Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7857 May 31, 2013
JTF: I absolutely agree. In the past, MacDonald has asked for and gotten delays quite a few times. When it came to filing his Post-Hearing Memorandum ( http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/c... ), he got three extensions, including a ridiculous, final one-day extension, so they could hardly argue with the government's asking for a delay.

Regardless, I think this will be a filing worth waiting for. The defense wants Fox to have the "evidence as a whole," and the government's going to give it to him in spades.

I have a feeling that the defense team may end up regretting that they insisted on having the "evidence as a whole" heard again. The evidence convicted Mac the first time around and has kept him in prison since 1979, and I don't see anything changing at this late stage.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#7858 May 31, 2013
Bunny1 wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect, Christina's site doesn't have the latest May 28 filings, while http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald does, so I'm not sure you should be talking about which site is the most "updated." I'm not sure why CM hasn't put the latest filings up yet. Maybe because according to her, that would be "stealing" since they're already published on another website? Of course it's not stealing, since they're public documents freely available for anyone to publish, but maybe that's what she thinks. Who knows. Either way, it doesn't really matter. All I care about is seeing case documents wherever they might appear, and I'm glad there's http://www.crimearchives.net has those. In my opinion, when it comes to websites that show the facts of this case, the more the merrier. I'm sure it drives ol' Mac crazy. Too bad, so sad.:)
There is a lot that is not updated at the site as I mentioned before. A bunch of old and/or seldom posted on discussion boards when it does not mention a newer and popular board such as :

http://jeffreymacdonalddiscussionboard.yuku.c...

Does that seem updated to you?

Well, different people have different opinions but mine is that some people are just too cheap to pay for records and it is easier to "steal" them from a website than to pay for them.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7859 May 31, 2013
Considering that the government is going to...

1) Include the evidence presented at the 1979 trial

2) Debunk ALL of the claims leveled by the defense in their post-hearing memo

3) Provide lengthy rebuttals to the Britt/DNA claims

... I was wondering if there was a page limit to these memos?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7860 Jun 1, 2013
OneWhoCares wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a lot that is not updated at the site as I mentioned before. A bunch of old and/or seldom posted on discussion boards...Does that seem updated to you?
Well, different people have different opinions but mine is that some people are just too cheap to pay for records and it is easier to "steal" them from a website than to pay for them.
OWC, There is a lot that is not updated at Christina's site, and a lot of missing documents, mixed-up pages, spelling errors, and so on. Does that mean people shouldn't visit there? Of course not.

Reading your posts, one would get the idea that for any criminal case or any other matter, you think there should be only ONE point of access on the web, which I think is a ridiculous notion.

As for your fixation on discussion boards, I think that's really odd, since Christina's website not only has NO links to ANY discussion boards AT ALL that I'm aware of, but no links to any other resources, either. I'm glad that http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald has those. If you're not happy about having other resources easily available, and you're not happy that there's another website to show case facts,, it's your choice not to visit crimearchives.net or any other website about the MacDonald case.

As for your other fixation -- "stealing" documents, anyone with a Pacer account ( www.pacer.gov ) can download case documents for pennies. Autopsy photos and other documents/photos are also available elsewhere on the 'net. From what I can tell, on www.crimearchives.net , it seems to contain things that can be published by anyone under public domain and/or fair use laws. Did you forget what I've told you over and over again, that works by the Government cannot be copyrighted? Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me, but quit whining about "stealing" when you don't have a clue as to whether or not anyone stole anyting.

I know how strongly you feel you have to always have the last word, so I'm sure you'll waste more time trying to argue about which website people should visit. As for me, I'm going to try to be DONE with this subject for now. The bottom line is that if you don't like crimearchives.net , don't go there.

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7861 Jun 1, 2013
JTF wrote:
Considering that the government is going to...
1) Include the evidence presented at the 1979 trial
2) Debunk ALL of the claims leveled by the defense in their post-hearing memo
3) Provide lengthy rebuttals to the Britt/DNA claims
... I was wondering if there was a page limit to these memos?
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF: There is a page limit, but I don't know what it is offhand. I know in December of 2011, the government had to ask for permission to file an oversized response, so maybe they'll have to do that again:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/c...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#7862 Jun 1, 2013
Bunny1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OWC, There is a lot that is not updated at Christina's site, and a lot of missing documents, mixed-up pages, spelling errors, and so on. Does that mean people shouldn't visit there? Of course not.
Reading your posts, one would get the idea that for any criminal case or any other matter, you think there should be only ONE point of access on the web, which I think is a ridiculous notion.
As for your fixation on discussion boards, I think that's really odd, since Christina's website not only has NO links to ANY discussion boards AT ALL that I'm aware of, but no links to any other resources, either. I'm glad that http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald has those. If you're not happy about having other resources easily available, and you're not happy that there's another website to show case facts,, it's your choice not to visit crimearchives.net or any other website about the MacDonald case.
As for your other fixation -- "stealing" documents, anyone with a Pacer account ( www.pacer.gov ) can download case documents for pennies. Autopsy photos and other documents/photos are also available elsewhere on the 'net. From what I can tell, on www.crimearchives.net , it seems to contain things that can be published by anyone under public domain and/or fair use laws. Did you forget what I've told you over and over again, that works by the Government cannot be copyrighted? Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me, but quit whining about "stealing" when you don't have a clue as to whether or not anyone stole anyting.
I know how strongly you feel you have to always have the last word, so I'm sure you'll waste more time trying to argue about which website people should visit. As for me, I'm going to try to be DONE with this subject for now. The bottom line is that if you don't like crimearchives.net , don't go there.
Oh Bunny. Get a life. Apparently you are the one who is fixated and the one who feels a need to have the last word. I could care less about which websites people visit. However, your digs at a certain board owner is very obvious and also boring.

I doubt that you are "done" but time will tell. I seem to recall your bitching about copyright issues and now you are acting as if
you are an expert on the subject. I remember about you complaining about somebody using stuff without permission on their website and copyrighted material but it was okay for you to use the same items on YOUR website. I spoke with Bob Stevenson and I know for a fact he did not give YOU permission to use Collette, Kristen, and Kimberley's pictures on your website!

I also recall your lie at a discussion board when someone exposed your ranch for sale a few years back. You lied and said it was not for sale and person posted a link showing it was. You then admitted it.

Why lie about something like that in the first place? Who cares?
According to public inforamtion it is still for sale.





Sherlock Holmes

Chula Vista, CA

#7863 Jun 1, 2013
Sounds like some idiot insane stalkers posting all day every day.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#7864 Jun 1, 2013
inforamtion = information

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#7866 Jun 1, 2013
Dr Watson wrote:
I'll begin an investigation immediately.
It looks like Sherlock Holmes/Dr Watson forgot to change her location AGAIN! LOL

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7867 Jun 1, 2013
During his closing arguments at the evidentiary hearing, Brian Murtagh processed with Judge Fox that he would be given a booklet that covered the evidence presented at the 1979 trial. Since there appears to be a page limit to the post-hearing memos, I would imagine that the government's presentation of the trial evidence in the response memo will be lean and mean.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7868 Jun 26, 2013
I was doing some reading at www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald and noticed something in a statement of Ron Harrison's that I missed before.

On page 2 (of the link below) Harrison says when he visited MacDonald at the hospital on Feb. 17, 1970, he saw "...one or two wounds in his [Jeffrey MacDonald's] neck, pin points of blood that may have been pick marks."

I don't recall any of the doctors or anyone else talking about "pick marks" or any type of wound at all on Mac's neck. Does anyone know any more about this?

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/c...

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7869 Jul 2, 2013
I see that the long-awaited Government Post-Hearing Memorandum is now online at www.crimearchives.net/19979_macdonald . FANTASTIC ... This should be a good read!

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/u...

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Hamden, CT

#7870 Jul 2, 2013
Brilliant stuff. Time to throw away the key.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...aring_...

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7871 Jul 3, 2013
Billiant stuff. Time to throw away the key.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/c...

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7872 Jul 4, 2013
Comments on the Government's 200 page response memo.

The Government hammers away at the credibility and reliability of the claims presented in the Defense memo. They also cover the trial evidence in detail and emphasize the decisions made by Judge Dupree during the 1984-1985 appellate hearings. I found the following pieces of information to be quite interesting.

1) Two unsourced black synthetic fibers used in the manufacture of wigs used for human wear were found in one of the hairbrushes, but the Government argues that the Defense ignored those fibers for several reasons. Stoeckley claimed she wore a blond wig and if the blond saran fibers were the result of Kimmie and/or Kristen brushing a doll, then one could argue that they brushed a doll with black hair. In regards to the saran fiber issue, the Government added the following 1997 quote from Judge Fox...

"MacDonald histrionically mischaracterizes both the nature and magnitude of the dispute now before the court."

2) In regards to MacDonald's excuse for how his broken and bloody arm hair found its way in his dead wife's left hand, the Government states...

"It is hard to conceive how checking for a pulse on a dead body would result in a limb hair being broken off at the root."

3) The bloody palmprint claim was finally put to rest when the Government pointed to photos taken by the CID of the master bed footboard. The unsourced partial latent palmprint was photographed (GXP 1003) as were the two blood stains (GXP 41-42) and the photographs clearly show two contiguous, but different areas on the footboard. In other words, the palmprint and the blood stains were in different locations on the footboard.

4) The Government has rarely used the following explanation for the candle wax drippings in prior briefs, but they argue that since the MacDonalds liked candles, the wax deposits were the result of...

"candles previously lit, and either consumed entirely or discarded
the remnants."

5) The Government argues that when Greg Mitchell was not under the influence, he was a reliable witness, but when under the
influence...

Mitchell's behavior was akin to Stoeckley and Perry in what the Government deemed a "Fatal Attraction." They knew each other, abused substances, had bouts of depression and paranoia, and were attention seekers. The relentless publicity of this case exacerbated this attraction and created a phenomenon that even MacDonald attorney Brian O'Neill acknowledged was very real. During oral arguments in 1985, O'Neill stated...
"aberrant mental patients, people who read about an event and are looking to take part in this event through this bizarre phenomenon of claiming. Wacky as it is, we know it exists."

6) In terms of the unsourced body hair found on Kristen's bed, the Government points out that the MacDonalds did not have a dog, but several black dog hairs were found on the bedspread. The Government argues that if one uses the logic put forth by the Defense, one of the intruders was a black dog.

7) The Government concludes their memo on a powerful note stating that the Britt claim does not meet the gatekeeping standards of the 2255 and that the constitutional violation has not been proven on the merits. In addition, the unsourced hair claim does not meet the gatekeeping standards of the 2255 and has not met the "extraordinarily high burden as to merits and as a free standing claim of actual innocence..."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Sam Aritan1

San Jose, CA

#7874 Jul 4, 2013
Please tell me this will be over soon, jtf?! It is soooooo clearly indicative of MacD's murderous, narcissistic behaviors and has been for, lo, these 40 years. Can we call it a day now?

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7875 Jul 5, 2013
SAM: This is MacDonald's last REAL shot at a new trial. He knows it, his lawyers know it, and the Government knows it. That is why the Government was beyond thorough in their response memo. I would be shocked if Judge Fox grants MacDonald a new trial. The burden of proof is on the Defense and they didn't come close to meeting that burden.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Cathy

Falls Church, VA

#7876 Jul 31, 2013
I kinda think he's innocent but that's just me.

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7877 Aug 6, 2013
I see that Mac's defense has again asked for (and received) another delay in the time to file. They now have until August 14 to file their reply to the Government's Post-Hearing Memorandum.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/u...
Simon

Toronto, Canada

#7878 Aug 8, 2013
I'm kind of on the fence after reading the chapter in Psychic Dictatorship. Even if Stoeckley is crazy, there were *others* who confirmed she was being followed and harassed? If that's the case, doesn't that indicate her account of the events was threatening to someone?

And why is her comment about being a witch used to discredit her? The occult is real and if you live in a large city, don't be surprised if there are some very real occult groups (many of whom will refer to themselves as witches) of various stripes. I grew up around the occult and stories of the supernatural, which is why I always kind of scoff when it is brought up as if it is self-evidently ludicrous.

And how would you folks respond to Errol Morris' book? I haven't read it myself, but I've heard from some who used to be positive he was guilty that it shook their convictions. And why would *more than one person* confess? Is there any details on why that could have been? Did these people like Helena, Greg and Cathy have something to gain? I doubt you could delude yourself into believing you committed a bloody multi-victim murder, even if you were genuinely crackers. If they lied, they did it consciously, whether they're crazy or not.

I don't know as much as y'all do. The fact that the physical evidence seems to identify him as the culprit is compelling, but if it can be proven that there was a wide-reaching conspiracy, that would essentially bring that evidence into question. Just looking for answers.

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
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 4 hr ICU2 235
Why is there only one example of John Ramsey's ... 8 hr TheJam83 3
small or sma4 10 hr Blue Sage 21
Head Blow and Strangulation 15 hr Just Wondering 71
Possible clue to John's initial lack of involve... 16 hr Just Wondering 104
Pedphile or Foreign Kidnapper Mon Just Wondering 75
What I believe is close to what happened Mon Just Wondering 105
More from around the web