIG on the headboard of the master bed. The individual who wrote the word needed to obtain blood from Colette's body at least twice to formulate the word. The individual who wrote the word was right-handed and inmate just happens to be right-handed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#7530 Oct 13, 2012
Wait for it...pretty soon it will be HERMAPHRODITE BABOON-TIME! Aauurrggghh!
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7531 Oct 14, 2012
The bloody cuff impressions, if they existed at all, and the bedding so-called evidence was manufactured evidence against Dr. MacDonald.

It was fabricated by Stombaugh of the FBI who was a little FBI hair and fiber man with no scientific qualifications and it proves nothing. It was supposed to prove bodies were carried about by Dr. MacDonald but it proves nothing of the sort.

These magical pajama fibers which Ivory was supposed to have found in incrimnnating places is also open to reasonable doubts. There is no scientific certainty that those fibers were there as a result of the MacDonald murders and on that date, if they were there at all.

As far as I know those fibers were never photographed and they could have easily been planted,or fabricated in police reports there, by corrupt CID agents.

Shaw never changed his quite ludicrously unsatisfactory theory that Colette murdered the two little girls and Kearns always thought Dr. MacDonald MUST be guilty becuse he was a womanizer, which is equally ludicrously unsatifactory.

Ther CIA and their drug smuggling through Fort Bragg is relevant to the MacDonald case in the same way as child sex parties and Fleet White and Lockheed Martin is relevant to the Ramsey case. It is all covered up by the American Press.

Proctor was a shady North Carolina lawyer who later went on to join the CIA. He was very keen to have the innocent Dr. MacDonald prosecuted and for Helena Stoeckley and her murder gang to not to be prosecuted. He was the former son-law of Judge Dupree and Judge Fox was a pal of Dupree and attended his funeral. Fox promised Dupree to wrongly keep Dr. MacDonald in prison.

The MacDonald lawyer Wade Smith had a bit to say about this matter in 1984:

"It is true that (Proctor) was long gone before a grand jury indicted MacDonald in 1975 'But it is equally true that he was once a memeber of your family and was a strong advocate of prosecuting jeffrey MacDonald... and believed Jeffrey MacDonald guilty.'- Defense attorney Wade Smith addressing Judge Franklin Dupree."
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7532 Oct 14, 2012
There is a bit about this Proctor matter in the new Errol Morris MacDonald case book.

I think the American people need to get a grip on the CIA and their illegal activities, particularly in narcotics and the child sex trade, and bank fraud, and wrongly putting innocent men and women into prison:

"From the book:

The wording of the letter lays out for us what was to happen in the next forty years. Stoeckley was to be investigated not as a possible suspect; she was to “be investigated so as to eliminate any possibility” of her being a suspect.

Dear Mr. Murphy:

…On Friday, October 30, 1970, Mr. Warren H. Coolidge, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made a request to your office, said request also being communicated to the Department of Justice that this case may be reopened for a complete investigation. It is very important that the request made by Captain Somers’ letter of 5 August 1970 be complied with as soon as possible. There is a possibility that this matter will be presented to a Grand Jury during the week of 9 November 1970 and we will desperately need the information requested in Captain Somers’ letter of 5 August 1970. We also request an immediate follow-up of the request made by Colonel Rock that Helena Stokely [sic] and William Posey, 505 Pearl Street, Fayetteville, North Carolina, be investigated so as to eliminate any possibility of these people being possible suspects.1
The problem with that letter is that it wasn’t Colonel Rock’s recommendation. Colonel Rock had found the charges against MacDonald to be ‘untrue’ and that Stoeckley should be investigated. Not for Stoeckley and Posey to be ‘investigated so as to eliminate any possibiliity of these people being possible suspects’.

These were Rock’s recommendations (emphasis mine):

(1) All charges and specifications against Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald be dismissed because the matters set forth in all charges and specifications are not true. There are no lesser charges and/ or specifications which are appropriate.

(2) That appropriate civilian authorities be requested to investigate the alibi of Helen Stockley [sic], Fayetteville, North Carolina, reference her activities and whereabouts during the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, based on evidence presented during the hearing.2
Morris, Errol (2012-09-04). A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald (p. 71). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition."
Popeye

Deer Park, TX

#7533 Oct 14, 2012
Rock's recommendations? That's all you got, Henri? For the last 2-3 days you've been squawking about the Article 32 hearing as if it is a court of law. It's not. And why wouldn't the CID investigate Stoeckley and her friends in order to eliminate them as suspects? The facts are that Stoeckley and her friends were never considered to be any more than a bunch of dope smoking, moronic, AWOL losers who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heal. Walking around dazed, waving your arms around in a black dress like "a benevolent witch" was never seriously considered suspect. Why would it be? The FBI cleared Stoeckly and her friends too. But, now, the fiber and fabric impression evidence was there. On this forum, when the facts are presented, your only retort is that the evidence was fabricated. It's so easy these days to cry conspiracy. Wasn't Gunderson chasing those googly-eyed aliens that had escaped Area 51? In 42 years JM has never any other claim. Oh, he cried about the unsourced hairs, and moaned about wanting the hair clutched in Collette's hand DNA tested. The government has obliged his every request. Now, all of these years later, they're giving him his final gasp. The JM campers quote Errol Morris, who now just happens to release a book which coincides with the hearing. And the only thing Errol Morris has done is rewrite "Fatal Justice" and use JM for monetary gain. "A Wilderness of Errors" is ranked number 2 on Kindle in the True Crime genre right now. Being a short story writer myself I am well aware of just how ingenious publishing companies are at sensing the market. JM was a 15 minute story when the 4th Circuit Court granted him his final gasp. Errol Morris quotes the Article 32 hearing only because that is the ONE time that any tribunal or anyone with authority swallowed JM's story even a little bit. And that was before the investigation had finished gathering and studying the forensic evidence. I received "A Wilderness of Errors" on 9/4/12 via my Kindle and I read it in it's entirety. There is NOTHING new. Maybe Errol Morris really is a brilliant documentary producer. I have never, nor do I care to, actually seen his movie. Documentaries don't make a lot of money. Not unless they are timely. Claiming the same old conspiracy bs is not factual writing. However, I will give him this... It is indeed timely.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7534 Oct 14, 2012
The point about all this is that the corrupt CIA lawyer Proctor suggested that Helena Stoeckley and her criminal associates should only be investigated in order to eliminate them from inquiries, and to fixate on the totally innocent Dr. MacDonald.

It was just the same with regard to the top three suspects in the Ramsey case, Fleet White, Santa Bill McReynolds and Chris Wolf.

I don't know why Proctor suggested investigating Posey, who was highly suspicious of Helena. Posey seems to have vanished from the scene by the time of the 1979 trial.

Stombaugh was not an expert on fabric impressions and he was not qualified to testify about fabric impressions at a murder trial under the federal rules of evidence. You can't just have any old Herbert giving his opinions in a murder case. A competent judge would have put his foot down about that. Stombaugh was making it up. It was manufactured evidence.

This business about fibers is also controversial. Fibers tend to be similar and consistent and in the MacDonald case there is no scientific certainty that what the CID said were pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers.

The unsourced black wool fibers on the wooden club and around Colette's mouth and arm were previously misidentified by the genius hair and fiber man, Browning at the Army CID lab, as pajama fibers. It was the supposed pajama like fibers on the wooden club which swayed the jury when Blackburn made such a song and dance about the matter during his closing argument.

Any fool can find some fibers at a murder scene and then proudly declare they are pajama fibers. That's not brilliant investigation. There needs to be real proof and a level of certainty.

There were unmtched hairs and fibers and skin under the body of Colette, besides this supposed pajama fiber which so convinces and impresses JTF and Crofton md. In any case it was his bedroom and he wore an old pair of pajamas.

These pajama like fibers, which were supposed to be on the wooden club murder weapon is highly controversial as well, and that matter needs further investigation, which will probably never happen if Fox and Murtagh have their way.

The matter is mentioned on the internet:

"Suppressing or Fabricating Evidence

The most common incidence of prosecutorial misconduct involves the suppression or fabrication of exculpatory evidence, or evidence that might lead to the exoneration of the person suspected of the crime. Once a prosecutor publicly identifies and detains a viable suspect for a serious crime, thus satisfying public outcry and media inquiry, he or she may be reluctant to deal with any evidence or information that does not support his or her case against the suspect. This situation underscores the tension between a prosecutor’s desire for a conviction and his or her duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. At a minimum, a prosecutor may downplay or simply ignore exculpatory evidence. At the other extreme, a prosecutor may take steps to actively hide such evidence from the suspect’s defense attorney, destroy evidence, and/or fabricate other evidence in support of his or her case. Obviously, such actions by prosecutors involve serious professional misconduct that can definitely result in the wrong person being convicted of the crime. When evidence is manipulated in such a manner, the justice system, heralded for its ability to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, simply cannot function normally, thus leading to wrongful convictions."

Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7535 Oct 14, 2012
There is a bit about fabricated and manufactured hair and fiber evidence on the internet:

Whitehurst's bafflement about Malone never left him. He still collects reports of Malone's work, searching to understand why the FBI and the Justice Department treated him with kid gloves.

For at least 20 years, Whitehurst discovered, the FBI had no proper protocols to analyze hair, even though it had a pretty good idea that hair evidence had a high error rate. Then, in the mid '90s, DNA technology began to expose hair as notoriously unreliable; "junk science," its critics call it.

A possible motive for official inertia was becoming clear. "Mike worked too many high-profile cases," Whitehurst says. "If they (the FBI) took him out, he could turn on his keepers."

Whitehurst kept puzzling over something else: Were Malone's problems a case of extreme sloppiness or intentional lying? Was he "a dumbo or a Rambo?"

Malone could have simply misunderstood the significance of his data, Whitehurst says. Or he could have been a victim of a lab culture that rewarded, instead of punished, examiners who stretched the truth. Or maybe he wanted to be a hero too much.

"To survive in that laboratory, Mike had to do what he did," Whitehurst says. "He had to quit asking questions about the correctness of his work. He had to render opinions that produced convictions or someone else would have."

Bromwich, the former inspector general, says he wishes now his report had made it clearer that Whitehurst deserves "full credit" for exposing serious misconduct, despite his mistakes. "Many of the positive changes taking place in the lab today are attributable largely to Dr. Whitehurst's persistence," says Bromwich, now a private lawyer in Washington.

Bromwich says he, too, remains troubled by the Justice Department's failure to hold Malone accountable. "I don't think any agent should be able to get away with intentionally testifying falsely without suffering punishment," he says.

FBI lab over the years

1932: Lab created as a small research facility under J. Edgar Hoover. In its first year, scientists examine 963 pieces of evidence, most involving handwriting and firearms analysis.

1950s: Hair and fiber exams become a recognized forensic science.

1974: Lab moved to the newly completed J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington.

1988: DNA testing begins at the lab. It now accounts for about 2,000 of its exams. The lab also handles growing amounts of chemical evidence, examining drugs, the composition of bombs and claims of product tampering.

1997: Lab rocked by investigation of Justice Department's inspector general, which finds faulty work in 18 high-profile cases.

1999: FBI breaks ground on a new $130-million lab in Quantico, Va. Completion is scheduled for late this year.

2001: The lab now conducts more than 1-million forensic exams a year, analyzing everything from blood and explosives to drugs and firearms.

- Source: FBI

The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, is one of 18 high-profile cases mentioned in a 1997 report that revealed forensic bungles. The explosion killed 168 people, and Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to be executed May 16.

The double-murder case against former NFL player O.J. Simpson was also on the list of 18 cases the FBI forensic labs mishandled.

The case against former federal Judge Alcee Hastings, now a U.S. representative, was the first for which Mike Malone felt heat.

Malone's work in the case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald in 1979 earned him headlines. MacDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and children in the "Fatal Vision" case.
Popeye

Deer Park, TX

#7536 Oct 14, 2012
The JM campers hit rewind and repeat over and over. It's like they're playing a game of Solitaire and all of the plays that actually count are over. They just remain at the table, moving the remaining unplayable card from one column to the next. Red jack to black queen. Red jack back to another black queen. They continue to call this an actual play, but the plays are all gone. Have been for a long time. All crime labs have been known to have made mistakes. In the US, even the illustrious powdered wig wearing tort system of the UK. So what? That does not mean that evidence was fabricated. Nobody sought to protect Helena Stoeckly. The prosecution surely weren't looking to cover up for OJ. The Macdonald case garnered many people headlines. So what? Rewind... Repeat... Black jack to red queen... The next real play never materializes. You're just there, unsensibly moving that card from one column to the next.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7537 Oct 14, 2012
I don't think so somehow.

The blood fabric impression evidence was made up by Stombaugh of the FBI who was not qualified to testify in a murder trial about those fabric impressions.

The fiber evidence is also extremely weak and it's open to doubt. Browning of the Army CID was saying that every fiber he came across was a pajama like fiber. That impressed Bugliosi and Wombaugh.

Frier of the FBI said that the fibers around Colette's mouth and arm and on the wooden club were black wool fibers with no known source and they had been misidentified by Browning as pajama like fibers. That only came to light after the MacDonald trial in 1979.

My own theory for why Helena Stoeckley and her murderous pals were never arrested and put on trial is that they would have been asked probing questions about drug smuggling by the Army CID and CIA at Fort Bragg, and they would probably have talked about it in court. That would never do, and so as a cover- up Dr. Macdonald was prosecuted and wrongly convicted instead.

It could also be that Fleet White has never been prosecuted in the Ramsey case in case he talked about Lockheed Martin child sex parties and the possible involvement of the Bush family and the CIA in the child sex trade. That also would never do, and so the thick Boulder cops are allowed to try to swing it on to the innocent Burke instead with the full support of the American Press and court of public opinion.

Without public criticism institutions, however excellent, become unhealthy and decay. Even if it was desirable to do so, however, it is impossible to hush things up. The mischief is done.

I think it's lamentable stupidity. Politicians and economists seem to lack economic wisdom and they only want to cut education and defense and health and social security and the police to nothing.

They don't seem to appreciate the practical difficulties of their policies. I dislike injustice. Economies are not self correcting as they seem to think and there are more people in this world than just bankers.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7538 Oct 14, 2012
MacDonald advocates like to rinse and repeat. Gordon Widenhouse followed this MacDonald camp mantra to a tee at the evidentiary hearing. Henri is using this tactic on this forum and inmate's wife adheres to this philosophy on inmate's website. It doesn't really matter what the documented record says or doesn't say, MacDonald advocates will continue to make unproven claims and present half-truths until MacDonald is worm food. This group has no interest in discussing the evidence in this case. Their focus has always been on side issues, red herrings, and hype. The good news is that MacDonald is fast approaching his 32nd year in prison and there is a good chance that he will spend the rest of his worthless life in Cumberland's finest correctional facility.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Feb 12

Newark, DE

#7539 Oct 14, 2012
I think that Widenhouse did a terrible job of representing mac. Of course that is a good thing, but it is too bad that mac and his little woman stripped the mac family trust and screwed Jay out of his money.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7540 Oct 15, 2012
goaskwhy wrote:
I think that Widenhouse did a terrible job of representing mac. Of course that is a good thing, but it is too bad that mac and his little woman stripped the mac family trust and screwed Jay out of his money.
I think Widenhouse is a good lawyer and he is supposed to be an expert at appeals. I think the way he found a new witness who testified that Helena Stoeckley confessed to her about the MacDonald murders shortly before she 'died' was relevant information, as was the confession testimony of Helena's lawyer, Jerry Leonard, who I think was a former judge. Helena's brother's testimony was interesting. That was all new information.

I find it a little amusing that the evidentiary hearing coincided with the publishing of this new Errol Morris MacDonald case book. It's a bit like the drunken Irish son of a bitch, Joe McGinniss, published his anti -MacDonald book Fatal Vision at around the same time as the 1984/5 Judge Dupree Macdonald failed appeal. That could be something to do with the court of public opinion.

The problem the MacDonald lawyers have is that these appeals bristle with technicalites and time limits and previous Judge Dupree rulings. A MacDonald lawyer can't just appear in court and say Judge Fox has corrupt bias in the case and he should have had the DNA tested much sooner, as instructed by the 4th circuit judges, or that Fox should never have thrown out the Jimmy Britt evidence and Helena's mother 's affidavit in 2008.

Dr MacDonald's previous lawyer Joseph Zeszotarski did a good job getting this evidentiary hearing and the 4th circuit now seem to understand the case a bit more.

I suspect that the appeal will now continue for a few more years on the basis of the evidence as a whole on which Dr. MacDonald is on firmer ground. What he really needs is for the real culprits to be arrested and prosecuted.

Not all the judges in the MacDonald case were biased against Dr. MacDonald. This is from a Supreme Court ruling in 1982 which put Dr MacDonald into prison for thirty years. Justice Marshall, with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun join, dissenting.:

"MacDonald was painfully aware of the ongoing Army and Justice Department investigations. He was interviewed again by military authorities soon after his honorable discharge. He repeatedly inquired about the progress of the investigations. He even proposed to submit to further interviews in order to speed final resolution of his case. MacDonald "realized that the favorable conclusion of the military proceedings was not the end of the government's efforts to convict him. Prudence obliged him to retain attorneys at his own expense for his continuing defense. He remained under suspicion and was subjected to the anxiety of the threat of another prosecution." MacDonald I, 531 F.2d, at 204 (footnote omitted). It is simply absurd to suggest that he has suffered no greater anxiety, disruption of employment, financial strain, or public obloquy than if the military charges had never been brought.

IV

The majority's opinion in this case is a disappointing exercise in strained logic and judicial illusion. Suspending application of the speedy trial right in the period between successive prosecutions ignores the real impact of the initial charge on a criminal defendant and serves absolutely no governmental interest. This Court has warned before against "allowing doctrinaire concepts ... to submerge the practical demands of the constitutional right to a speedy trial." Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 381, 89 S.Ct. 575, 578, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969). The majority fails to heed that advice.

For the foregoing reasons, I dissent."
icedtea4me

Florissant, MO

#7541 Oct 15, 2012
Colette [in the process of receiving multiple stab wounds with a knife] cries out: "Jeff! Jeff! Why are they doing this to me?"

Jeff: "Because they're drug-crazed hippies."

Colette: "Thanks. I thought that was it, but just wanted to make sure."

Jeff: "Well, now you know."

Colette: "Yeah, knowing why some total strangers are in here stabbing me would certainly take precedence over me yelling for you to come help me."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#7542 Oct 15, 2012
I think her actual cries were more along the lines of, "Jeff, JEFF! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!" I'm pretty darned certain THAT was what MacDouche heard...
Fatal Fact

Hillsboro, KY

#7543 Oct 15, 2012
No One will ever truly know what happened the morning of February 17,1970 except God, poor collette, kimberly, kristen,R.I.P.. and of course Macdonald himself.. I think the blood trail was enough alone to convict him. All the pieces seem to fall together with the blood trail.. Guilty, Guilty, and Gult again...
Popeye

Dallas, TX

#7544 Oct 16, 2012
What, Henri, you got something against the Irish?
crofton md

Moorestown, NJ

#7545 Oct 16, 2012
515't MacDonald an Irish name? If he wasn't so in love with MacMurderer, I would swear we had a modern day Archie Bunker on our hands.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7546 Oct 16, 2012
Fatal Fact wrote:
No One will ever truly know what happened the morning of February 17,1970 except God, poor collette, kimberly, kristen,R.I.P.. and of course Macdonald himself.. I think the blood trail was enough alone to convict him. All the pieces seem to fall together with the blood trail.. Guilty, Guilty, and Gult again...
The blood trail and blood evidence is an emotional subject with any jury. The point is you must be guided by the evidence and facts and not just come up with some wild and wonderful opinions about the matter.

For some reason Dr. MacDonald's family all had different blood types. Blood from different members of the family was found in different rooms. Nobody knows exactly what happened because they are all dead now.

Stombaugh of the FBI came up with this wild theory that bodies were carried around in the sheet by Dr. MacDonald. The thing is Stombaugh was not a serologist and he was not qualified to testify in a murder trial about bloodstains.

The jury were never told by the trickster prosecution lawyers that there was blood found where Dr. MacDonald fell unconscious. That's what swayed at least one juror in the 1979 trial. Segal could be possibly be faulted for that for a lack of careful preparation of the case.

It's a bit like these politicians are only furthering the inteersts of the financial services industry and not the middle classes or people who actually make things. In the UK, if the police want to arrest or charge a City bankster with fraud they must first obtain the permission and agreemenet of a politician. That leaves the police unfairly handicapped in these cases and allows fraudsters and people in the child sex trade to get off scot free.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#7547 Oct 16, 2012
There was definitely blood fabric contamination by military police, and possibly pajama cuff blood contamination, before the CID agents arrived at the crime scene.

I find it a little amusing that Murtagh is now saying that these unsourced hairs mentioned at this latest evidentiary hearing could be there because of contamintion, but there was a barefaced denial by him in the past that the blood evidence could have been contaminated.

I call it corruption.

This blood evidence matter in the MacDonald case was mentioned in the CID agent Shaw testimony at the Article 32 in 1970:

A Most of the bloodstains on that towel, and there was other types of blood on it also, appeared to be wipe marks, which I conjecture to be the weapons used in this case, indicating that the weapons were wiped off on that towel. I do not know that the towel or have an opinion as to whether the towel actually came in contact with Kimberly MacDonald. I think that the weapon that killed Kimberly did come in contact with the towel.
Q And that is based on your information and knowledge about this case?
A That is correct.
Q And your experience; there is no expert opinion as to how those stains got on that particular bath mat, is there?
A No.

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q Mr. Shaw, you said a few minutes ago that you were of the opinion that Kimberly did not, in fact, receive fatal injuries in her own bedroom, but that in fact they were inflicted someplace else and she was then returned to her own bedroom. Am I correct in saying that you said that?
A Yes.
Q And I thought I heard you also say that that was for the purpose of making the investigators believe that she had been killed in her own bedroom. Am I correct in stating that?
A That is correct.
Q Would you tell me on what you base your opinion that someone did either of those things, if in fact they happened at all, for the purpose of misleading investigators?
A I am not sure what you mean when you say that.
Q You stated in your answer before that you pieced together just what you called the sequence here of an injury inflicted on the child other than in her bedroom?
A Yes.
Q That she was then, in your opinion, returned to her own bedroom?
A (Affirmative nod.)
Q Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And that that was done to make it appear--I believe those were your words--that she had in fact been fatally injured in her own bedroom rather than fatally injured in the master bedroom, is that what you have concluded?
A Yes.
Q What I want to know is, what is the basis for your opinion that someone was trying to lead investigators to believing that she was killed in her own bedroom, if you think there is evidence to the contrary?
A Well, I think the killer was trying to set up a false set of circumstances to be reconstructed by the investigators in this case, and just that.

QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q What possible motive would Jeffrey MacDonald--assuming your theory is that he did it--that is your theory, isn't it? I assume that is why we are here. Assuming that Jeffrey MacDonald did it, what possible motive would he have for removing the child from the master bedroom and placing her back in her own bed and making it appear like she was killed in her own bed? Do you have any possible motive for that?
A Well, I know that he has told us and others, that during the time he was being attacked he heard his oldest daughter, Kimberly, screaming or calling, yelling in her bedroom.
Q He said he heard her yelling in the bedroom and he said he knew where she was yelling from?
A That was the impression I received from what he said. You have copies of his statement.
So in my opinion that places her in her own bedroom, according to his statement, and under some kind of stress. As to why he would stage this scene, specifically this way, I do not know. I have no opinion about it.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7548 Oct 16, 2012
"What, Henri, you got something against the Irish?"

POPEYE: Of course he does. Joe McGinniss wrote the definitive book on this case and yours truly has a website that destroys any notion that MacDonald is a tortured innocent. Oh, and Henri is also a MacDonald groupie who derives enjoyment out of posting the same debunked nonsense 100 times over. Oh, and another thing, he frequently forgets to take his medications as prescribed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

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's grave gives a clue? (Jul '14) 3 min diankral2000 24
My theory 14 min 43_Holding 239
Where's the Poop? 28 min Non-state Actor 7
John Andrew Ramsey Said What?? 35 min Non-state Actor 109
Patsy, Patsy, oh Patsy 8 hr Non-state Actor 2
It's a Parents Job After All 8 hr Kauna 1
jameson - address the issue of handwriting 10 hr Kauna 126
I don't know how I missed this 10 hr JimmyWells 79
More from around the web