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.
I don't think you can really say there's "no doubt" that MacDonald is guilty. Some of the forensic stuff that was used against him -- the stuff involving the tipping-over of the chair, the wound patterns on the shirt matching up with the stab wounds, etc. -- is pretty easy to discredit, and a "hippie girl" like the one JM described was, in fact, picked up by the police, and actually confessed. I'd say that's reasonable doubt right there.
Also, McGinnis has been pretty roundly acknowledged as slimy, where journalistic ethics are concerned.
I don't think you can really say there's "no doubt" that MacDonald is guilty. Some of the forensic stuff that was used against him -- the stuff involving the tipping-over of the chair, the wound patterns on the shirt matching up with the stab wounds, etc. -- is pretty easy to discredit, and a "hippie girl" like the one JM described was, in fact, picked up by the police, and actually confessed. I'd say that's reasonable doubt right there.
Also, McGinnis has been pretty roundly acknowledged as slimy, where journalistic ethics are concerned.
Stoeckley was a troubled young woman, to put it charitably. Her confession was not reliable on its face. And his description of her was not exactly detailed. I'll agree that the hole pattern/wound match was a stretch. To show it could happen that way is a lot different from proving that it actually did. The fiber evidence was considerably stronger, though. Couple that with a complete lack of evidence that anyone else was in the house, and that's pretty damning. And reading the transcript of his initial interview, it's clear to me that he was telling a story.
I don't think McGinnis did anything unethical in this case. I've seen it said on this thread that his book was discredited, but that's not really true. Before his death, he offered a response to the MacDonald ordeal. I think it's worth reading. The 1989 Epilogue | JOE McGINNISS
So... McDonald and his wife were having an argument about their daughter wetting the bed (!), and that was supposedly sufficient to motivate him to murder his entire family? Then he disposes of the murder weapons by TOSSING THEM OUT THE BACK DOOR??? That's just not very convincing to me. And most of the "fiber" evidence could be explained by McDonald simply being disoriented after being attacked -- being wrong about where he was when his shirt got torn, or whether he was still wearing it when he picked up his daughter, etc.
If I recall from reading the book, it was the fiber evidence along with the fact they had different blood types that made his story impossible.
The forensic evidence would have convinced me beyond a REASONABLE doubt.
So... McDonald and his wife were having an argument about their daughter wetting the bed (!), and that was supposedly sufficient to motivate him to murder his entire family? Then he disposes of the murder weapons by TOSSING THEM OUT THE BACK DOOR??? That's just not very convincing to me. And most of the "fiber" evidence could be explained by McDonald simply being disoriented after being attacked -- being wrong about where he was when his shirt got torn, or whether he was still wearing it when he picked up his daughter, etc.
It wasn't just one thing with MacDonald it was everything. The fibre and blood evidence (each member had a different blood group) they could tell by the blood who bled where and where exactly each family member was (including MacDonald). The story he told was completely unbelievable and did not match the evidence.
He described the hippy woman and said she had a very slimline nose and one noticeable thing about Helena Stoeckley was her large, bulbous nose. They could find no evidence of all these drug crazed hippies in the house and MacDonald's pyjama top fibres where were they shouldn't have been. There was a big fuss made about some hair on Colette that wasn't tested. This hair was dark and supposedly not from MacDonald. When the hair was finally tested it was a leg hair from guess who?
There is so much evidence against him that I don't know how anyone could believe he isn't guilty. His demeanor after the crimes drew attention to himself. His father-in-law Freddy Kassab was completely supportive of him until he got suspicious because of MacDonald's behaviour. This is why he wanted to read the Article 32 Hearing information and of course once Freddy read that it was all over red rover.
I don't think you can really say there's "no doubt" that MacDonald is guilty. Some of the forensic stuff that was used against him -- the stuff involving the tipping-over of the chair, the wound patterns on the shirt matching up with the stab wounds, etc. -- is pretty easy to discredit, and a "hippie girl" like the one JM described was, in fact, picked up by the police, and actually confessed. I'd say that's reasonable doubt right there.
Also, McGinnis has been pretty roundly acknowledged as slimy, where journalistic ethics are concerned.
I can say with no doubt that McDonald will never be released from prison.
He has filed many appeals over decades, and he's still locked up. While there may be lingering doubts as to his innocence, there are none in the courts. The courts have gone over all the disputations several times, and always deny his appeals.
Journalistic ethics aside, McGinniss got it right. The closer anyone studies McDonald, the more his guilt becomes apparent. McDonald sued McGinniss once, over the book, but the lawsuit failed in the courts.
From what I read, I believe he is guilty. It's the little things that stick out that don't add up. One example given above is the ax being held high when the ceiling was too low for that. Another is the fact that the coffee table couldn't just be knocked down on its side--when the law enforcement people tried it it would always roll all the way over so that the top was on the floor. The coffee table had to be PLACED on its side. The last part is that he was a doctor and everyone else in the house gets butchered like meat but he gets a tiny careful incision that wasn't life-threatening. Plus a magazine about the Manson murders is in the living room and he suddenly has the same type of people invade his home. C'mon.
He is one about which I really have no doubt. For the reasons that you mentioned. He was a cold blooded murderer.
Just finished reading "A Wilderness of Error", and while I've got a lot of respect for most of Morris' previous work as a filmmaker/documentarian, can honestly say he did nothing to change my mind about McDonald's guilty verdict.
Of course there were multiple errors beginning with the initial Army CID processing of the crime scene, through the nine year delay in bringing the case to trial (the Army article 32 hearing WAS NOT a trial), missteps from both the prosecution and defense (relying on Ted Gunderson as a credible investigator?). The list goes on and on, and now that most of the principals surrounding the case, sadly including Joe McGinness, have passed on; any conjectures of McDonald's innocence seem more and more meaningless. Thankfully, given his protestation of being "factually innocent", it is unlikely he would ever be paroled (next hearing is in 2020).
I can say with no doubt that McDonald will never be released from prison.
He has filed many appeals over decades, and he's still locked up. While there may be lingering doubts as to his innocence, there are none in the courts. The courts have gone over all the disputations several times, and always deny his appeals.
Journalistic ethics aside, McGinniss got it right. The closer anyone studies McDonald, the more his guilt becomes apparent. McDonald sued McGinniss once, over the book, but the lawsuit failed in the courts.
Yes. I already posted about this fiend here so I'll just add that the McGinniss flap is a lot of rot, and proves the lengths some will go to to grasp at straws.
The book, and the TV movie based on it, employed the usual dramatizations. The book was simply based on the case.
Forget Hollyweird, folks. When McDonald's stepfather-in-law who, with his wife initially supported McDonald, changed his mind...it wasn't after reading someone's book, but scrutinizing transcripts and evidence.
That [bleep] partied once during his earliest (failed) appeal. I hope he had a good time because he's not going anywhere.
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.
Errol Morris book
