FATAL VISION: Jeffrey MacDonald gets new trial based on DNA!

Jeffrey MacDonald, a clean-cut Green Beret and doctor convicted of killing of his pregnant wife and their two daughters, is getting another chance at trying to prove his innocence - more than four decades after the slayings terrified a nation gripped by his tales of Charles Manson-like hippies doped up on acid slaughtering his family in their own home.

The case now hinges on something that wasn't available when he was first put on trial: DNA evidence. A federal judge will convene a hearing on Monday to consider new DNA evidence and witness testimony that MacDonald and his supporters say will finally clear him of a crime that became the basis of Joe McGinniss' best-selling book "Fatal Vision" and a made-for-TV drama.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FATAL_VISION?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=

This has been covered countless times by Dateline and 48 hours, a real interesting case for those interested in TRUE Crime.

imo, I have always thought Dr. MacDonald to be guilty based on the evidence presented at the time of the trial, now it is going to be interesting to see the DNA evidence presented on his behalf, I am open to any new evidence, if he is truly innocent of these heinous murder's, I hope he goes free

Another Dr. was freed after being wrongfully convicted, Dr. Sam Shepherd.

For anyone that has forgotten key elements of the case as it is so old:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/1.html

Art, I have followed this case for years. I was unsure for a long time but after the fatal vision book, I was convinced that he was guilty. His mother-in-law, Mildred Kasab, was relentless in her quest for justice for her daughter and her grandchildren otherwise, I think he would have gone free. I hadn't heard this latest petition for a new trial. Thanks for the info.

tesstruhart wrote:Art, I have followed this case for years. I was unsure for a long time but after the fatal vision book, I was convinced that he was guilty. His mother-in-law, Mildred Kasab, was relentless in her quest for justice for her daughter and her grandchildren otherwise, I think he would have gone free. I hadn't heard this latest petition for a new trial. Thanks for the info.

tesstruhart, this is one of the first cases I followed along w/the Manson Murders.. Freddy Kasab too was relentless in pursuing MacDonald and holding him accountable, and you are exactly correct, if not for the Kasab family, MacDonald may have never been charged. The superficial wounds MacDonald suffered as opposed to those of his children/wife were highly suspect. Freddy Kasab really impressed me by laying out to investigator's how the murder's happened, laying out the blood evidence, or trails of blood through the home and the order in which he was pursuaded MacDonald murdered the family. In these cases, imo, it can't be overstated enough who had the most to gain and why. I seem to remember there was a lot of other circumstancial evidence, that, imo, may be hard for MacDonald to still overcome. Joe McGuiness was sued by MacDonald for some of the statements he made in his book about MacDonald and MacDonald did get a settlement at the time. McGuiness felt strongly MacDonald was guilty of these murders and MacDonald's arrogance and flippant attitude about the murders offended the public. I am shocked to read MacDonald is 68 yrs. old.

The movie really portrayed MacDonald as narcissitic, a real POS, something, imo, I believe he is even if he is proven to be not guilty of the murders.

I have been trying to get hold of an electronic copy of this book for ages but it seems it is only available in print format. I'm dying to read the story and if I remember correctly it was written by someone who originally thought he was innocent and after getting to know him, etc ... started to believe he was guilty.

Gia wrote:I have been trying to get hold of an electronic copy of this book for ages but it seems it is only available in print format. I'm dying to read the story and if I remember correctly it was written by someone who originally thought he was innocent and after getting to know him, etc ... started to believe he was guilty.

Gia - your right, Joe McGinnis was underwhelmed w/Dr. MacDonald, his arrogance and sense of entitlement disgusted McGinnis, he did think he was innocent when he first starting writing the book.... That is a really old book, but I do remember that JM did think the Doctor to be innocent UNTIL he investigated the story and followed MacDonald around while taking notes for the book. I am going to read the TRU TV Library edition on the story, I have forgotten so much because the case is so old. He has been turned down so many times for an appeal, I am suprised one has finally come through for him.

I seem to remember that McGinnis got sued because he alleged MacDonald was on some type of drugs, it was ONLY McGinnis' opinion, not a proven fact and I think that is what led to the law suit, LE probably didn't even check MacDonald for drugs, his wounds were superficial which didn't make a lot of sense since the children were murdered. I think LE thought he hit one of the children with a bat or an object by accident as he was swinging at Colette who was pregnant, I think LE thought he murdered the other child because she saw what happened. The movie was excellent, Gary Coleman played MacDonald & and had the arrogance down, a very unsympathetic defendant. According to the movie and book, MacDonald was shocked he got convicted.

Maybe the book will become available on E-books because it was a best seller and a sensational trial. Now there is re-newed interest since there is going to be a trial, good luck.

Jeffery MacDonald: A time for truth
March 23, 2010

Article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18559_162-1002954.html

MacDonald interview w/Bill Lagatuda before rerun of 48 hours, still maintains his innocence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1011545n

Full episode:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1003341n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

TIMELINE of Events: Jeffery MacDonald
(from murders to present)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49044741/

Will DNA clear Green Beret guilty of killing family in 1970? Judge to hear new evidence Monday in Jeffrey MacDonald's bid for freedom

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49044833/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

1970s murder could be retried

September 17, 2012
Posted: 03:10 PM ET



Jeffrey MacDonald, the Green Beret doctor, convicted of killing his wife and two daughters in the 1970s, could get a new trial. A federal judge began hearing testimony Monday morning.

~Snipped~

Watch the video above to see In Session’s Jean Casarez and Christi Paul talk about MacDonald’s chances of getting a new trial.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/1970s-murder-could-be-retried/

Jeffrey MacDonald case: Two views of new 'Fatal Vision' evidence

Jeffrey MacDonald, shown in a 2007 photo, is serving three life terms for the murder of his wife and daughters in 1970.

By David Zucchino
September 17, 2012, 4:15 p.m.

WILMINGTON, N.C. – For 42 years, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald has clung to his story: Four intruders, including a woman in a floppy hat, killed his wife and two young daughters one night in February 1970.

In federal court Monday, MacDonald’s lawyers offered new evidence they say bolsters their client’s story and will prove that he was wrongfully convicted of stabbing and bludgeoning his family to death inside their home at Ft. Bragg, N.C.

~Snipped~

MacDonald has been granted a new hearing based on defense contentions that newly tested DNA points to other suspects, and that sworn statements by a former federal marshal show a prosecutor threatened a crucial witness whose testimony could have exonerated the Army captain. DNA from three hairs found inside the house does not match MacDonald, his wife or his children, the defense says.

Read more:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-jeffrey-macdonald-fatal-vision-20120917,0,7905457.story

Jeffrey MacDonald Claims Witness in "Fatal Vision" Murders Changed Her Story

(VIDEO)

By ALYSSA NEWCOMB (@alyssanewcomb) and CHRISTI HARTMAN

Sept. 17, 2012

Lawyers for convicted "Fatal Vision" killer Jeffrey MacDonald presented new evidence to a court today, including a statement by a former U.S. marshal who claims a witness initially said she was at the MacDonald house the night of the murder, but later changed her story.

MacDonald, who was convicted of killing his wife and daughters 33 years ago, could be granted a new trial if a judge deems new evidence to be sufficient.

The evidentiary hearing for the 68-year-old former Green Beret doctor, who is serving three life sentences, began today in a Wilmington, N.C. federal courtroom and is expected to last two weeks.

Read more:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-macdonald-claims-witness-fatal-vision-murders-changed/story?id=17254475

Thanks for posting a picture of Dr. MacDonald Alessadra. The sad fact is, many that participated in the first trial are dead now, Colette's brother is "ready to testify" he said in an interview over the weekend. I don't know how the time that has passed will effect the new trial.

It's still hard to believe to me that the children and Colette were murdered and Jeffery M had the superficial wounds. They found a box of latex gloves under the sink that Jeffery had brought home from the hospital. If he wore the gloves it would limit DNA/Blood etc. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case.

I've started reading the book plus am reading bits and pieces at various web sites. I must say that even if I didn't know that he had been convicted for this crime, I would be highly suspicious that he was guilty.

As Art has already said, the fact that Colette and the girls were so violently attacked and continued being attacked long after they had lost consciousness and were at deaths door and yet all of his wounds with the exception of one that punctured his lung is highly suspicious.

Also, ito the box of latex gloves ... blood splatter that was linked to him was found splattered on the floor by the cupboard where the gloves were kept which indicated that after being stabbed he had reached over to get something out of that cupboard.

The part though that doesn't add up for me is the fact that he took such a light beating and that if it was indeed drug crazed hippies they would have been too high not to have made careless mistakes and would certainly have left more evidence and DNA of their presence in the house. Two or three hairs is not consistent with what happened. Also the state of the house was not consistent with what one would expect to find after such an attack.

Gia wrote:I've started reading the book plus am reading bits and pieces at various web sites. I must say that even if I didn't know that he had been convicted for this crime, I would be highly suspicious that he was guilty.

As Art has already said, the fact that Colette and the girls were so violently attacked and continued being attacked long after they had lost consciousness and were at deaths door and yet all of his wounds with the exception of one that punctured his lung is highly suspicious.

Also, ito the box of latex gloves ... blood splatter that was linked to him was found splattered on the floor by the cupboard where the gloves were kept which indicated that after being stabbed he had reached over to get something out of that cupboard.

The part though that doesn't add up for me is the fact that he took such a light beating and that if it was indeed drug crazed hippies they would have been too high not to have made careless mistakes and would certainly have left more evidence and DNA of their presence in the house. Two or three hairs is not consistent with what happened. Also the state of the house was not consistent with what one would expect to find after such an attack.

This case "breaks the mold" in several ways. The one that stood out for me was the injuries to woman and the children as opposed to the injuries to the man. It is widely known among forensics when murders occur, children receive the fewest injuries (and often survive in mass murders) with adult females receiving the next lowest amounts; when an adult male is present, it's always the case the male will receive the most injuries and the most severe of injuries.

When we think of it logically, IF the attacker was having a relationship with the woman, he would attack most violently the man who "stood in the way" and step down the attack with the object of his love, and then kill the children to avoid witnesses. (There would not be an "impassioned" slashing of the children but a quick and simple death for them.)

Strangers who murder, say couples in cars or home invasions, usually reserve their wrath for the strongest, the protector of the household, the person who would pose the main threat to thwarting the completion of the crime or identity of the perp. It is the female who is more easily overpowered hence the male victim receives the most violent of actions against him and the greatest numbers of injuries.

Personally, as appalling as it is to me, I DO think Jeffrey McDonald was present at these deaths. I do not know if he personally participated in the murders but I believe he orchestrated them. An the very thought of him murdering his children and wife in such violent ways is anathematic for me.

clipped from above post:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-macdonald-claims-witness-fatal-vision-murders-changed/story?id=17254475#.UGd-b67ygRY

" MacDonald has long maintained his innocence, insisting that on Feb. 17, 1970, a group of drug-fueled hippies broke into his home, beating and stabbing his wife Colette, and their two daughters, Kimberley, 5, and Kristen, 2. The word "Pig" was sprawled in blood on the headboard of MacDonald's master bedroom. "

This sounds too much like the Tate-LaBianca murders committed by Manson's band of followers. An attempt at a copy-cat killing episode.

More likely, McD invited some persons to the house to buy some drugs. When they got there to leave evidence (fingerprints) , he ordered them out and set about his murdering.

clipped--
" On Feb. 17, 1970, MacDonald said he woke up on his sofa in his North Carolina home to find drugged-up hippies-- three men and a woman-- beating his pregnant wife, Colette, and their two daughters, 5-year-old Kimberley and 2-year-old Kristen.

The word "Pig" was written in blood on the headboard in MacDonald's bedroom.

The gruesome murders, which came months after details of the Manson Family murders were revealed, captivated the nation and eventually spawned a best selling book, "Fatal Vision," and a 1984 television mini-series. "

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-macdonald-evidence-42-year-murder-case/story?id=17248184#.UGd_-K7ygRY

I fully agree Freckles. Plus if this was indeed a drug crazed murdering frenzy then why were the killers careless in leaving an alive witness behind but meticulous in making sure they left no traces of their presence at the crime scene.

clipped-
" MacDonald's blood, along with fibers from his torn pajamas, were found on and under the victims' bodies. No DNA evidence, fingerprints or fibers from Helena Stoeckley were found anywhere in the house. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/TheLaw/jeffrey-mcdonald-seeks-trial-triple-murder/story?id=10648617&page=2#.UGeBSa7ygRY

Stoeckley was the person who correctly identified items in the home/placement of items.

There was ONE piece of a hair strand (found under the fingernail of one of the girls) that does not match anyone in the family. I have to wonder re transference.

Gia wrote:I've started reading the book plus am reading bits and pieces at various web sites. I must say that even if I didn't know that he had been convicted for this crime, I would be highly suspicious that he was guilty.

As Art has already said, the fact that Colette and the girls were so violently attacked and continued being attacked long after they had lost consciousness and were at deaths door and yet all of his wounds with the exception of one that punctured his lung is highly suspicious.

Also, ito the box of latex gloves ... blood splatter that was linked to him was found splattered on the floor by the cupboard where the gloves were kept which indicated that after being stabbed he had reached over to get something out of that cupboard.

The part though that doesn't add up for me is the fact that he took such a light beating and that if it was indeed drug crazed hippies they would have been too high not to have made careless mistakes and would certainly have left more evidence and DNA of their presence in the house. Two or three hairs is not consistent with what happened. Also the state of the house was not consistent with what one would expect to find after such an attack.

Gia - I am glad you are reading the book, the mini series was exellent with Carl Malden playing the part of Freddy Kasob, Colette's stepfather and Gary Coleman playing the part of Jeffery MacDonald. Freddy doggedly determined to read the transcripts and recreate how the murders happened, imo, was one of the reasons the case of 3 murder's was brought against Jeffery MacDonald, he thought he was so damn smart, he thought he'd never be charged but Freddy Kasob NEVER gave up on having the charges brought. In the movie, it shows how they thought the murder's happened and in what order. Although they didn't have as much science at the time of the murder's in murder cases, they weren't stupid and LE was able to tell by the blood spatter and trails of blood how it happened. Other evidene such as the surgical gloves were traced to JM, etc. LE thought the house seemed to have been staged, ironically the TIME Magazine or LIFE Mag with the information about the Manson murder's was in the living room of the home, surely MacDonald had just read it.

I too seem to remember the witness that is now deceased and information she shared since trial that has come forth was a long term drug addict, etc., imo, any evidence forthcoming from her changing her testimony is not going to be greater than ALL the evidence presented at trial. JM has tried to get a new trial for 30 years, I am sure he is a changed man and a better person today but the book and movie portrayed JM as a real A HOLE, self absorbed and a narcissistic POS. The movie showed examples of this, Joe McGinnis no doubt was convinced JM murdered his family.

It will be interesting to see this trial evolve, I'd be suprised if JM is acquitted, at least he has served over 30 yrs for the murders if it should happen.

From Judge Jeanine Pirro's show:

Joe McGinniss, who wrote about the 1970 murders of MacDonald's pregnant wife and young daughters, had expected to take the witness stand Thursday, in what some court officials had predicted would be the last day of the hearing on whether the former Army doctor should get a new trial.

But McGinniss' testimony was delayed, as lawyers reviewed crime scene photos and secondhand accounts that Helena Stoeckley, a now-deceased drug user, had privately confessed to being at the crime scene, despite her 1979 trial testimony that she had no memory of the hours during the attacks.

"I hope (the hearing) goes on as long as necessary," said Kathryn MacDonald, who married the convict while he was in prison.

She said witness testimony about Stoeckley's alleged confessions and evidence at the crime scene validate her husband's claim that intruders attacked his family.

But author McGinniss is sticking by his original narrative of Jeffrey MacDonald as the killer.

"This is the last gasp for him," McGinniss told reporters outside the courthouse. "When he loses here, which he will, this is going to be so thorough, so complete, there's nothing left. The case will finally be closed."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/20/fatal-vision-author-to-testify-as-court-revisits-170-murder-case/

Could Jeffery M be innocent, Judge Jeannine Ask!

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/justice-jeanine/index.html
















.

Jeffrey MacDonald hired Joe McGinnis to write the book for him, to show he was not guilty. However, during the trial, Joe decided there was no way he was innocent and wrote the book the way he saw the evidence. JM tried to sue Joe, after the book came out, but that went no where.

My cousin was stationed @ Fort Bragg at that time, and they believed he was guilty, as a doctor, he knew where to stab himself so as to survive. He stabbed himself in the bathroom in front of a mirror.

Their residence was kept locked and boarded up until the time of the trial, and the jury was taken to the residence to see the crime scene. That had to have been hard to take.

sitemama wrote:Jeffrey MacDonald hired Joe McGinnis to write the book for him, to show he was not guilty. However, during the trial, Joe decided there was no way he was innocent and wrote the book the way he saw the evidence. JM tried to sue Joe, after the book came out, but that went no where.

My cousin was stationed @ Fort Bragg at that time, and they believed he was guilty, as a doctor, he knew where to stab himself so as to survive. He stabbed himself in the bathroom in front of a mirror.

Their residence was kept locked and boarded up until the time of the trial, and the jury was taken to the residence to see the crime scene. That had to have been hard to take.

Any known background on him, his relationships with others?
Way back when, I was barely in my twenties and I bought into his "charisma" until I started crunching the facts. Then I was so disgusted with the cruelty he demonstrated.
I don't recall much of the case--- our America was dealing with Kent state, the Manson murders, the draft, impeaching Nixon for his lies, etc.. It was a time of much upheaval.

Freckles wrote:

I don't recall much of the case--- our America was dealing with Kent state, the Manson murders, the draft, impeaching Nixon for his lies, etc.. It was a time of much upheaval.

That time was almost as bad as the time we are living through now, CO shootings, high unemployment, no jobs, National Debt increasing by the trillions, but if we impeached Nixon for lying, why is Obama still in the White House? As the judge for KC said, 'he doesn't know what telling the truth means'. He has caused more upheaval in the past 3 years and it looks like it is only going to get worse.

sitemama wrote:Jeffrey MacDonald hired Joe McGinnis to write the book for him, to show he was not guilty. However, during the trial, Joe decided there was no way he was innocent and wrote the book the way he saw the evidence. JM tried to sue Joe, after the book came out, but that went no where.

My cousin was stationed @ Fort Bragg at that time, and they believed he was guilty, as a doctor, he knew where to stab himself so as to survive. He stabbed himself in the bathroom in front of a mirror.

Their residence was kept locked and boarded up until the time of the trial, and the jury was taken to the residence to see the crime scene. That had to have been hard to take.

sitemama, The narcissism of MacDonald clouded his judgment in making the decision to hire Joe McGinnis, LOL, McGinnis clearly saw through the lies and propaganda that JM thought McGinnis would put out the version he wanted told, instead, the facts were validated by McGinnis, especially the indifferene JM showed about the murder's of his family and his arrogance weren't lost on anyone. McGinnis was smart, he had JM sign a release as to what he could write on the case, JM had absolutely NO control of anything McGinnis wrote! Sitemama, the stabbing, superficial wounds JM gave himself imo, were a big part of his undoing.

This case was huge and still is, the book was on the best sellers list forever, the murder suspect was a Captain/Green Beret/ Princeton Graduate and physician murdering his family including 2 small children and pregnant wife leaving a horrific crime scene that was unbelievable and still is to this day, it's almost unheard of. The miniseries based on the book was watched by millions and considered a classic. The Manson Murder's had already taken place and in fact, gave MacDonald an excuse to blame the murders on drug crazed hippies adding to the noterity and publicity of the case in the Media/News. Millions of people followed this case and still do, though many participants are deceased now, many that testified are still around and aren't going to allow the facts to be altered, I guess we won't know if he gets another trial until sometime next week. McGinnis is anxious to testify and "hopes this case goes away forever."

I didn't follow Kent State closely or the impeachment of Nixon, but I followed every event on the Mansion murders even though I was in high school and I followed every event of this case, I have been a true crime buff all my life, this case imo, ranks as one of the most heinos murder's I have ever followed.

It's ironic but I had tagged this book as one that I wanted to read on Amazon months before this new appeal, but the ebook wasn't yet available. I also tried our bookshops and library for a hard copy, but as its an old book I had no luck with that either. I'm guessing the only reason that it has suddenly now been released as an ebook is due to the renewed publicity. So yay for me.

I've also been reading at the following site which has all the transcripts, crime scene photos, psychiatrist reports, etc. plus the article that Jeff MacDonald spoke about prior to the crimes that was published in the March 1970 Esquire Mag.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

Without going into the technical aspects of the appeal and despite that mistakes were made during the collection of evidence, at face value it is not surprising that MacDonald was a suspect from the beginning. His version of events did not tie in with the evidence collected or the state of the crime scene. Psychiatric evaluations also state that he had a sexual identity problem.

Has anyone read the book written by Morris? Apparently this author takes a different stance and advocates that MacDonald is innocent. IMO ... even though I'll probably end up reading both books to obain a balanced view ... the mistakes and lack of technology at that time do not take from the fact that the state of the crime scene and the evidence collected strongly supports this wasn't a killing carried out by a group of drug crazed hippies. There was no blood on the telephones, the blood splatter wasn't where it should have been, the attackers left no DNA behind, etc, etc.

Gia - I don't plan on reading the book by Morris. I am convinced of JM's guilt, imo, I'll be suprised if he gets another trial. The problem I have with the "new evidence" is that the witness was a drug addict, she died in 1983, and is there anyway of knowing if she only imagined she was in the house or if itwas a hullicinatiion ?

Apparently you can still get most of the movie, the mini series made from Joe McInnis' book online. I didn't know how to get them iin order, but if anyone is interested in seeing it, on the right side at the link are the other links to the movie. There are 18 parts, it was a mini series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9-D4nGekVI&feature=related

Thanks for the link Art, I'd love to watch the mini series. I'm just hoping that my 3g card allows me to do so.

I must say that after reading the account when Freddy Kasab re-enacted the events from that night and looking at the evidence, the only plausible explanation is that Jeff M did indeed do it.

Gia - The most disturbing thing about the re-enactment imo, was that one of the little girls walked in on JM beating Colette, JM drew back to hit Colette yet again and hit the little girl as he drew back. Although it is thought it was an accident he hit the child, he then murdered both children to remove any witnesses. (I recall this from memory, it's been many years since I read the book or saw the movie.)

I too don't see any other way the horrific murder's could have happened, Freddy K doggedly pursued the murderer for 9 years before JM's conviction. That is what is so puzzling to me, is the "changed story" of a dead drug addict more substantive than ALL the evidence of the original trial?

In the movie there is a part in which JM screams "the only reason I am arrested & tried is because of my father in law." JM was free for 9 years (from memory) before the trial that sent him to prison for life. It's sad to me that FK, who loved his son in law and his daughter & grandchildren was so obsessed about the murders he couldn't let it go, he studied every aspect of the case. It must have broken his heart when yet again when he realized his womanizing son in law murdered then all.

In the mini-series, it's Gary Cole NOT Gary Coleman that plays Jeffery MacDonald, I had his name incorrect before.

I wondered about that Gary Coleman but figured, What do I know? lol

Here is an excellent (if biased) site.
Has a ton of info on the case including dates, places, names.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Chronology.html

And the home page where an extensive index is located on left of page:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/index.html

Freckles wrote:I wondered about that Gary Coleman but figured, What do I know? lol

Here is an excellent (if biased) site.
Has a ton of info on the case including dates, places, names.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Chronology.html

And the home page where an extensive index is located on left of page:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/index.html

Freckles - great links on the case, thanks for sharing. when events happen in the Manson Case today such as a parole hearing etc., I have to go back to look up the timeline, so much time has passed, LOL, we are all older. I mostly remember about both cases as how heinous all the murder's were for the time it happened, but in the case of MacDonald, there were 2 pretty little blonde headed girl's murdered, the accused: their father.

Sadly, heinous crimes now seem to happen all the time, some are more sensational than others.

Thanks for the link Freckles. I believe that with any book, that one reads, regardles of who the author is, that it is important to back it up with a little research.

Put it this way, if I'd read Baez's book in isolation of the facts I might well have bought into the BS he was trying to sell and thankfully in cases such as these we have the facts available at the click of a button.

One thing I did find interesting about that site was their assertion that MacDonald wanted to submit to the 'truth serum' test for the grand jury but was denied the opportunity. Reading the transcrips from the grand jury though it was established by his own psychiatrist, Dr Sadloff, that it was likely that he would still stick to the same story regardless of the test as he had the personality type to withstand the affects of the test, plus the grand jury members themselves changed their minds about wanting him tested as they found out that the test wasn't as reliable as they originally thought it would be.

So yes, in the case of opposing views its awesome to be able to refer to the transcripts in order to establish the true facts and reasons.

Just another thing that jumped out at me while reading the book. One of the little girls was murdered in the main bedroom and then carried back to her own bedroom and tucked into bed with the sheets drawn up.

Looking at the crime scene photos it looks as it someone tucked her in for the night. Most of her injuries were hidden by the sheets. That one action alone shouts out that this wasn't the actions of drug crazed maniacs as they would have just left her where she fell.

Gia wrote:Just another thing that jumped out at me while reading the book. One of the little girls was murdered in the main bedroom and then carried back to her own bedroom and tucked into bed with the sheets drawn up.

Looking at the crime scene photos it looks as it someone tucked her in for the night. Most of her injuries were hidden by the sheets. That one action alone shouts out that this wasn't the actions of drug crazed maniacs as they would have just left her where she fell.

Gia - the theory is, JM hit her accidentally when she entered the master bedroom, I guess she heard Colette's screams and went to check on her mother. I seem to remember they could tell this by the blood splatter. That, imo, is beyond heinous, in his mind he had to murder her, she witnessed the murder of her mother, she clearly saw him do it, then he had to murder the youngest because no one would believe one child was murdered and one wasn't.

Your right, a drug crazed hippie wouldn't give a rat's ass about the cries of a child, they wouldn't have bothered putting her into bed after they murdered her.

From Crime Library:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/1.html

Browse through the recent DNA info. (DNA was not available earlier on. The collection of evidence and the processing of the crime scene was a terrible sham, IMO.)

" Scheck further suggested during the interview that other DNA evidence that is "going to help him (MacDonald)" was a long pubic hair purportedly belonging to an unidentified third person found between Colette's legs and 17 unmatched finger and palm prints also found at the crime scene."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/jmacdonald/27.html


--- Does anyone have a link to the crime scene pics? I am finding just the one taken of the ordinary living room.

Here is an excellent site for an overview of the case:

www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

A very user friendly site with all the pertinent facts, and with links to Trial Transcripts and such.
I've been messaging with the owner on the Topix forum and following this closely.
JM faces long odds on geting a new trial.
The scuttle-but says the Judge will be in NO HURRY to render his decision (concensus says early 2013)

Inmats conviction has been to the Supreme Court a record 7 times.
This time it's the 4th District.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Bob Stevenson (Collette's Brother)
should finally have closure.

p.s. Earlier this decade, MacDonald's defense argued for DNA testing of an unsourced hair found clutched in Collette's hand.
They said " The location of this hair points to it as being from the KILLER"
The court agreed to the testing...

The DNA matched Jeffrey MacDonald

editted to add: I was wrong about those links I think.
For Trial transcripts-and any other case document you can imagine-
go to the second link I posted.

Freckles- I found the crime scene pics on Christina's site
(which I believe is linked at the above site I mentioned)

At first I hesitated in clicking on them.
after re-reading "Fatal Vision" this summer, reading the 1979 Trial transcripts(also at Christina's site)...
I was so into my research that I looked.

I now WISH I HAD NOT.
Kimberly was 6 and Kristen was 3.

Here is the link to Christina's site:
www.thejeffreymacdonldcase.com

This site has just about EVERY document related to the case.
She even has Freddy Kassab's handwritten notes and letters!
I don't know for sure, but I would bet a weeks pay Christina was at the recent hearing.
She was at the last one...
and the 1979 Trial.

art tart wrote:

Gia wrote:Just another thing that jumped out at me while reading the book. One of the little girls was murdered in the main bedroom and then carried back to her own bedroom and tucked into bed with the sheets drawn up.

Looking at the crime scene photos it looks as it someone tucked her in for the night. Most of her injuries were hidden by the sheets. That one action alone shouts out that this wasn't the actions of drug crazed maniacs as they would have just left her where she fell.

Gia - the theory is, JM hit her accidentally when she entered the master bedroom, I guess she heard Colette's screams and went to check on her mother. I seem to remember they could tell this by the blood splatter. That, imo, is beyond heinous, in his mind he had to murder her, she witnessed the murder of her mother, she clearly saw him do it, then he had to murder the youngest because no one would believe one child was murdered and one wasn't.

Your right, a drug crazed hippie wouldn't give a rat's ass about the cries of a child, they wouldn't have bothered putting her into bed after they murdered her.

Art, I haven't finished reading the book yet. I'm battling to put my kindle down but the family is watching me like hawks as I have 5 exams approaching, but I keep on thinking about the wet spot on the bed and wondering if it was this that started off the argument (esp as Collette had discussed the matter in class earlier in the evening), or if it was the result of fear from having witnessed her mother being struck. Also MacDonald stated that he saw the child had wet the bed and carried her to her own bed ... but he never changed her clothing, etc. and it doesn't make sense - plus one of the psychologists/psychiatrists that examined him - said his explanation doesn't make sense as it is unlikely that one would put a child back to bed without changing their soiled pants. MacDonald basically said that only a small part of the childs pants was wet and he didn't want to wake her ... which is ludicrous. Can you remember how this aspect was portrayed in the mini series?

glazier wrote:Freckles- I found the crime scene pics on Christina's site
(which I believe is linked at the above site I mentioned)

At first I hesitated in clicking on them.
after re-reading "Fatal Vision" this summer, reading the 1979 Trial transcripts(also at Christina's site)...
I was so into my research that I looked.

I now WISH I HAD NOT.
Kimberly was 6 and Kristen was 3.

Glazier, I visited that site a few days ago and also made the mistake of looking at the crime scene photos. Usually I'm not squeamish about that type of thing ... but for some reason I had bad dreams about it that night. I guess for me its not so much the visual image, but knowing the terrible fear and pain the victims suffered in the minutes before they died.

I guess I'm never going to be able to understand how he could extend his rage to his two little girls.

Been racking my brain trying to recall another case which seemed to so closely parallel the MacDonald case. Finally, late last night, I remembered the case. (It was before my cognitive time!) The Fugitive TV series--- Dr. Richard Kimball. Anyone in the know who could find any similarities between the two cases? (Trying to rule out copy-cat or instructional murders.)

Gia wrote:

art tart wrote:

Gia - the theory is, JM hit her accidentally when she entered the master bedroom, I guess she heard Colette's screams and went to check on her mother. I seem to remember they could tell this by the blood splatter. That, imo, is beyond heinous, in his mind he had to murder her, she witnessed the murder of her mother, she clearly saw him do it, then he had to murder the youngest because no one would believe one child was murdered and one wasn't.

Your right, a drug crazed hippie wouldn't give a rat's ass about the cries of a child, they wouldn't have bothered putting her into bed after they murdered her.

Art, I haven't finished reading the book yet. I'm battling to put my kindle down but the family is watching me like hawks as I have 5 exams approaching, but I keep on thinking about the wet spot on the bed and wondering if it was this that started off the argument (esp as Collette had discussed the matter in class earlier in the evening), or if it was the result of fear from having witnessed her mother being struck. Also MacDonald stated that he saw the child had wet the bed and carried her to her own bed ... but he never changed her clothing, etc. and it doesn't make sense - plus one of the psychologists/psychiatrists that examined him - said his explanation doesn't make sense as it is unlikely that one would put a child back to bed without changing their soiled pants. MacDonald basically said that only a small part of the childs pants was wet and he didn't want to wake her ... which is ludicrous. Can you remember how this aspect was portrayed in the mini series?

Wha-a-at? You got to be kidding me! What DOCTOR lets a child sleep for hours in her own urine?? This can cause urine burns on the skin. Absolutely not believable!

glazier wrote:Here is the link to Christina's site:
www.thejeffreymacdonldcase.com

This site has just about EVERY document related to the case.
She even has Freddy Kassab's handwritten notes and letters!
I don't know for sure, but I would bet a weeks pay Christina was at the recent hearing.
She was at the last one...
and the 1979 Trial.

Link does not work. What key words did you use?

Freckles wrote:

glazier wrote:Here is the link to Christina's site:
www.thejeffreymacdonldcase.com

This site has just about EVERY document related to the case.
She even has Freddy Kassab's handwritten notes and letters!
I don't know for sure, but I would bet a weeks pay Christina was at the recent hearing.
She was at the last one...
and the 1979 Trial.

Link does not work. What key words did you use?

I think it was a typo?? Put an "a" as in www.thejeffreymacdonAldcase.com

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1970_mac-on-murder.html

Just read the notes JM wrote. Amazing how very precise and clear he is with some details. Selective memory? At the hospital, when one could expect JM to not recall specifics due to a "trauma" situation, he is amazingly clear. As he is in describing the gloves in the kitchen. (And why on earth would a foggy man with three bloody bodies in his home go to the bathroom to inspect his own head? Makes no sense.)

IMO: It is interesting JM makes NO reference to the baby his wife is expecting. No concern at all for this unborn child. From what he has written, beginning with those notations of who liked him, to his description of his wife leaving him to do the dishes, put the children to bed, pick up the house, etc., he seems to be all about ME-ME-ME! Did he feel he was not getting enough attention in the marriage? Was he angry with his wife for having to "baby-sit" his own children?

He is one odd bird.

Where are the defensive injuries to JM?
JM states he lifted his hand/arm for protection/self-defense.

Now if some guy had a baseball bat and was swinging it at him, JM would have had broken hand/arm bones and probably a crushed skull. Instead, JM had slight head injuries and nothing to his wrist, arm or hand as a result of a baseball bat making contact.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac_hypnosis.html

Here JM states the perps had on "worker's" gloves. In the CID notes, he mentioned the perp could have gotten the surgical gloves from the washer/dryer area near the door.

Surely a doctor would know the difference between the two different types of gloves?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/ivory-2004-08-16.html

Items 1,2: Statements made by Bill Ivory indicate the two girls had been moved and positioned in the beds.

Freckles wrote:
Wha-a-at? You got to be kidding me! What DOCTOR lets a child sleep for hours in her own urine?? This can cause urine burns on the skin. Absolutely not believable!

Freckles, this is the interesting part, which I only read this afternoon when I was going through his testimony for the Grand Jury. MacDonald claimed all along that it was the youngest, the 2 going on 3 yo, Kristen, who had wet the bed and who he carried back to her own bed. However, the findings from the urine analysis revealed that it was the older daughter, Kimberley, who had actually wet the bed.

Freckles wrote:http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/ivory-2004-08-16.html

Items 1,2: Statements made by Bill Ivory indicate the two girls had been moved and positioned in the beds.

I've been trying to work out who was killed where, but I guess I need to read the book finished and also read more of the trial and grand jury notes. I picked up that Kimberly was killed in the master bedroom and then put into her bed and that Colette was perhaps killed on Kristen's bed and then wrapped in the sheet and placed in the master bedroom.

I'd love to watch the mini series to see how these scenes were portrayed so that I can get a clearer picture, but I'll have to wait until I recharge my 3g card.

Gia wrote:

Freckles wrote:http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/ivory-2004-08-16.html

Items 1,2: Statements made by Bill Ivory indicate the two girls had been moved and positioned in the beds.

I've been trying to work out who was killed where, but I guess I need to read the book finished and also read more of the trial and grand jury notes. I picked up that Kimberly was killed in the master bedroom and then put into her bed and that Colette was perhaps killed on Kristen's bed and then wrapped in the sheet and placed in the master bedroom.

I'd love to watch the mini series to see how these scenes were portrayed so that I can get a clearer picture, but I'll have to wait until I recharge my 3g card.

Freckles, reading Bill Ivory's response is eerily sad and esp when he says that they could see that Kristen was held down and killed at the end of her bed. Most importantly though, and this is a repeat comment ... drug crazed killers do not brutally kill two little girls and then tuck into bed as if they are merely sleeping.

Gia- I watched the FatalVision T.V. movie from the 80s on You-Tube last month (I think it was in 17 parts)
First time I saw that in 20+ years. You should check and see if it's still on there.

Freckles- I'm glad you found Christina's site inspite of my stupid misspelling!
It is truly a great site...1 of my favorites is the Transcript of JM's April 6, 1970 interview by CID (Grebner-Ivory-Shaw)
He litterally strutted in there to complain about getting his furniture or some such out of 544...
and they had different ideas!

Try as he might, he has NEVER been able to shake loose of that 'story' he spun that spring day.