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.
No, he really didn't. However, that isn't the point nor is it with McDonald. The point is that there was reasonable doubt in both cases.
I don't know what reasonable doubt could be in MacDonald's case? No evidence of intruders and all the forensic evidence points to MacDonald. The crime has been well reconstructed from the blood evidence and the other evidence such as MacDonald's pyjama top and the sheets. There were fibres from MacDonald's pyjama top found under the bodies of Colette and the children when he said he had removed his pyjama top in the living room and had it around his arms when he was fighting the intruders; oddly no pyjama top fibres found there. Also how did he get Colette and Kimberly's blood on his pyjama top before it was torn and when he didn't have it on when he went to check on his wife and children's bodies? There is so much evidence in MacDonald's case squarely showing he is the murderer.
I also think that Sheppard is the murderer of his wife but we aren't discussing that case here.
If people believe MacDonald then what a useless Green Beret he was. He apparently went out cold after some very superficial injuries whilst his pregnant wife fought valiantly to save her children. She had two broken arms and was struck 6 times on the head with someone swinging the bat so high that cast off blood was left high up on the walls and blood streaks on the ceiling. She also sustained numerous stab founds (14 deep stab wounds and 21 puncture wounds). This alone requires explanation. And why butcher the two small children? Their injuries were numerous and shocking. Why did MacDonald get off so lightly? Why wasn't he brutally hit with a club and stabbed deeply numerous times? How can that rationally be explained? The man left with minimal injuries whilst the pregnant woman and two small girls are brutally killed. That's extremely suspect. Why such viciousness against the defenceless children? Why weren't they let off as lightly as their father? Surely they would make sure he was dead and give him the same treatment as the rest of the family especially as he is the most serious threat.
The way MacDonald explained what happened didn't line up with the forensic evidence. They could tell who was where from the blood evidence. Remember that all the MacDonalds' had a different blood group. The story from his own mouth didn't line up with what was found. That can't be explained by any incompetence on the part of the Army.
Why did MacDonald, the trained Green Beret and amateur boxer not do anything to save his family from these druggies? Also why did these druggies not take the numerous medications that he had that weren't locked away?
This isn't even looking at all the forensic evidence that is stacked against MacDonald.
AR: The only "wows" to be found in the ID show were its brazen attempts to create a fictional version of the MacDonald case. The documented record tells a far different story. None of the evidence presented in this mess of a show was ever sourced to Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell or any other intruder suspect. No DNA. No hairs. No fibers. No bloody footprints. No fingerprints. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Jeffrey MacDonald, on the other hand, cannot escape from the fact that ALL of the sourced evidence in this case points to him as being the lone criminal agent.
1) DNA testing of a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand led to the conclusion that Jeffrey MacDonald was the source of that hair.
2) Three bloody footprints found exiting Kristen's room were sourced to Jeffrey MacDonald.
3) Fibers sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top were found under the bedcovers of Kristen/Kimmie, under the fingernail of Kristen, under the body of Colette and by the headboard of the master bed where the word PIG was written in Colette's blood. MacDonald denies wearing his pajama top when he "found" his daughters dead in their bedrooms.
4) Bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top were found on bedding used to transport Colette and Kimmie to their respective bedrooms. MacDonald denies touching this bedding on 2/17/70.
5) Kimmie's blood was found on inmate's pajama top and Colette's blood was found on inmate's pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE the garment was torn down the left front seam.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
His in laws were so convinced he was innocent until they saw the blood evidence. It clearly painted a story and showed who and how he killed each family member. His father in law studied this evidence not wanting to believe it. He did, though, come to the conclusion that this SIL was the monster who did it.
Just finished Wilderness of Errors, and I DO think there is a definitely reasonable doubt. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions, but two thing clinched it for me:
1. Helena (the "hippie") knew that the rocking horse was broken LONG before it was reported anywhere.
2. One of the fake hair fibers (doll or wig) found in the home was 24 inches long, and according to a Mattel doll expert, no doll's hair at that time was nearly that long.
Also, there is the fact that there were numerous witnesses to Helena's confessions that were either not interviewed or were not permitted to testify. Also, there are alternative explanations for all the fiber, blood, etc. evidence.
Again, I am not saying that MacDonald IS innocent, but I firmly believe after reading the book, that he should not have been found guilty based on what was permitted to be presented by the defense.
Last edited by katharsis; 02-06-2017 at 03:16 PM..
Just finished Wilderness of Errors, and I DO think there is a definitely reasonable doubt. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions, but two thing clinched it for me:
1. Helena (the "hippie") knew that the rocking horse was broken LONG before it was reported anywhere.
2. One of the fake hair fibers (doll or wig) found in the home was 24 inches long, and according to a Mattel doll expert, no doll's hair at that time was nearly that long.
Also, there is the fact that there were numerous witnesses to Helena's confessions that were either not interviewed or were not permitted to testify. Also, there are alternative explanations for all the fiber, blood, etc. evidence.
Again, I am not saying that MacDonald IS innocent, but I firmly believe after reading the book, that he should not have been found guilty based on what was permitted to be presented by the defense.
You might want to read this article. Anyone wanting to know the facts should read this.
"There are many significant, incriminating facts glossed over in, or completely omitted from, “A Wilderness of Error.†Conversely, much is made of nonsense. An entire chapter is devoted to the supposedly startling fact that Helena Stoeckley reported seeing a broken rocking horse in Kristy’s room. Yes, the horse had been clearly visible in newspaper photos, but no one, Morris argues, had ever publicly disclosed it was broken.
There may be a good reason for that: It doesn’t appear to have been broken. Murtagh and his colleagues demonstrated that effectively in Wilmington, producing a rocking horse of identical design and comparing it with crime-scene photos of the original. There’s only one way to disable that horse, and it’s by disconnecting a spring, and if you do, it lists dramatically to one side; the toy at the crime scene was upright. In Morris’s book, the only confirmation of the claim that the toy was broken was from a close friend of Jeffrey MacDonald’s mother."
Thanks for that. I did read it and am now rereading Fatal Vision, and I am still open-minded about the case not only because of the what I wrote in my earlier post, but because of Joe's book. I think it is widely accepted that Joe's version was definitely slanted, perhaps to increase sales. His book was full of "might have's", just like Murtaugh's interview in the link posted. (And, yes, this also applied to Morris's book.)
I think that Dr. MacDonald behaved very insensitively after the murders and that he had been a cheater during his marriage did not "sit well" with many people, including myself. However, I just cannot see him killing his wife, two little daughters, and unborn son; and that feeds into my doubt, too, along with Morris's extensive research into what people said about Helena in the days and years following the murders. (However, I do admit that some of the witnesses about Helena's behavior and confessions did not appear to be very reliable witnesses.)
I also cannot imagine why he would have killed Kristy if she was sleeping and unaware of what was going on. How much could a two-year-old say in court or to an interviewer that would be believed without a doubt? And unless Dr. MacDonald was in some kind of blind, completely unthinking rage, how could he murder his little daughters whom he loved -- I don't think it is debated by too many people that he did love his daughters, at least -- so coldly? (Btw, because I have read so many instances of psychologists/psychiatrists "reading" people and getting them completely wrong, I take whatever they say as nothing but an interesting theory that might or might not be true.)
Also, regarding the hair found in Colette's hand -- I would find this more suspicious if there were more hairs than just (apparently) one. If she was fighting for her life, how likely would it have been that she just pulled out one hair?
But, on the other hand (no pun intended), I am still very skeptical about the bloody pajama top, and it does seem strange to say the least that this big strong Green Beret would not have made more of an effort to fight for his family and do some major damage to the supposed murderous intruders. Yes, it was claimed that he was lying (sleeping?) on the sofa and awoke to find Helena standing over him (and this is another supposed fact -- that she knew that his glasses and book were on the floor by the sofa without being told) -- but again, I admit that I am very skeptical of how Dr. MacDonald described his behavior during the attack.
So, the bottom line for me is that maybe Dr. MacDonald DID murder his family, but if the case Morris made in his book had been presented to me as a juror, I certainly would have been left with some doubt; I think this case was as mishandled as the O.J. Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases were -- although in those cases, the murderer(s) were not convicted (although, as I'm sure you know, O.J. is now in prison due to the Las Vegas robbery conviction).
i would love to have more feedback from other people who have read both books.
Last edited by katharsis; 02-07-2017 at 08:47 AM..
Reason: Typos and omitted words
He's guilty- read the book by J McGinnis. I believe he was molesting his daughter, and his wife was going to turn him in. Seriously- it's an excellent book. MacDonald is a con man and an egomaniac.
Thanks for that. I did read it (and I am now rereading Fatal Vision, and I am still open-minded about the case not only because of the what I wrote in my earlier post, but because of Joe's book. I think it is widely accepted that Joe's version was definitely slanted, perhaps to increase sales. His book was full of "might have's", just like Murtaugh's interview in the link posted. (And, yes, this also applied to Morris's book.)
I think that Dr. MacDonald behaved very insensitively after the murders and that he had been a cheater during his marriage did not "sit well" with many people, including myself. However, I just cannot see him killing his wife, two little daughters, and unborn son; and that feeds into my doubt, too, along with Morris's extensive research into what people said about Helena in the days and years following the murders. (However, I do admit that some of the witnesses about Helena's behavior and confessions did not appear to be very reliable witnesses.)
I also cannot imagine why he have killed Kristy if she was sleeping and unaware of what was going on? How much could a two-year-old say in court or to an interviewer that would be believed without a doubt? And unless Dr. MacDonald was in some kind of blind, completely unthinking rage, how could he murder is little daughter whom he loved -- I don't think it is debated by too many people that he did love his daughters, at least -- so coldly? (Btw, because I have read so many instances of psychologists/psychiatrists "reading" people and getting them completely wrong, I take whatever they say as nothing but an interesting theory that might or might not be true.)
Also, regarding the hair found in Colette's hand -- I would find this more suspicious if there were more hairs than just (apparently) one. If she was fighting for her life, how likely would it have been that she just pulled out one hair? However, I am still very skeptical about the with the pajama top.
But, on the other hand (no pun intended), it does seem strange to say the least that this big strong Green Beret would not have made more of an effort to fight for his family and do some major damage to the supposed murderous intruders. (Yes, it was claimed that he was lying (sleeping?) on the sofa and awoke to find Helena standing over him (and this is another supposed fact -- that she knew that his glasses and book were on the floor by the sofa without being told) -- but again, I admit that I am very skeptical of how Dr. MacDonald described his behavior during the attack.
So, the bottom line for me is that maybe Dr. MacDonald DID murder his family, but if the case Morris made in his book had been presented to me as a juror, I certainly would have been left with some doubt; I think this case was as mishandled as the O.J. Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases were -- although in those cases, the murderer(s) were not convicted (although, as I'm sure you know, O.J. is now in prison due to the Las Vegas robbery conviction).
i would love to have more feedback from other people who have read both books.
It is a fascinating case and I've been interested in it for years. MacDonald was a malignant narcissist and he only thought about himself. People have a difficult time comprehending this. There are many cases of fathers and mothers killing their children. The killing of Kirsten was truly coldblooded. The murders of his wife and Kimberley was when he had lost complete control and went too far in a blind rage. It all happened so quickly and the damage was done. He was convicted of first degree murder of Kirsten because it was a calculated murder. He killed his youngest child so that it would fit in with his story about drug crazed hippies on a murder spree. Truly diabolical and if anyone looks at the evidence in this case they would see how no one other than MacDonald is the killer.
Fatal Vision is one of the best true crime books anyone can read. The evidence is all laid out very clearly in the book. Remember the jury convicted MacDonald on the evidence. People go on about MacDonald not getting a fair trial but forget how many appeals and how convoluted this case was. This case has dragged on for years. A lot of what Morris said in his book might go down okay with novices to the case but anyone that knows the history and evidence in this case knows it is all smoke and mirrors. The evidence in this case against MacDonald is overwhelming and I personally can't understand how anyone would think there is any doubt about his guilt.
Discussion is good though but read up about Helena Stoeckley and you will understand why no one took her seriously. She changed her story so many times and had major psychiatric and drug dependency problems. She was also a person that would do anything for approval and wanted all the drama and attention. There was also no evidence in that house of her presence and the people she fingered as accomplices were all cleared. How could 4 people rampage through that house and not leave more evidence? Helena was a nutter but I doubt she could have slaughtered 2 children. She was quite a sensitive person but just completely mixed up and couldn't remember what she did from one day to the next.
If anyone just looks at how MacDonald says the murders happened and compares his story to the evidence it is fairly obvious that he isn't telling the truth.
Thanks for that. I did read it and am now rereading Fatal Vision, and I am still open-minded about the case not only because of the what I wrote in my earlier post, but because of Joe's book. I think it is widely accepted that Joe's version was definitely slanted, perhaps to increase sales. His book was full of "might have's", just like Murtaugh's interview in the link posted. (And, yes, this also applied to Morris's book.)
I think that Dr. MacDonald behaved very insensitively after the murders and that he had been a cheater during his marriage did not "sit well" with many people, including myself. However, I just cannot see him killing his wife, two little daughters, and unborn son; and that feeds into my doubt, too, along with Morris's extensive research into what people said about Helena in the days and years following the murders. (However, I do admit that some of the witnesses about Helena's behavior and confessions did not appear to be very reliable witnesses.)
I also cannot imagine why he would have killed Kristy if she was sleeping and unaware of what was going on. How much could a two-year-old say in court or to an interviewer that would be believed without a doubt? And unless Dr. MacDonald was in some kind of blind, completely unthinking rage, how could he murder his little daughters whom he loved -- I don't think it is debated by too many people that he did love his daughters, at least -- so coldly? (Btw, because I have read so many instances of psychologists/psychiatrists "reading" people and getting them completely wrong, I take whatever they say as nothing but an interesting theory that might or might not be true.)
Also, regarding the hair found in Colette's hand -- I would find this more suspicious if there were more hairs than just (apparently) one. If she was fighting for her life, how likely would it have been that she just pulled out one hair?
But, on the other hand (no pun intended), I am still very skeptical about the bloody pajama top, and it does seem strange to say the least that this big strong Green Beret would not have made more of an effort to fight for his family and do some major damage to the supposed murderous intruders. Yes, it was claimed that he was lying (sleeping?) on the sofa and awoke to find Helena standing over him (and this is another supposed fact -- that she knew that his glasses and book were on the floor by the sofa without being told) -- but again, I admit that I am very skeptical of how Dr. MacDonald described his behavior during the attack.
So, the bottom line for me is that maybe Dr. MacDonald DID murder his family, but if the case Morris made in his book had been presented to me as a juror, I certainly would have been left with some doubt; I think this case was as mishandled as the O.J. Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases were -- although in those cases, the murderer(s) were not convicted (although, as I'm sure you know, O.J. is now in prison due to the Las Vegas robbery conviction).
i would love to have more feedback from other people who have read both books.
I've read every book I'm aware of regarding this case, and I agree with Bernie20. There can simply be no doubt as to MacDonald's guilt. All of the evidence points to it, and the rest is just smoke and mirrors. Regarding the bolded, I don't believe he killed Kristy in order to eliminate a witness. I think he made a conscious decision to murder his entire family because he no longer wanted that lifestyle. And I honestly don't think MacDonald was/is capable of loving anyone, even his own children. It's a label that's thrown around far too often, but I think it's appropriate here; Jeffrey MacDonald is a true sociopath. Slaughtering those little girls meant no more to him than shooting a stray dog.
Well, as horrible as it is and what this means, I do hope that Dr. MacDonald IS guilty because otherwise, there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice.
One other thing that occurred to me, though, is why would he not have admitted his guilt if it meant he could have been paroled and left prison? But then if he is such an ego-driven and narcissistic person, I would think that he would not want his "image" tarnished and have people think and say, "Well, he was a terrible man after all." This way, since he has not admitted his guilt, there will be some people who will always wonder if he truly was innocent.
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.
The guy is a murderer and a jerk.
