Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald

See also: Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald/Archive 1. knoodelhed 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical Facts Missing

This article has some serious omissions and inconsistencies and serious flaws, which does not present the account as detailed in Joe McGinniss’ book: Fatal Vision, nor in the movie of the same name, which is allegedly based on his book and other credible legal sources. Some of the most serious I will offer a correction.

1. The Wikiarticle states:

As MacDonald retaliated by beating her with a piece of lumber, Kimberley — whose brain serum was found in the doorway — was struck, possibly by accident. Believing Colette dead, MacDonald carried the mortally wounded Kimberley back to her bedroom. After stabbing and bludgeoning her (Kimberley's blood was discovered on the pajama top MacDonald said he hadn't been wearing while in her room), he went to Kristen's room, intent on disposing of the last remaining witness.

The elder daughter, Kimberley, is alleged to have overheard her mother and Jeffery fighting and arguing which prompted her to come into the room crying. Jeffery, (the prosecution and the evidence believes), who was already in a “drug induced” rage, raised the 2 x4 (not lumber) over his head which inadvertently struck Kimberley in the head rendering her unconscious. It has never been determined from corner's report if she was actually mortally wounded. Also, the 2 x4 was not merely a "piece of lumber." After the Manson Murders, Mac Donald kept it in their bedroom closet for protection.

The younger daughter, Kristen, was never a witness to McDonald’s alleged crime. Throughout the entire crime she was asleep in her bed. It was determined by the coroner that she never awoke during the fighting. The evidence only determined that Mac Donald entered her bedroom AFTER he realized that Colette was dead, and had garnered the idea of blaming the crime on drug, crazed hippies. An idea he first obtained from inadvertently noticing the front cover of Esquire magazine profiling the Charles Manson LaBianca killings, that had taken place earlier that year (1969). He then (the prosecution theorized) decided to make the killings of the two girls appear as if they were killed by a similar type crazed-hippie group. Thus, the overkill. Kristen was even determined to have been asleep when Mac Donald laid her across his lap and began stabbing her to death.

You also state that during the Army’s Article 32 hearings:

In November 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald because they were "not true", and recommended that civilian authorities investigate Helena Stoeckley.

I do not know where you obtained this information, but it is not based on what was presented in Joe McGinniss’ book: Fatal Vision, nor in the movie. According to McGinniss, and the movie, Colonel Rock told Mac Donald outright, that the Army’s findings did not uncover enough sufficient evidence to convict him of the triple murders. Therefore, according his statement, the Amry had no choice but to drop all charges against Mac Donald. Mac Donald, angry, stated to the Colonel that he would have rather that the Army find him “not guilty,” in which the Colonel responded, “we cannot do that.” This outcome of the hearing is what alledgedly anger Mac Donald which led him to begin the very public campaign of discrediting the Army’s investigation. He started by arrogantly discussing the Army’s incompetence on various talk-shows and in other major print media.

BTW: In spite of her drug-crazed state, Helena Stoeckley had repeatedly maintained her innocence throughout the total ordeal. There was never any evidence that she was anywhere near Ft. Bragg or Mac Donald's house during the killings. This was a weak and hopeless strategy employed by Bernie Segel, Mac Donald's charismatic, hollywood-styled lawyer, to bolster the so-called "crazed hippie defense."

However, I think the most glaring omission in the Wikiarticle, is the absolute major and critical role that Colette’s parents, mainly her step father, Mr. Freddie Kasab (spelling?) played in getting the case before a grand jury, and pushing for MacDonald to finally stand trail for the deaths of their daughter Colette and her girls. It was Mr. Kasab, whom in the beginning, originally believed Mac Donald to have been innocent of the crimes, and thought that the Army was simply targeting Mac Donald as the scapegoat because they had botched the crime scene and was not competent to find the “real killers.” It was Mr. Kasab who initially fought with the military, and held very public press conferences stating his dissatisfaction with the military's investigation. He did this to alsp aid in influencing the outcome of the up-coming Article 32 hearing. It was Mr. Kasab who then utilized all of his political connections to win a "no findings" during MacDonald’s Article 32 hearings. It was Mr. Kasab who also testified with the highest love and conviction before the Article 32 board on Mac Donald’s exemplary character as a doctor, attentive father and a loving husband.

Subsequently, the Army was forced to drop all charges against Mac Donald, who was more than ready to leave the past behind and start a new life of fun and leisure surrounded by beautiful women. However, it was Mr. Kasab’s insistence that Mac Donald retrieve the transcripts of the entire article 32 hearing so that he (Mr. Kasab) could comb through every detail to prove to his satisfaction that Mac Donald was innocent, and not just because the Army could not come-up with enough evidence. Once this was accomplished it was Mr. Kasab's intention to push the Amry to go after the "real killers."

In due time, the tide began to turn against Mac Donald, when he kept putting Mr. Kasab off, and making excuses on why he could not obtain the transcripts; and after Mac Donald would agree for a fee, to speak about the case to the press and on talk shows, but not to Mr. Kasab. During the original hearings, it was Mac Donald who had refused to allow the Kasabs to sit in on any of the testimony. He had lied to them and told them that the hearing was for military personnel only. That is why Mr. Kasab did not hear all of the testimonies, the coroner's report, nor Mac Donald's version of the events that took place on the night of the killings. When Mac Donald kept dragging his foot on obtaining the transcripts, Mr. Kasab then became suspicious. After confronting Mac Donald one final time on why he would not obtain the transcripts, Mac Donald blew his top, and thus the enmity and the war began.

Mr. Kasab, finally did obtain the transcripts, and after spending almost one week (without sleep) reviewing them with a fine-tooth comb, he became completely convinced of Mac Donald’s absolute guilt, and spared no expense at using all of his money and connections to bring him to trail. In total it took Mr. Kasab ten years, an enormous amount of money, many painful and sometimes tragic set backs, and even his health, but he persevered and brought Mac Donald to trail where he was finally convicted. The years of fighting to bring Mac Donald before the grand jury, and finally a trail, took its toll on the Kasabs. Both eventually died. Probably from the heartbreak and the stress.

Finally, another major motive the is omitted from the Wikiarticle, is that both Mr. Kasab and the prosecution had speculated could have been Mac Donald’s trigger, was the use of methamphetamines. They speculated that during his medical school years, he was alleged to have been a recreational to heavy meth user. They confirmed this by finding this drug, along with a history of written prescriptions by Mac Donald to himself.

They believed he might have experienced a drug induced psychosis which sent him into a rage. They believed that this might have trigged a long deep-seated rage that he held against Colette. A women whom he only married and probably used her status and parents money to help him through medical school. Once he'd finished his residency, he was not ready to have more children and remain married to her. During the initial investigation by the prosecution, they found tons of evidence of his numerous infidelities during the marriage and immediately following her death.

They also speculated that at the night of the killings, his rage was trigged probably by Kimberley wetting his side of the bed. She often slept with Colette. When he lifted her to place her in her bed, he noticed that she was wet. They believed he then decided at during the course of their argument, to tell Collete that he was going to take on another new position as the sports doctor for a boxer who was due to travel for an event in Cuba, and that he too would be going. They speculate that she then became enraged because he would not be there when their third child was born. It was this event that all agree might have sparked the first blow coming from the hair brush held by Colette.

It would help complete and add more factual clarity to the article if the above information could also be included.

--MWHS (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just would like to make one final comment. This case has fascinated me from its beginning. From reviewing the wikiarticle and some of the comments, and especially the glaring omission of Mr. Freddie Kasab, it appears that this article could be biased by Mac Donald supporters who have been very aggressive in unsuccessfully trying to obtain his release. It was Mr. Kasab's complete and total devotion in seeking justice for his daughter and grandchildren that Mac Donald rests in prison today. This undeniable fact is the major theme in both the book and in the movie. I was living in Calif. when the Mansion and Mac Donald case broke. I have watched the movie at least half-dozen times, and have kept old articles concerning some of Mac Donald's recent appeals for a new trail, and I have watched some of the rare interviews he has done proclaiming his innocence in news specials. To not mention Mr. Kasab and hailed this man as a champion in seeking justice for his family is truly suspicious to me. --MWHS (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken in some of your rememberances of what is in Fatal Vision. Also, I don't find the article to be pro-MacDonald - I think it presents the facts well and without interjecting POV.

Can you point to where Fatal Vision states that the piece of wood used for a weapon was kept by MacDonald because of his fear subsequent to the Manson murders? That's the first I've heard of that and I've read Fatal Vision many times. And also lots and lots of case documentation. The case docuemntation shows that it came from the same wood as used to make Kimberley's bed slats, that it was unfinished, and that its dimensions matched those of the broken master bed footboard, suggesting it was a piece of scrap wood/lumber that was being used to support the footboard of the master bed and that's where MacDonald got it from.

A lot of info in this article comes from case documentation (see references) - I'd rather reference that type of info than Fatal Vision (nothing against Fatal Vision - I think the actual case documents are better for reference). For example, your statement questioning the accuracy of the following sentence from the article: "In November 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald because they were "not true", and recommended that civilian authorities investigate Helena Stoeckley." What is in this article is exactly what Col. Rock said in his Article 32 report - see the recommendations section of that report. Also, an Article 32 is the military equivelant of a Grand Jury hearing - "convicting" or finding someone "not guilty" at an Article 32 hearing is never an option - dismissing the charges is and that's exactly what happened. http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article-32_rock_1970-10-13_p02.html.

If you look at the trial testimony and autospy report of the doctor who performed Kimberley's autopy, he said that the blow she received at the master bedroom door was very severe and likely rendered her comatose - she had severe facial fractures from that blow and her brain serum was found at the door to the master bedroom.

Freddy Kassab. His role is mentioned in this article, although I did update to reflect that he and Mildred filed a complaint against MacDonald. To include more to the extent you suggest - to hail Freddy - I don't agree with that (although I think he was a hero in this case) - it's not an article about Freddy and to include more would be too POV. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

This article is a disgrace

The pyjama top was PROVED not to have been ripped after it got bloody but BEFORE it got bloody. There are many other discrepencies in this article, please do not trust it. 77.99.225.95 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your proof that the top was torn prior to being stained with his wife's blood, contrary to trial testimony that his wife's blood stained it prior to it's being torn. I'm all ears! 165.189.169.190 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Of course, this article should be merged with Jeffrey MacDonald. Why are we even discussing it? Madman 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this statement loaded?

"The "Fire Island Four," a group whom MacDonald had previously come in contact with in an innocent way long before the murders, were most likely the persons MacDonald drew upon when making up his descriptions of the so-called "intruders."" - CS

Fine tuning needed

I had never heard of MacDonald and these murders, so this wikipedia entry was my introduction. Presumably Colette was MacDonald's wife, but she is not introduced and not identified as such. Also, towards the end of the article, there is mention of a military hearing. That is the first time the military hearing is referenced. Where does the hearing fit into the timeline and is that where MacDonald's double jeopardy claims come into play? - Friends Forever? 15:54, 06 March 2006

Overly Contentious

This article seems overly contentious, especially in the discussion of the book "Fatal Justice," where every claim supposedly made by the book is followed immediately by an arm-waving sentence in refutation. Perhaps the book should be allowed its own section, and the refutations should be collected in a subsequent section ... ?

Biased inclusions.

I was pleased to see that an update on the DNA evidence was made, but the new developments that came with it have been excluded. I think it's rather biased to only include new information that condemns MacDonald, when it's equally notable that three witnesses have come forward claiming that Mitchell confessed to the crime - in addition to Britt's allegation that Stoeckly personally confessed to him.

If we're going to add new information, there needs to be a balance between evidence favoring the prosecution and evidence favoring MacDonald. Otherwise, it gives the reader the false impression that MacDonald's lawyers presented new evidence and it was all soundly rejected. The same would be true if the fact that the hair was his was excluded and only the pro-MacDonald evidence was revealed. Somebody needs to summarize the new facts of the case (available many places, including crimelibrary.com) in a detailed, accurate, non-biased manner, giving equal time to both sides. --67.169.111.72 03:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

MacDonald's Alleged Motive?

What's the motive that MacDonald had to commit these horrific acts?Tom Cod 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

For an example of a case, leaving aside Charles Manson, that supports the credibility of MacDonald's defense see Richard Mattingly Murder Case. Tom Cod 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There are differences between the Mattingly murder and the MacDonald murders - the Mattingly murders involved the very troubled daughter and her hippie friends killing her father, not a group of hippies who were strangers to their victims.

The Government contends that MacDonald's motive that he went into a rage - a fight started between him and his wife in the master bedroom and escalated to physical battering, and ultimately to murder. Makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous motives "confessed" to by Stoeckley - "I was a member of the "Black Cult" and we believed that the murder of the a pregnant woman was the ultimate sacrifice".

Both McGinness & the A&E Green Beret Murders program cited MacDonald's abuse of amphetamine & the possibility of an extramarital affair: in addition to his regular doctor job with the Green Berets, he reputedly worked part-time in a civilian E.R. room off base. He was also heavily involved with an Army amateur boxing team, which was to leave soon for, if memory serves, the Soviet Union.

With regard to drugs, Fayetteville became a haven for wayward soldiers returning from 'Nam & leaving the Army & addicted to heroin & cocaine; McGinness reported that MacDonald was seeing overdose (O.D.) cases in the E.R. (Like Haight-Ashbury in the late 60s, Fayetteville's early 70s O.D. incidents led to what would soon be called "emergency medicine.") @Any rate, MacDonald could well have been overworked & overwrought: but after McGinness's book, I just think of him washing dishes & downing that peach liqueur.--BubbleDine 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As regards BubbleDine's contention that Helena Stoeckley's motives were "ridiculous" -- the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Ruling of May 6, 2010 has expanded MacDonald's appeal to consider evidence that trial prosecutor threatened Helena Stoeckley with a murder indictment if she told the jury what she told him: that had been in the MacDonald home when the murders were committed. The prosecutor was quite the character, eh? He was eventually imprisoned and disbarred. Sorry to bust your bubble, BubbleDineShemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Along with her contention that she had "intercoarse" with MacDonald a couple of weeks before the murders and that Allen Mazzerole was there. Yep, soooo believeable! And since we want the court to consider ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, let's hope they consider the evidence that Britt lied (he didn't transport her from Greenville) and that Helena steadfastly denied involvement to the defense during their interview with her just prior to the Blackburn's interview of her and when she was picked up by the federal marshall service on the material witness warrent. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

He was not "heavily involved" with the boxing team - he worked out a couple of times with the team and discussed with the coach becoming the team physician. He claimed and still claims that he also discussed with the coach accompanying the team on their trip to Russia. However, the coach said that although they had casually discussed the team's potential trips, the team was not planning a trip to Russia nor had he ever mentioned such a locale to Macdonald. The Government claims that he made this up with the intent of taking a "vacation" from his family - with his pregnant wife thinking he's incommunicado in Russia, he would be able to live the bachelor life he desired and indulged in while he was married.

Biased

This is an incredibly one-sided article which does not even attempt to treat the government and defense cases, or competing secondary source material, fairly or objectively. The information and tone of the language are clearly intended to condemn both Dr. MacDonald and his supporters. the article should be flagged as biased or edited to reflect a neutral point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.235.62 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Examples please?

You left out the role of the noted FBI Lab perjurer and manufacturer of evidence Michael P. Malone.[1]

I don't know whether MacDonald is innocent or guilty, but I know the people who control this article have condemned him. This article is BIASED!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't condemn him - the courts have done that, as he stands convicted of the murders of his wife and children. Feel free to insert language about Michael Malone - IMO, it should be focused on his role in this case and that has been investigated and litigated. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the link provided by Shemp Howard re: Michael Malone say something about Malone's role in the MacDonald case? Perhaps a mention of Malone and his issues is indicated, but also that his role in this case has been investigated/litigated and no wrongdoing has been found. I don't think a media interview with a MacDonald attorney saying he thinks Malone lied proves anything. 165.189.169.156 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Edit

I reversed this edit/addition (below) to the article. I thought some discussion would be helpful before including it. It refers to the claims of Jimmy Friar, an incarcerated individual who came forward during the trial. The defense knew about him, but decided not to call him. Personally, I think this is a dubious claim, one of many related to this case and shouldn't be part of the murder narrative.

"During the night of the murders, a witness mistakenly called Jeffrey R Mcdonald's home, at the time of the murders. The witness had actually meant to call another doctor of the name Jeffrey McDonald. As the witness answered the phone, a woman answered, hystericaly laughing. The witness claimed he could hear a man in the background saying, "What are you doing? Get of the damn phone." This evidence was never reviewed."

please sign your posts with four tildas

I notice there are an awful lot of anonymous edits and posts here. Please remember that even if you do not wish to register an account, you can date-time stamp your posts with your ISP # by typing four tildas (~'s) after your post. It's important to do that so other editors know who said what and when. That way, messages can be left on your talk pages if need be. ThanksLiPollis 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not touched this page but I'll do that in future when I add to a discussion. 75.19.37.56 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Parole

The article states: At the urging of his wife and attorneys, he had a parole hearing on May 10, 2005. How can this be if his wife died in 1970? Obviously, the article is missing information on his apparent remarriage. The article seems to be missing a lot of information. 144.92.192.127 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MacDonald remarried while in prison.96.227.75.132 (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Massive edit.

Any particular reason for the massive edit done by User:Ldbosco that wiped out much of the sourcing in this article? I'm thinking the whole thing should be rolled back, since it seems to be unsourced and overlinked. Dstumme (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of references were removed and no reason is given. Lots of the language added re: links - too much - and is intended to convey a POV about the webauthors. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I considered reverting after he had made two edits, but I waited to see what other edits he planned to make. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another massive edit

I've twice reverted very extensive edits by User:Kkmpl that included removal of cited content and references, no edit summaries, and does not adhere to WP:NPOV IMHO. The editor is welcome to bring issues to this talk page. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of FBI Agent Accused of "Forensic Prostitution"

Here is from a site about the book "Fatal Justice"...."FBI agent Michael P. Malone filed false affidavits in response to MacDonald's 1990 habeas petition. They now knew that agent Malone, who was named by the Justice Department to have testified falsely in other cases, filed false affidavits on the 22 inch blond saran fiber found in the MacDonald home." Why is there no mention of this? Malone was an FBI Agent from the FBI Lab who testified about fiber evidence, as an expert, even though hair and fiber research is not a "science," by any means, but is a highly subjective process. Malone was accused by another FBI agent of tailoring his evidence to suit prosecutors, a case of "forensic prostitution". This involved the accusation that he intentionally gave false testimony in the Alcee Hastings impeachment trial. This is part of the FBI Lab corruption revealed by Dr. Frederic Whitehurst. Malone is the man who gave critical testimony that damned Jeffery MacDonald, and it's not even mentioned.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a mention about the July 1991 denial of his 1990 petition (which included his claims re: Malone). Malone is not specifically mentioned, but utimately, the courts reviewed and denied his claims re: prosecutorial misconduct, including the claims re: Malone. Also, Malone did not testify at trial, so I'm not sure how his testimony damned MacDonald. The evidence he provided was for the Government's response to Macdonald's 1990 post-trial appeal and was regarding the three blond synthetic hairs found in a hair brush -1) they were from different sources (calling into question the claim that Helena Stoeckley had brushed her wig with this brush, leaving the hairs); 2) one of the hairs matched an FBI doll exemplar and 2) they were made from Saran, which he stated was not used for human wigs, but rather for dolls. 165.189.169.156 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Malone was just in the news at the end of the year for committing perjury in a case in which a man was unjustly imprisoned. [2] There may be scores of people put in prison by this man's "testimony" and faked evidence, and you don't think it's important?

LAUER: Do you think Michael Malone lied in his written testimony in the MacDonald case?

SILVERGATE: Yes, I think Michael malone lied, and Michael Malone lied under oath. [3]

This is not a law school site, a site for law students or law professors. Wikipedia is for laypeople, for general interest readers. The fact that an FBI agent that was outed 12 years ago by the Bureau's Office of the Inspector General is a perjurer and manufacturer of evidence (the Alcee Hastings case) is something that readers should know about. It goes to the heart of the legal system. We're not just interested in the legal fictions that occur in the court room, but the WHOLE story of which Malone is a part!

I have no idea whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent, but I do know that he was convicted with the help of a career perjuror. And I'm not interested in the fact that the court didn't mention Malone. If Sam Sheppard had died before his sentence was vacated by the Supreme Court, let alone exonerated in his second trial, would that mean he was guilty? Would that mean the evidence that later exonerated him wasn't relevant? THIS IS SHAMEFUL! Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I said THIS ARTCILE doesn't mention Malone, not that the court didn't mention him. Instead of whining about it, put it in, or better yet start an article about Michael Malone. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Circuit Ruling of May 6t, 2010

The overseers of this page need to mention that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 6, 2010 not only DENIED the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss MacDonald's appeal but expanded the issues to be decided in the appeal. This article needs to mention that the Court of Appeals expanded MacDonald’s appeal to consider DNA test results as well as evidence that the original prosecutor threatened to indict Helena Stoeckley for murder if she testified contrary to his wishes. This article also needs to mention that submissions are to be made on June 15th.

The overseers who keep this page biased against MacDoanld are just going to have bite the bullet for the next several months. This bias of who is moderating this article is obscene. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement about "bite the bullet" indicates that you are the one who is biased. There is no "overseer" - update the article yourself. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)