Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might want to read the book " Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinnis. McGinnis had a reputation as a good author and was given access by McDonald and his lawyers to all of the evidence (as well as to McDonald himself). McGinnis began researching his book believing that McDonald was innocent and slowly reached the conclusion he was guilty of murdering his family.
[.
I read that book in the mid to late 80s and could not put it down until I finished it!
Yes this was a fascinating case. There is no doubt that MacDonald killed Colette and his children. I always wondered about the relationship between Jeff and his mother Perry. Perry was an interesting character and I would have loved to know more about her. I always wondered about what really happened when Jeff went away to stay with that family in Texas for a period of time? The MacDonald family appeared to keep things very secret. Perry MacDonald stood by her son through thick and thin but I got the impression that she knew deep down that he killed his family. When Freddie Kassab confronted her she just got up and left without saying anything.
The MacDonald case remains one of the most interesting true crime cases I've ever come across and Fatal Vision one of the very best books of the genre I've read.
Anyone got any insights on Perry?
Thank you for bringing attention to JM's dysfunctional family background. This is rarely, if ever reported by the main stream media and the facts are hard to come by.
He was, in fact, brought up in a very dysfunctional home. His father died at 48 and his brother, Jay, was an alcoholic/drug user who was in trouble from early on. There was also a sister. All of the siblings appeared to have serious issues.
MacDonald grew up on Long Island, NY, the second of three children. He went to Patchogue High School and was absent March of his sophomore year. Having badly injured his older brother in a sibling row, he was sent to Baytown, Texas to stay with friends. Returning to Long Island, he was president of the Student Council, quarterback of the football team, king of the senior prom, voted most likely to succeed and most popular. Blond, 5'11" with a firm handshake, MacDonald is handsome and charismatic. He went to Princeton and finished in three years, going on to Northwestern University Medical School. He spent his intern year at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City.
Yes, he was charismatic. So was Ted Bundy a sociopath and law student.
Whilst "Fatal Vision" was critiqued in book review, fact is McDonald lifted his alibi from the "Manson Murders" which had occurred prior to his actions.
Also military law and the ensuing court cases were quite divergent, military tribunal allowed him to claim "LSD inebriated hippies" did the crime, which most educated psych drs and forensic psychiatrists now know is not possible.
Thank you for bringing attention to JM's dysfunctional family background. This is rarely, if ever reported by the main stream media and the facts are hard to come by.
He was, in fact, brought up in a very dysfunctional home. His father died at 48 and his brother, Jay, was an alcoholic/drug user who was in trouble from early on. There was also a sister. All of the siblings appeared to have serious issues.
I didn't know about all of this. Fits in and makes sense.
Anyone watch the Dick Cavett interview with him? Wowie. It was like he was talking about washing his clothes or going out to dinner. Very nonchalant. No emotional responses. Can you imagine talking about the murder of your pregnant wife and 2 babies and having an affect like that??
I don't think an extraneous hair here or there means anything in comparison to the other evidence. And, that there were "unidentified" palm prints in the house. Well, of course, with people in and out, there are gonna be palm prints and shoe prints that are "unidenitified." In my house, there'd be identified ones, too, work men, visitors, etc, in and out over the years.
I think these attorney's are magnifying any bit of evidence for suspiciouns of doubt. That's what they do, trained to do, but 9 out of 10 people won't fall for that.
The girl in the floppy hat--well, hippy kids were everywhere back then. ANd, what motive did they have to massacre a woman, and her 2 babies, who were not in anyway a threat? But, the big Green beret guy, they left him alone. Ya, right. He was the most threatening of all and they left him with a puncture hole in his lung, and some abrasions.
I feel bad for Colette's brother that they are trying to get this monster off.
just by reading vast amounts of information on this case... i totally agree with you...
Ok, a group of us did an analysis of his case when I was in the law school. I don't know if he is innocent or guilty but we all came away with the result that he did not receive a fair trial.
Oh God, where to start, his case was so botched up that it is nearly impossible to make sense out of the evidence at this point. First, the army investigators messed up the crime scene big time. Huge amounts of evidence including one piece of evidence that could have completely clear him was amazingly lost by the investigators - skin piece found under his daughter's fingernail. (Hair found under one of his daughter's fingernail turned out not to belong to him in a recent DNA testing done by the defense. That alone would make his conviction questionable if this was a normal murder case.)Then, the case was messed up again when FBI lab somehow only analyzed evidence damning to him and evidence that could have potentially clear him was never given to the defense (this is an established fact by the way). Same FBI lab later came under major heat because they were analyzing cases in a way which would support only the government's side in criminal cases. Helena Stoakley, the woman with floppy hat, informed the investigators of her involvement in the murders a day after they took place. She was willing and ready to testify and only changed her tune after the prosecutor refused to give her an immunity which is done all the time in these type of cases. His case went up to the US Supreme court three times and it is true, Barry Shack of the Innocence Project is working on a new trial. If it was such a clear and dry case as some of you seem to think based on some movie, it would not be still an active case after 30 years. It is one of the worst tried criminal cases in the modern history. I personally don't know what to make of the evidence but nothing I saw about his case could answer me one simple question:
Nothing I saw was able to explain to me how in the first few moments after army police walked into his house, Macdonald was able to give them a description of four people, one woman and three men, who not only existed but were seen by others around his house that night and at one time or another, couple of these people actually accepted being involved in these murders. I mean he did not give some nondescript story – he said the woman was wearing a wig and floppy hat, one of the man was black and had a jacket with sergeant stripes etc…I don’t know. The jury may have come to a different conclusion if what is known about the case today was known back then.
At this point, the case is important not because of his innocence or guilt but because how he was tried. Think about it people, if government can hide evidence, force witnesses to change testimony, botch crime scenes and convict a Princeton educated doctor based on it, who protects all of us from this kind treatment? If there is one case that deserves a retrial, I think it is this one.
short but sweet if he received a civillian trial i believe it be a whole diffrent out come... i (now this is my belief ) he in my eyes is guilty... the reason i believe this is because of the wounds to him... i know thats no way a guilty by charged evidence but thats just me... like i was saying before i believe is it wasnt a military court system there would probally diffrent outcome... i have not read the books on this case ..but now id love to... its a twisted case either way... alot of twists and turns...
About 40 years ago, around the time McDonald killed his family, police psychologists discovered that the most commonly used lie the killer used was to claim A Bushy Haired Stranger was the killer.
The bushy haired stranger, usually tall and often black or a minority, was the one who appeared suddenly out of the darkness and killed the wife, or the babies or both. The lie is used so much that it's now a giveaway to investigators they have their killer in the interrogation room. While there are many variations, those words- bushy haired stranger- always are in the story. Sometimes just one, other times several. The bushy haired stranger can sometimes be female, but rarely.
McDonald used it. So did Susan Smith, the mom who drowned her 2 small kids strapped into their seat belts while the car sank in a reservoir, as did dozens of killers who have had books written about them.
McDonald caught a lucky break. There just happened to be a mentally disturbed girl in town that fit his very generalized description. Most of the cops and MPs who investigated scene believed he was the murderer from the first.
McDonald had a few other things going for him as well. He was a green beret, and back then, the green berets were like the Lone Ranger; they could do no wrong. He was blonde, tall, blue-eyed and handsome. Men are as predisposed to think of a guy like him to be innocent as women are. He was also a pretty good actor and had a quick and glib tongue. He could always come up with something on the spot that always hinted he was innocent, and hints are considered more carefully than bold statements, as they are harder to prove or disprove.
One more thing in his favor: family murders are often difficult in collecting physical evidence. When a weapon like a kitchen knife is used, every bit of evidence on the knife can often be explained away, because it's used by everyone in the family. Most evidence proves nothing either way.
What convicted McDonald was his actions after the killings, not his words. He convinced his father-in-law he would never rest until he found the killers, but as soon as his family was buried, he quit the Army and moved to the opposite coast, where he became a playboy, displaying no signs of grief to anyone except his father-in-law. And he never looked a bit troubled.
But whenever he was in court, he always made a big show of grief, despair, and regret that he was unable to save any of them.
Any father who loves his kids and wife, even if they're having marital troubles, does not act like Jeffrey McDonald did. The real feelings always show up in some way, some time. That's what finally convinced Freddie DeKalb, his father-in-law he was guilty, and convinced Joe McGinness as well. And all the juries and judges that followed.
Jeffrey McDonald may not have wanted his family dead, but he wanted them to be gone, out of his life. And he wanted to get out of the Army and from all the obligations that he would have, married or divorced. I believe he was taking methamphetamines, and I think the drugs simply lowered his boiling point. A bad argument turned into a murder, then another, then another. Meth rage is well known now, more than back then, and similar murders happen all the time with meth users.
The exceptional stuff, like the complicated stories and lies McDonald made up, are just that- exceptional and very rare in real life everyday murder. They are just like the bushy haired stranger- an attempt at creating something so suspiciously colorful that the mundane facts fade to the background.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
