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.
Yes, juries have been wrong in the past. But DNA is not a gold standard that all crime needs to be solved on. There is common sense too. McDonald was also a drug user, of speed. Which can increase rage. He also took steroids, which was brought up during the trial. That is a lethal combination.
It could be that even he cannot be sure of what happened. Maybe nobody knows for sure because all parties (or the party) were high.
Why take out your rage and massacre a baby, a child, yet leave the great big green beret almost without harm, the adult? The adult you have no rage for, the male, the only one actually in that house that could take down anyone, yet the innocent, totally vulnerable baby you go after with all of that rage and viciousness? It doesn't psychologically make sense to me.
I don't know. He was not moving. Maybe the baby and the wife were. Maybe drugged out invaders took anything that did not move to be a piece of furniture or something, and anything that moved to be a threat. Who knows what minds on drugs imagine?
Sadly, his wife, Collette, was pregnant. What is it about being pregnant, that increases a woman's risk of being killed? Think, so many pregnant women killed by their spouses, Lori Hacking, Lacie Peterson, so many others.
In some cases I speculate that the guy may have started an affair. Maybe he's thinking of leaving his wife. Maybe, even, she senses it and stops taking the pill to get more money out of him from the breakup. We don't know. I know women who think that way. Crazy people, very scheming and hateful and ready to incite the guy to violence, especially if there is a witness. Just because a woman is pregnant does not make her automatically a good person. But, even if she's a b__ch is certainly no grounds for murder.
All I'm saying is that I have seen really bad marriages and I would have flown the coop, leaving everything to her because I know if I stayed, there would be a possibility that something really bad could happen.
I don't know. He was not moving. Maybe the baby and the wife were. Maybe drugged out invaders took anything that did not move to be a piece of furniture or something, and anything that moved to be a threat. Who knows what minds on drugs imagine?
I don't see a baby as a threat anyway you slice it. A large man in good shape I do see as a threat. It doesn't make sense to me. And, the druggies who did it is a theory, not proved at all.
I don't see a baby as a threat anyway you slice it. A large man in good shape I do see as a threat. It doesn't make sense to me. And, the druggies who did it is a theory, not proved at all.
Well, I think either way, no matter who did it, it is hard to explain without people taking drugs. It makes no sense for him to have killed them and it makes no sense for strangers to have done so.
I had no idea that he sued the author of Fatal Vision and won. That book forms the basis of most people's, I daresay, knowledge of the case. If we threw that out, what do we have?
The thing with the book--the author paid him xxx amount of dollars, settling out of court. I don't believe that is saying the author lied or manipulated at all. I think the author went in to do a story, be unbiased, but as he went along, found out this guy was guiltier than sin. It didn't turn out as sociopathic Jeffrey Macdonald wanted it to. He probably won due to that fact--and better to settle than have a protracted trial. I don't think the blood evidence, DNA, pattern of blood types presented, how he killed each, room to room was ever discounted. It's hard evidence right there.
Well, I think either way, no matter who did it, it is hard to explain without people taking drugs. It makes no sense for him to have killed them and it makes no sense for strangers to have done so.
I had no idea that he sued the author of Fatal Vision and won. That book forms the basis of most people's, I daresay, knowledge of the case. If we threw that out, what do we have?
We have a ridiculous supposition (time line and fabricated chain-of-events) that was made into "fact" . . . IMHO, of course, lol.
I know I am in the minority on this one . . . that's okay.
I hope it will someday be proven that McDonald was a victim, not only of a terrible crime (and losing his family) but of the justice system, as well.
DAs just won't admit when they screw up. I have seen it too often in this state. It may be that way everywhere -- I have just had the opportunity to observe close up what has transpired where I have lived.
Think about the Duke Lacrosse case and you will see where I am coming from . . .
We have a ridiculous supposition (time line and fabricated chain-of-events) that was made into "fact" . . . IMHO, of course, lol.
I know I am in the minority on this one . . . that's okay.
I hope it will someday be proven that McDonald was a victim, not only of a terrible crime (and losing his family) but of the justice system, as well.
DAs just won't admit when they screw up. I have seen it too often in this state. It may be that way everywhere -- I have just had the opportunity to observe close up what has transpired where I have lived.
Think about the Duke Lacrosse case and you will see where I am coming from . . .
I know. There is something very wrong with our criminal justice system. When the miracle of dna testing was invented Great Britain went through every prisoner's case in which they had dna evidence and exonerated all those in which dna proved their innocence. The government paid for this.
Our people have to hope and pray that the Innocence Project will take them on and even then, if they are let go often their records are not expunged. A mistake is a mistake and locking someone up in the public's name in error is a horrendous travesty.
We have a ridiculous supposition (time line and fabricated chain-of-events) that was made into "fact" . . . IMHO, of course, lol.
I know I am in the minority on this one . . . that's okay.
I hope it will someday be proven that McDonald was a victim, not only of a terrible crime (and losing his family) but of the justice system, as well.
DAs just won't admit when they screw up. I have seen it too often in this state. It may be that way everywhere -- I have just had the opportunity to observe close up what has transpired where I have lived.
Think about the Duke Lacrosse case and you will see where I am coming from . . .
Well, when you hear DAs openly admit they don't care if a person is innocent or guilty, they just want a win... I wouldn't trust a one of them.
IMO, DAs SHOULD care about the truth
Well, when you hear DAs openly admit they don't care if a person is innocent or guilty, they just want a win... I wouldn't trust a one of them.
IMO, DAs SHOULD care about the truth
Yes, they should and actually, the public is trusting that they will only seek the truth. After all, any of us could be unjustly accused of a crime! It can happen. Just being at the wrong place at the right time . . . someone close to us doing something felonious . . . it sure can happen.
I think about that often.
It brings to mind the Richard Jewell case. That ruined his life and he ended up dying at a young age. Trial by media. Devasted the man. Very sad.
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.
