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.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7879 Aug 8, 2013
SIMON: Helena Stoeckley did not suffer from a major mental illness. Stoeckley was an attention-seeking teenager whose behavior was altered by chronic substance dependence. Her substance use was so severe that she died at the age of 30. There is not a shred of physical evidence linking Stoeckley to the crime scene, she confessed and recanted several times over, and she testified at the 1979 trial that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70.

In 2011, I spoke for 90 minutes on the phone with Errol Morris and he is nothing more than a con man and journalistic vulture. His book is an absolute mess. He studiously ignores the evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction and he relies on distortion and hyperbole to sell his dubious assertion that MacDonald was railroaded. Claims are not evidence, but Morris clearly felt that he could sucker the general public into believing in his fantasy narrative.

This case is open and shut. MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours of 3 counts of murder due to the inculpatory nature of the evidence collected at the crime scene. This includes blood, fiber, hair, bloody footprint, bloody fabric/non fabric impression, and fabric damage evidence. In 2006, DNA test results produced 5 inculpatory exhibits which included MacDonald's broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in his dead wife's left hand. MacDonald is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilty beyond ALL doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7880 Aug 9, 2013
SIMON: In regards to the confessions of Perry, Stoeckley, and Mitchell...

1) It's important to note that the FIRST time that Stoeckley communicated her thoughts about the MacDonald case to anyone was two days after the murders. She spoke with Fayetteville Observer Reporter Pat Reese and told him the SAME story she told under oath at the 1979 trial. Reese was also a part-time drug counselor, so he knew Stoeckley and believed her claim that she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70 due to excessive drug use.

2) Perry was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia and was cleared by the CID in 1971 due to the FACT that no hairs or fingerprints of Perry were found at the crime scene. Thirteen years later, Perry called the FBI and confessed to taking part in the murders. The details of her confession are at odds with everything we know about this case and she does not mention Stoeckley or Mitchell being present at the crime scene. Perry recanted that confession 6 months later.

3) There is no concrete evidence that Greg Mitchell confessed to anyone. The "evidence" that he confessed is a mixture of hearsay, assumption, and fabrication. Mitchell was investigated by the CID in 1971, the FBI in 1981, and he signed statements for both organizations claiming that he was not involved in the MacDonald murders. Mitchell's denials were backed by the FACT that none of his DNA, hairs, and/or fingerprints were found at the crime scene. Mitchell also passed a polygraph exam in 1971.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Biased for truth

Philadelphia, PA

#7881 Aug 12, 2013
Mac is guilty and he's a pathological liar! A cheater, and a killer. Noes he's just a prisoner and his flesh is rotting away. Well done Jeff. Awe he beat himself with a club just above the hairline... Right in the face for the other 3. What a waste of a human being!
JTF wrote:
Henriboy: Please enlighten me and everyone else on this thread to the "bull" listed in my post. Please be specific. Oh, I almost forgot. You've never been able to dispute any of facts that led to the conviction of your hero and you continue to repeat the same debunked claims over and over again. Posting a dubious claim for the 13th time doesn't make it less dubious. You will continue to search the archives for articles that make outdated claims and post them on this thread. That is how you operate, but don't think for a minute that MacDonald case researchers will not call you out for posting MacDonald camp propaganda. Jeffrey MacDonald is exactly where he belongs.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7882 Aug 13, 2013
And here we go again...

Today the defense filed yet another motion for a delay in the time to file their reply to the Government's Post-Hearing Memorandum:

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

Let's hope they actually file on the 21st. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if a week from now we see a request for yet another delay.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7883 Aug 15, 2013
The regurgitated claims leveled by the Defense is similar to the "proof" put forth by believers in Bigfoot, UFO's, and Ghosts. There is an abundance of data to analyze, but none of the data is any good. The Defense in this case has the burden of proof and as the Government pointed out in their 200 page response memo, they have failed to meet that burden.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7884 Aug 22, 2013
The defense has finally filed its Reply to Government's Post-Hearing Memorandum:

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

Since: Jan 09

Phoenix, AZ

#7885 Aug 22, 2013
After reading the latest filing by the defense, and the supporting exhibits, I can only conclude that they are completely out of gas when it comes to trying to get Mac's sentence vacated.

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

This was, imo, a very weak response. When the lies (such as that Mac supposedly never said the intruders were "hippies") and the hype are stripped away, there's not much left. They still insist that Britt transported Stoeckley as he says he did, and that he heard Blackburn threaten Stoeckley, even though Britt seems to have been shown to be not credible on these issues, They also still insist that the three unsourced hairs are "powerful" evidence of intruders (while continuing to ignore the other hundreds of unsourced fibers), while at the same time saying only that the hairs "could have" come from intruders.

As I said to someone recently, Mac's trying to climb Mt. Everest with a 2255-lb (or 3600-lb.) weight on his back, and at this point, it looks increasingly doubtful that he'll ever reach the peak.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7886 Aug 22, 2013
I knew the brief would be shorter than their original 130 page response memo, but this ball of nothing makes me question the work ethic of Mr. Widenhouse. Gordie was so lazy that his exhibits list includes articles written by Harvey Silverglate and Laurie Cohen's infamous 1997 WSJ article which leaned on Bost and Silverglate for the meat of the article.

The 37 pages of hollow chatter relies on soundbytes and hyperbole to "prove" that inmate deserves a new trial. Gordie could care less about context when he flatly states that unsourced hairs equals home invaders and that the claims of Stoeckley/Britt/Leonard are true because they said so. What is clear is that the Government will destroy this piece of toilet paper in their sur-reply. This will be easy pickins' for Murtagh/Bruce/Cooley.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Biased for truth

New Freedom, PA

#7887 Aug 22, 2013
Watch the 60 minutes interview where JM admits using, then squirms when cornered by his own handwritten notes stating he used a lot of the drug which was later pulled due to its side affects. It makes absolute perfect sense he was high when he perpetrated this brutal crime. He was probably also molesting his daughter which is why he's lying about which one was in the master bedroom that night. Sorry but anyone that also reads the April 6, 1970 interview and doesn't see the truth is probably in need of a Dr. Pun intended.
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you telling me that Dr. MacDonald didn't win his court case in 1987 in California against Joe McGinniss? It might not have been for libel but it was almost certainly for fraud, and probably for breach of contract. Joe McGinnniss is a fraudster like the convicted and imprisoned MacDonald prosecutor Blackburn and the total liar former FBI agent Malone, and the devious mind of Murtagh.
The whole premise of the McGinniss Fatal Vision book was that Dr. MacDonald supposedly murdered his wife and beloved daughters in some sort of amphetamine psychosis. That was proven not to be true at the 1987 court case and to say it is true on the internet is going against a proven court decision.
That makes the whole of the Fatal Vision book suspect. If McGinniss can't get any motive for the murders right then what exactly is the right judgment and factual evidence in that Fatal Vision book, which has kept MacDonald in prison wrongly now for thirty years?
There is some background information to all this from an internet review of the pro-MacDonald Fatal Justice book:
"Joe McGinniss: "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."
Fourteen years ago, Joe McGinniss's best-selling book, Fatal Vision, depicted MacDonald as guilty. McGinniss theorized that MacDonald had abused diet pills, had suffered a violent amphetamine psychosis, and in a fit of rage, had murdered his family because one of the children wet the bed. The book and the pursuant movie convinced millions that this actually occurred.
Yet, in a sworn deposition on October 30, 1986, McGinniss, incredibly, admitted he did not personally believe his own theory. He explained, under oath, that he had introduced the diet pill theory as a dramatic device in his "new journalism" where the story is more important than the facts. When asked why he said that he'd learned MacDonald had ingested an overdose of diet pills (which he had not learned at all), he said he hadn't wanted to give his readers the same old "rehash of the trial."
McGinniss finally revealed his true feelings about his central theory, the theory that had made him rich, and had convinced millions of people that MacDonald was guilty. Under oath, during hard questions by MacDonald's attorney, he admitted, "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7888 Aug 23, 2013
For all of Gordie's bluster regarding the CLAIMS leveled by Stoeckley/Britt, he still hasn't met the "extraordinarily" high burden placed upon him by the 2255. In addition, his 37 page reply didn't prove that MacDonald's constitutional rights were violated and he wasn't in the same stratosphere in regards to proving actual innocence. It took Gordie 44 days to produce 37 pages of what amounts to a synopsis of his original 130 page memo. LOL.

In addition, the Government produced two booklets worth of exhibits in their 200 page response memo, yet all Gordie can produce is a few updated affidavits and articles written by MacDonald advocates. LOL. I'm not cutting Gordie any slack because he knew that this would be his last legitimate shot at achieving relief for his client AND he knew that the Government would be given an opportunity to have the final word. The Government won't produce another 200 page reply memo, but their sur-reply will most likely dwarf Gordie's regurgitated list of soundbytes, hearsay testimony, and hype.

Ironically, the Government's sur-reply is due almost one year to the day of the end of the evidentiary hearing. Historically, Judge Fox has taken two years to decide on significant case issues. Examples include...

- 1997-1999 Decision on issues related to DNA testing

- 2006-2008 Decision on MacDonald's bid for a new trial

I would love for Judge Fox to make a decision before the New Year, but I believe that the earliest we can expect a decision would be late Spring of next year. If he decides by Christmas to deny MacDonald relief, the Defense will argue to the 4th Circuit Court that a quick decision demonstrates that Judge Fox is biased and they will demand that a new judge be assigned this case. The old "fresh set of eyes" argument. Judge Fox has bent over backwards for the Defense and he doesn't want to give the 4th Circuit Court ANY reason to prolong this legal circus.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Feb 12

Newark, DE

#7889 Sep 7, 2013
I hate to say it, but mac should get a refund from Gordie. All of Gordie's responses were about as useful as Bernie's closing arguments at the trial. Like giving a fish a bicycle. This whole fiasco of Gordie's has been a complete waste of the gov's time and money. All BS, nothing new.

Love how the defense made out that the hair fragments on Kris meant that each hair fragment was from one of the killers. And the gov pointed out that if that was true, then the dog hair found on Kris's bed meant that one of the killers was a dog (well, that part is true, since mac is a dog, as he behaved like one when he was married to Colette---humping anything in his path).

On another subject, based on a conversation I had, it seems that the consensus is that Rebel (and her many versions of herself) on Christina's yuku board is Kathy MacDooffus.

I felt it was someone that Mrs. Ice Pick Baby Murderer knew, since there seemed to be so much insider information. I thought it was a fanatical pal of Kathy's, but it was noted that KM is supposedly very ill and that coincidentally, Rebel has not been posting for the last few months.

I wonder what ails the lovely little wife?(as KM used to refer to herself). I wonder if what ails her is physical or mental? Or both? Rebel/KM has a screw loose, as her comments about watching and reporting on Christina's activities during the trial came under the category of stalking. What a whack job.

Rebel/Kathy thought she was too good for this world, so maybe she is making the great escape to the great beyond, and can continue to stalk in the form of a ghost.






Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7890 Sep 9, 2013
I was looking at the posts and didn't find Henri regurgitating his normal drivel.

I went to another board, where Henri wrote the following-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php...

"I have been blocked from posting on Topix, I think because the White House wants to cover-up their bugging and bumping off, and imprisonment, of journalists because they don't like political embarrassment, and the media doesn't like controversy. Officialdom never admits a mistake."
----------

Wow, it takes ALOT to get banned, here. Glad Henri was finally forced to move on. No one misses his rabid posts.

Since: Feb 12

Newark, DE

#7891 Sep 9, 2013
There is a new site that contains MacDonald information, my review is below.

Crime Archives (CA) is a much better organized than Christina’s site (Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site, JMIS). The navigation of the TMIS is all screwed up, plus the SITE DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A NAME. When I go the “home” page (which has a picture of Colette, Kris, and Kim, and summarizes the case), there is no site name listed. Also, once you click off the home page, there is no link to ever take you back to it.

Sometimes the navigation is on the left, other times, it is at the bottom of the page, where it just looks like a hot mess. The colors and are just hideous, the design is ugly, and it is hard to read when the text is on a black screen.

I am assuming the big ugly blue, peach, and purple bar at the top is supposed to have the site name, but it has gone missing. There used to be this god awful music playing when you went to the site, I no longer have it, but there is a message about updating Java (which I won’t do, if this is related to the sappy music).

TJMIS has the new uploads site with center justification, which is just a pain the neck to read.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/n...

CA new uploads site is left justified, nice and clean, and easy to read.
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/u...

In the JMIS, the dates are often wrong, the date should be the date ON the document, NOT the date it is received.

Seriously, now, which is easier to read?
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/f...

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/f...

CA has a list of resources that shows all sorts of news articles and provides links to useful sites and information. There are NO links on TJMIS. Why is THAT exactly?

The bottom line is that CA is the superior site, plus it covers cases other than MacDonald's.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

South Burlington, VT

#7892 Sep 14, 2013
I assumed that the first time that the general public was made aware of Freddy Kassab's theory that inmate was molesting Kimmie was when Bob Stevenson allowed Christina to post Freddy's thoughts on her website. Despite owning the book for two decades, I only recently ran across the following excerpt from Janet Malcolm's THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER. The following is a dialogue between Malcolm and Dr. Michael Stone.

I asked him, "Isn't it possible that bad things were done to MacDonald in his early years? That his childhood wasn't all that idyllic, and that he repressed what happened?"

"Yes."

"If you knew that to be so, would you feel more benign toward him?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because he's a liar. Because he's not man enough to say, "I committed those murders because I was under the influence of amphetamines. I didn't know what I was doing. Colette was taking a course in psychology, she was going to wear the pants in the family. This was threatening to me; I felt left out. I was beginning to fondle the older girl too much, and she caught me'- this is Colette's stepfather's theory; he told me about it during the trial -'so in a moment of frenzied feeling that ruined my whole life, I just killed the whole lot of them.' If he could say all that, I'd still want him put away for the rest of his life, but at least I'd have some respect for the fact that he could be honest about what happened. No way. He can't do that. He's not built to do that."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
sam aritan 1

San Jose, CA

#7893 Sep 15, 2013
I believe wholeheartedly that what Dr. Stone posits here is absolutely true. Every piece, every nuance of it. It also goes a long way toward explaining why macD has always been so foolishly bull-headed about who wet the bed. There is no rational purpose to sticking to THAT particular lie other than to hide the fact that beyond being a heartless murderer, he is also a sexual deviant in his 'secret heart'. Ugh! How I despise this monster...
glazier

Mckees Rocks, PA

#7894 Sep 22, 2013
Oh Wow!
Henri takes his show on the road to JREF!
with disastrous results as expected.
JREF -'where conspiracy theories go to die'
tough crowd, eh Henri? Unfounded DRIVEL and special pleading will not fly over there.

So it looks as though we will have to wait a while longer for CLOSURE huh?
Oh well...I'm not going anywhere...
and it appears neither is MacMurder!

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
The Forgotten Suspect 7 hr Capricorn 110
Haapy Thanksgiving 7 hr Mama2JML 8
Martha Moxley 8 hr Mama2JML 52
Note-odd detail? Tue Note 2,258
"Note-Free Case Discussion" Tue paulflynn12 28
Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ramsey case, ... (Aug '13) Tue Capricorn 316
John Ramsey and Child Pornography Nov 24 Legal__Eagle 37

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE