Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Jeffrey ) MacDonald gets fourth appeal (looks like he will get new trial)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:04 PM
Original message
(Jeffrey ) MacDonald gets fourth appeal (looks like he will get new trial)
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/388390.html

Published: Jan 14, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Jan 14, 2006 06:47 AM

MacDonald gets fourth appeal
Marshal's claim may lead to retrial

..cut....

The new appeal is based on the claim of Jimmy Britt, a retired federal marshal from Apex, that MacDonald's lead prosecutor at his 1979 trial lied to the judge and intimidated a key witness into changing her testimony.

..cut..

The new appeal centers on Britt's recollection of events at MacDonald's trial 27 years ago, when Britt was a federal marshal working in the courtroom.

Britt, 67, swore under oath last year that during the trial, Helena Stoeckley, a Fayetteville woman police had initially suspected but later ruled out as the killer, told him she had been in the MacDonalds' apartment with friends the night of the murders.

Britt also says Stoeckley told Blackburn the same thing in an interview before she testified. In response, Britt alleges, Blackburn told Stoeckley that he would charge her with murder if she told the same story in court.

..more at link a good read IMHO...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, good grief. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, gawd. Gotta be awed by the resilience of the American sociopath.
Jeffrey McDonald and Diane Downs: a match made in heck.

Her and her bushy-haired strangers, him and the floppy-hatted girl with the gang of hippies chanting "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. His story is so patently an invention
The very imagined picture of the Mansonesque hippie that a Green beret would concoct that it's laughable. It's so ridiculous that it's obvious, today. It's amazing that anyone ever believed it, supposing anyone did. MacDonald needs to serve out the rest of his time and just shut the fuck up about his absurd story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Remember, it happened very soon after Tate-Bianca
A Life magazine was found at his residence with the murders as the cover story.

:Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs." Give me a break.

Okay, the "MacDonald is Innocent" folks often put up some good info, but they NEVER can explain away this fact: all four family members had different blood types. This is extremely rare. MacDonald did NOT know this. The blood patterns of the scene did not come close to matching his testimony. Not even. There are hundreds of other pieces of evidence, but this is THE one piece.

I lived in Fayetteville for several years, my sister on posts for two. There is no way a group of hippies, at the height of the VN War, carrying candles, wouldn't have been noticed on base. Especially in that area of Bragg.

I will give him this: I think his wife and eldest daughter were "crimes of passion." But I think he killed his youngest -- barely out of toddlership -- cold bloodedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Not to go over the moon here, but wasn't he a doctor?
all four family members had different blood types. This is extremely rare. MacDonald did NOT know this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-16-06 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
45. I disagree
There was an eye witness. She was intimidated by the cops. The investigation was flawed and mistakes were covered up by the military and the cops.

I have followed this case closely and I have been convinced for many years that he is innocent. Glad to see he may get a new trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-16-06 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
47. "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."
I remember the first time I ever read that, despite my shock and revulsion, I actually laughed out loud. Absolutely absurd. I'm surprised MacDonald didn't also have "the real killers" singing "Age of Aquarius" while they murdered those people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Fatal Vision
by Joe McGinniss was a good book. I read it many years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451165667/104-9331545...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I read it almost 20 years ago as well.
It has been a long time but, it convinced me that this guy murdered his wife and two little girls. His entire family was brutally sliced to death yet he had one puncture wound to his lung. The way he was so concerned with the way the medics treated him(he was a physician), and how concerned he was with respect to his injuries when his family lay in piles of blood. The magazines in his apartment with the reports of the Manson murders in them. The forensic evidence. I can't remember how, but he was diagnosed with narcisstic personality disorder. The amphetamine abuse. Unless somehow the author had another agenda, I don't know how this guy did not murder his family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-16-06 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
46. The book was very biased
There is so much more to this story than the author told in the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. So why has it taken twenty-seven years for him to step forward with this
Edited on Sat Jan-14-06 05:33 PM by 1monster
information? Especially when Blackburn's blackened his 0wn name years ago?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appleannie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Stoekley
went public with her story before she died of liver failure. She insisted she was there and took part in the killings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes, I had heard that, but, even if not before (for whatever reason) he
didn't come forward with his story, why not then? Stoekley died quite a few years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Was the woman sane.
I remember that subject being addressed in the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. it wasn't so much that she was "insane"
she was a heavy drug user.

does that make one "insane"?

me -----------------------------> :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
53. and her own mother insisted Helena was a chronic liar
and always had been
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think McDonald is innocent.
I read another book, not the barn-burner that ignored the evidence that tended to exonerate him but the one that incorporated the evidence of this woman with the floppy hat. The murderer was a real person also, a drug addict who died not too long after the murder. The book I read quoted some sources who said they knew this guy and said he admitted to the murder. The police didn't pursue any of these leads in the case, just focused on McDonald from the beginning.

I'm always suspicious of pinning a murder on somebody who's close at hand so the prosecutors can score a conviction (and maybe put somebody down they're envious of for his achievements), when that guy has never been arrested or guilty of any crime in the past and the evidence is shaky at best against him. About the only thing that can be said is that he was at the scene of the crime when it happened. I believe McDonald had an exemplary career up to that point. It's true he was under a lot of stress at the time, but crimes like that don't just come out of the blue, from nowhere. You have to have shown certain tnendencies that way beforehand and then that has to develop. It's true of anything, the current mess in Washington, e.g. It took years to develop. I think he was telling the truth.

As for his story, there is just too much specific detail corroborated by the woman mentioned (w/ the floppy hat) and by other evidence, the phone call that was rec'd that she answered, that was verified by the caller, etc.

His life in prison has been pretty exemplary too I think.

I can't understand the evidence against him myself, how it was strong enough to convict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The book I referred to above is Fatal Justice by Potter and Bost
Here's a brief review of that book. It refers to the McGinnis book that paints McDonald as a murderer (Fatal Vision) and then mentions the book I read:

A reviewer, January 25, 2005,
a true work of fiction
McGinnis crafts a great work of fiction that actually persuaded the public that MacDonald killed his wife and children. If you want the real story of what happened, read Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost's book called Fatal Justice: The Reinvestigation of the MacDonald Murders. First his wife and children were murdered, then the Army bungled the investigation, then he was persecuted for making the Army look bad, then McGinnis turned on him and wrote this. Twenty five years later, this man is still in jail ... that's the second tragedy in this whole story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I went over to Amazon and read the reviews for Fatal Justice
I really would like to read it. Here is the review I found to be the most enlightening:


8 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
Inspires passionate debate, on both sides., December 4, 2003
Reviewer: A reader

I've been studying the Jeffrey MacDonald case since reading FATAL VISION for a college journalism class in 1991, and more recently I've become more interested in the phenomenon surrounding the case than the case itself. Specifically, the white-hot passion exerted by detractors and supporters alike, both firmly entrenched in their respective beliefs regarding MacDonald's guilt or innocence.

Many of these individuals seem not only thoroughly convinced, but react with strong negative emotion to arguments postulated by the other side. The venom and vitriol that spews back and forth between camps is a wonder to behold, and begs two questions: what is it about this case that makes it so polarizing, and why do people who are interested in it take such a vociferous stand on their conclusion, whichever it may be?

FATAL VISION is a damning portrait of a narcissistic, psychopathic murderer slaughtering his family in a blind rage and making up a ludicrous story in order to get away with it. FATAL JUSTICE is a meticulous account of prosecutorial malfeasance of the highest order. Each book is convincing in its own way. Both arguments have merit.

Both sides in this case snipe viciously at each other with vastly different interpretations of the same evidence; what is meaningful and damning to one side is "irrelevant" or "nonsense" to the other; what one side believes is real or crucial evidence, the other believes is false or meaningless evidence; where witnesses or participants have said different things at different times, each side believes the person was telling the truth in the instance that suits its position, and lying the other time. Both sides make false, exaggerated, or presumptuous claims to support their arguments, and claim their interpretation is the "ONLY way to see it;" the "ONLY logical conclusion." They refer to the other side and its arguments as "stupid," "ignorant," "ridiculous," "absurd," "cockamamie," "misguided," "biased," "brainwashed," "blind," "incredible," "startling," "delusional;" call each other "fools," "zealots," "idiots," "true-believers."

Why all this passion? It seems as if the folks on both sides have some sort of personal stake in MacDonald's culpability; something to gain by his being guilty or innocent of the crimes. Very few cases inspire such vitriolic advocacy on BOTH sides.

Detractors seem to feel that MacDonald is guilty because he was found so by the trial jury, and in turn because his account was not, and is not, believed or supported by the physical evidence.

Supporters seem to feel that MacDonald is innocent because of the aforementioned chicanery on the part of the prosecutors, who knowingly suppressed evidence that DID support his account.

Both sides can and will argue forever about this and never agree, because they interpret the same evidence in different ways. There is a tremendous amount of distrust among advocates on both sides, participants in, and sources of information about this long, convoluted case; the back-and-forth accusations and interpretations of dishonesty and bias are very similar to the current political debate in the United States. MacDonald's supporters dismiss the contents of McGinniss' FATAL VISION, and his detractors dismiss those of Potter & Bost's FATAL JUSTICE, just as Democrats/liberals/Bush opponents dismiss every word spoken on the Fox News Channel and Republicans/conservatives/Bush supporters dismiss every word printed in The New York Times; i.e., that the source itself implies an inobjective and self-serving bias and therefore cannot be truthful.

I have also noted that a good deal of the debate surrounding this case has involved efforts to DISPROVE, rather than prove, certain elements of MacDonald's account of the murders and the government prosecutors' hypothetical scenario.

As a point of logic, you can't prove a negative, i.e., you can't prove that something DIDN'T happen. The only way to prove a negative is to prove an incompatible positive; to prove something DID happen which nullifies the other possibility. This is essentially why MacDonald was found innocent by the Army in 1970, and guilty by the jury in 1979.

Disbelief in, or lack of evidence supporting, MacDonald's story DOES NOT make him guilty. Prosecutorial misconduct and/or suppression of evidence in this case DOES NOT make him innocent.

It is unlikely that MacDonald will ever receive a new trial, though even some of his detractors believe he should have one, if only to put the issue to rest once and for all. If he does receive a new trial, the lawyers on both sides, I think, will face a remarkable challenge. But lay advocates will still try this case in their own minds, and to them I offer the following:

You want to convict him? You can't do it by disproving his story; you have to actually prove that he did it.

You want to acquit him? You can't prove that he didn't do it; you have to prove that someone else (or others) did.

Good luck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobalu Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
37. I might be an exception...
When I read "Fatal Vision" I was convinced of his guilt....Upon reading "Fatal Justice" and viewing a documentary which interviewed witnesses to the Helena Stokely group ON the night of the murder..I am willing to say that the original verdict MAY have been wrong...I think he deserves a new trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
42. Fatal Justice is a good read. I am unsure
that MacDonald is actually guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I didn't read the book you are talking about. I was convinced that
he murdered his family. I would be open-minded to look at another view. From what I can remember (been 20 years) the man that wrote Fatal Vision was actually asked by Jeffrey MacDonald to write the book. The conclusions the author makes are his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. If you read Fatal Justice, remember one thing
The authors don't even try to explains way the blood evidence -- because they know they can't. THAT is the smoking gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. "Strong enough to convict", especially
if someone "lied". I saw a special report on this a few months back and they made a plausible case that there wasn't any physical evidence linking Dr McDonald to the actual killings and now they have better forensic methods of detecting so we shall see.

I don't usually watch those special reports but this case interested me since I remember the original story in the newspaper and saw the movie with Gary Cole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. They NEVER, ever explained away the blood evidenced
I think some of the book was very compelling, but they didn't even mention this is the book. Zero. There are other failing in Fatal Justice, but that's the main one. I think Helene was a good target because she was so fucked up, and she was also very much the victim. It's been proven that the evidence re: Helene was NOT collaborated, or that she had been coached. She was used by both the defense and the prosecutor. She deserves pity, not accusations years after her death that she can't answer, accusations that have been proven untrue.

And, you don't understand what a sociopath is. He did have an exemplary career up to that point, but it was proven he was a pathological liar, was/is narcissistic, had little regard for others feelings, and displayed many other characteristics of someone with a personality disorder.

Sorry, the Fed is lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. I agree
I hope he can get another trial cause I don't think he did it. I heard that he was trying to stop drug abuse on the base, wouldn't surprise me that it wasn't a rush to judgement on a spouse (the first that is suspected).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. STOP drug abuse?
The doc loved the fast life---boats, women, travel. Wouldn't surprise me if he SUPPLIED the drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Supposedly lots of
drug dealing was going on at the base and MacDonald complained to higher ups cause he felt it was a big problem and wanted it stopped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. I agree with you, Steve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
41. but crimes like that don't just come out of the blue, from nowhere.
Did John List have a history of any crime, prior to murdering his entire family?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aKinderGentlerDUer Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-16-06 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
44. Not strictly true...
Edited on Mon Jan-16-06 04:09 AM by aKinderGentlerDUer
"....crimes like that don't just come out of the blue, from nowhere. You have to have shown certain tendencies that way beforehand and then that has to develop."


That's not necessarily true. Think of John List, Betty Broderick, Lee Harvey Oswald, Tim McVeigh, Colin Ferguson, Kip Kinkle, Lizzy Borden, OJ Simpson, Diane Downs, Andrea Yates, Scott Peterson, Jim Jones etc. all killed more than one person--and none of them had a criminal background, nor the slightest tendencies toward such acts. You can find these examples, and lots more, all over...

In fact, now that I think about it, all the 'family murderers' that I know about--John List, Darlie Routier, Bob Bishop, Diane Downs, Kip Kinkle, Dana Ewell, Marcus Wesson--specifically did NOT have precursors, nor violent tendencies in ANY way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. I read both books
Sorry, this sounds too much like it was the remake of the Manson murders.

Is McDonald shopping around for another publisher again?

Call me cynical, but I was alive and of majority age during the Tate/LaBianca murders. McDonald case sounds too made up to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Is that all the insight you can provide for having read both books??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KayLaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. He deserves a new trial
I read both books about the trial and I am convinced a lot of evidence was kept from the jury. Unless you believe all agents of the government always operate on an honorable level, you may want to read Fatal Justice. I can't say for certain that he is innocent, but I think he deserves a trial in which all physical evidence is presented to a jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Finally it looks like the DNA will be coming out soon
DNA Timeline... or why is the Govt/Feds dragging their feet.
full Timeline http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/DNA_2.html

But for this thread

7. October 17, 1997: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals orders DNA testing in the case. The court order states:

"It is adjudged and ordered that the motion with respect to DNA testing is granted, and the issue is remanded (sent back to) the District Court." (All other portions of the appeal are denied.)

..passing off many years

30. January, 2005: DNA testing continues at the AFIP. The defense remains hopeful for results corroborating Dr. MacDonald's innocence as soon as feasibly possible.

Further updates will be provided as information becomes available.

31. July, 2005: The AFIP hopes to have completed testing by December of 2005.

32. October, 2005: The AFIP reports that it has concluded DNA testing of the exhibits allowed by the court. They begin comparison of the crime scene exhibits to the exemplars or "knowns".

33. December, 2005: The defense is informed by the AFIP that DNA results will be released at the end of January 2006.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
24. The damn man is guilty.
Edited on Sat Jan-14-06 09:16 PM by WinkyDink
He felt trapped. He killed his pregnant wife. As IF a band of killers wouldn't FIRST take out their biggest problem, aka: the guy sleeping in the living room. P.S. McD was never tested for amphetamines.
For pregnant-wife murder, see: Peterson, Scott, and Stuart, Charles.
For woman-murder while on speed, see: Simpson, Orenthal J.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. wow
Michael Jackson didn't make your list?

I'm impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. What's your point? All 4 were guilty, 3 by jury verdict (OJ, civil), and
Edited on Sun Jan-15-06 12:31 AM by WinkyDink
one by suicide after his brother turned him in.

(Feel free to add a non-sequitur to this post, too.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. ok, I'm game
Edited on Sun Jan-15-06 02:40 PM by CatWoman
my point is what the fuck does anyone on your "list" have to do with McDonald???

All of these cases are/were different.

I don't give a flying fuck who tried whom and where.

That's my point.

Did anyone on you "list" qualify for a new trial based on new evidence?


sorry that I'm not as blood thirsty or judgemental as you are.

We all have our flaws, I suppose.

I promise to try to do better in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. "Blood-thirsty"?!
Edited on Sun Jan-15-06 09:39 PM by WinkyDink
The man was found guilty! His crime followed a PATTERN.
But if that connection was egregiously in error on my part, fine. Wake me when he's acquitted next time.

If you have a problem with American jurisprudence in general, that is another matter. Excuse me all to pieces for thinking the verdict was the right one for Capt. MacDonald. Just like I'd support a guilty verdict for Abramoff.
If you're railing about the death penalty, that wasn't my topic.

People tend to be "judgmental" when they're discussing cases that are...JUDGED. (Wouldn't calling someone "blood-thirsty" be "judgmental"?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #39
50. he was framed, silenced and discredited
seriously, if they'd killed him it would have looked like he ws being shut-up and people might have taken his information seriously. Do you have any idea the amount of CIA heroin comming in thru that base, or _how_ it was being done? Oh, I know... that's "impossible" "couldn't be true" "tin-foil talk" - whatever. Real people are on record documenting it, just because some government ass-wipe in a suit says "it didn't happen" you're going to believe that?

You also might want to face the fact that there are no-doubt hundreds of inocent men that are/have been sitting on death row or executed. Innocent people do get convicted from time to time.

Why did the government prevent his defence from accessing his own home for evidence? Why then did they burn everything to the ground in the mid-80s?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. then a new trial will not be a problem
especially with the DNA do out this month that for some strange reason the Army and Fed have been fighting a Court order issued in 97 do to :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. What is it you think DNA will PROVE?
Edited on Sun Jan-15-06 12:49 AM by WinkyDink
That someone else was in the house? So what? Don't you have visitors? If you ended up murdered, would any of them have to be the guilty party?
Or would it most likely be the one who had the proverbial means, motive, and opportunity? Who had your blood on his person? Whose knives were the weapons? Who was "the lone survivor", with a teeny puncture wound, of a brutal and bloody attack? Whose clothing was ripped and splattered with your blood in a way that could be shown to contradict this person's story?
Yeah, give him a new trial. He's a smooth talker, like all psychopaths.

Oh, wait, maybe I should add Michael Jackson to this post, just for fun.

(It's spelled "due".)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
29. From what I recall from McGiniss's book, the blood evidence against
MacDonald was VERY compelling. 4 different blood types, as mentioned above. Hard to know how they could explain it away...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
51. Joe McGinniss made shit up! "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."
from http://www.fataljustice.com /

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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
35. Acid is groovy, kill the pigs.
Edited on Sun Jan-15-06 03:15 AM by XemaSab
Also, if there's a possibility that MacDonald made up the murders as a Manson copycat, why couldn't a group of hippies have done the same thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. I remember that so-called quote when it happend; I was 12
I remember thinking, hippies don't say that sh**
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-15-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Well, for one, they wouldn't have left the good Dr. live.
For another, the Manson Family was a one-off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ngGale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-16-06 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
43. Followed the case at the time....
thought he was innocent until the holes in his pajama top matched the wounds on his wife. Each victim having different blood types painted the complete picture. If I remember correctly, his blood was in the bathroom sink as though he stabbed himself there. Each victim was tracked by the blood trail, he killed the baby on purpose to cover up the crime. He was on speed...probabal psychotic break. His story of the crime and what took place didn't match. Does all the previous evidence still exist from the original crime scene? If not, a break for him...because a few years ago it was said with current technology, he would be convicted quicker than the first trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-16-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
48. Oh ugh.
Jebus, this narcissistic shithead just won't quit, will he?

And I'm sure by now he really and truly believes he's innocent.
Sociopaths have a way of disassociating themselves from their own actions.

:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silvermachine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Summed it up nicely...
...and apparently some people on this board will believe anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. believe what you want, but...
Edited on Thu Jan-19-06 01:04 AM by anotherdrew
you should at least look at another possibility
http://www.fataljustice.com /

it's also fairly narcissistic to believe everything you see in newspapers movies and a cooked book called fatal vision, who's author admits to making stuff up, see the link above for details.

from http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/jm...
Gary L. Bostwick, MacDonald's lawyer in the civil action, listened to the tapes that McGinniss had persuaded MacDonald to make. "Bostwick compared the tapes with those segments in which purported to be "The Voice of Jeffrey MacDonald." He satisfied himself that, as MacDonald claimed, McGinniss had skillfully edited passages to make it seem...as though MacDonald had taped glib, nonstop soliloquies of self-adoration.

But nowhere in McGinniss's book were MacDonald's taped words of concern about the tragic deaths of Colette and the children. The writer had placed MacDonald's doctored thoughts between ongoing revelations of the government's claims, not bothering to challenge the government's claims with any of the relevant defense evidence that had been put at his disposal, not bothering to express in the book his own expressions of disdain which he had written to MacDonald. The results, Bostwick charged, were fictional and the book could not be legitimized as nonfiction." (Potter and Bost)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gauguin57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
54. Maybe once OJ Simpson finishes looking for his wife's killer,
he can help Jeff find the "drug-crazed hippies"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-19-06 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
55. Why he has not been charged with something else to keep him in
jail - I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 28th 2014, 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC