Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald

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)

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)

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)

Errol Morris book

Perhaps there should be more discussion of Morris's book? It is only mentioned vaguely and simply to assert that McGinniss's work has problems - which suggests that it is along the lines of Malcolm's book. But, from what I can gather from reviews, Morris's book seems to be largely an attempt to show that MacDonald was probably innocent. Given Morris's prominence and general credibility, doesn't his book deserve more extended treatment in the article? 98.111.161.5 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Morris's book is not so much an attempt to show MacDonald's probable innocence-- he is careful to leave open the possibility that MacDonald may in fact be guilty-- as an attempt to show that MacDonald did not receive a fair trial and that the available evidence is (largely due to inept behavior by investigators immediately after the murders) too much of a muddle for his guilt ever to be proven. Slightly more treatment of it in the article may indeed be appropriate; whatever mention there is probably doesn't belong in the section on Fatal Vision, as it is not primarily a response to that book. 76.179.179.249 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to believe Joe McGinniss's interpretation of the case. In addition, the question should be asked as to why there is virtually no evidence about the so-called "cult", or the members thereof, beyond the testimony of Ms. Stoeckley. Why hasn't the defense followed up about that?

In any case, the lack of evidence proving innocence would mitigate against any overturning of the verdict; many, many people are still in jail and have much more evidence of their innocence than in this case, yet are unable to obtain release or a new trial, unfortunately.

I read Mr. McGinniss's book a long time ago, yet to me it does not appear the defense has submitted much of anything additional that is substantive since that time, certainly not enough to warrant a new trial or acquittal. The burden of proof is generally on the defense (to overturn a conviction). I feel that the Morris book has not added anything to what was known before, and, right, wrong, or neutral, courts do not overturn convictions without something substantive. If you believe that is a bad thing, then laws would need to be changed. I do, however accept that sometimes forgiveness is good, but MacDonald refuses to admit guilt, so that is hurting his parole chances. If he is telling the truth, that is indeed a tragedy. But the court system, to function properly, needs to accept the finality of its decisions, lacking anything disproving guilt.

Any factual explanation available as to why the house was dark?

The talk page is not supposed to be a forum to discuss the merits of this case and that is not my intention. I am simply asking if any factual information might be available regarding a point of interest to me. The article states that when the MPs arrived, the house was dark with no lights on. Dr. MacDonald claims that after being assaulted by the alleged assailants in the living room, he passed out from his wounds. After regaining consciousness, he then went to check on his family and gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to his wife in their bedroom. He then phoned for help before passing out again. But he didn’t turn on any lights during this time? Did Dr. MacDonald ever offer an explanation as to why he would have stumbled around in the dark rather than turn lights on? If so, could the explanation be added to the article as a matter of interest and clarification? It is difficult to fathom that this curious point was never raised before. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You raise excellent points. I agree with all that you say. I have no idea, but perhaps this is another illogical detail that points to MacDonald's account being a fabrication. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Since Dr. MacDonald has long since been convicted of the murders, it is permissible to speak of him as guilty rather than merely as allegedly so. My take on this point is as follows. I know of no one who believes JM guilty who thinks this tragedy was premeditated before that terrible night. I think it was strictly rage set off by something that only he knows amongst the living. Therefore, the good doctor had to think fast in attempting a cover up. In his harried state of mind, he was thinking that the MPs should find the house dark in accordance with his account of candle wielding intruders. Thus, the mistake.

I think it is unfair that many have labeled JM a psychopath. Rather, I think he was sleep deprived and possibly hyper from taking amphetamines in the form of diet pills. That’s a combination for just this sort of thing, especially in regard to vigorous younger men as he had been then. Aside from allegations that I read (which I have no idea if they are true) that he had been thought of as a “dirty” football player in school, I know of no evidence that he ever engaged in violence before or since this one incident. I just think he will not admit the truth out of pride, an unwillingness to even now compromise his once highly esteemed status as a Green Beret physician and surgeon and All-American boy whiz. It’s just too much for him. It means more to him than even his freedom at this stage. The whole thing is just tragic, so many lives lost or ruined for one out-of-control moment.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point about the house being dark and MacDonald's description of candle-bearing assailants does indeed make sense. For what it's worth, I think this was a murder not premeditated (as you stated), but one that came about in a fit of passion and rage. He flew into a rage and murdered the wife. Then, as a "cover up", he murdered the two daughters. (I believe there was some evidence that the older daughter came upon the husband and wife as they were engaged in physical violence. I remember some detail about the daughter's blood being in the parent's bedroom, or perhaps the blood of the husband/wife somehow being splashed onto the daughter.) Anyways, in order to devise a "cover up" story, MacDonald had to act very quickly. He did not have the leisure of a lot of free time. He knew that he had to call 9-1-1 very quickly, in order to not raise suspicion upon him. He was already in a frenzied state. So, in his mind, he had to quickly come up with some plausible "fact" pattern that did not incriminate him. All of this being done very quickly, MacDonald did not have time to ruminate over all the fine details and minutiae of the story. So, it would be inevitable that some pieces of his account would not hold up (a) to the physical evidence and (b) to common sense and the "smell test". He killed the wife; then, he killed the daughters to make the story more credible that some intruders committed the crime. I think that, in his own mind, no one in the world could ever imagine a father doing this to his own children. And, he had a stellar reputation in the community. So, I think that he thought that that would shield him from any suspicion. Another point: you stated that "I think it is unfair that many have labeled JM a psychopath." He's precisely a psychopath, no? To even have that thought enter your mind (the thought being, "if I kill my two babies, that will save my own skin from being accused of my wife's murder") is indicative of some level of psychopathy, no? Let alone the fact that he actually acted upon the thought. It was all done in a frenzied hurry, very quickly, without any time to really "think it through". Which shows how his "true" inner self, almost acting out as a reflex, kicked into that psychopathic mode and mindset. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input which is most appreciated. As we agree on the first point then only the second needs to be addressed.

I believe the recently late Joe McGinniss—it’s been years since I read Fatal Vision—conceded the possibility that the older daughter might been killed by accident with JM not realizing she was in the room and accidentally hit her on the back swing with the board. If so, at this point perhaps JM felt he had no alternative but to make a clean sweep of it. McGinniss said that killing the younger daughter (still in her room and probably still asleep) was the unforgivable thing he did that night. Still, the term “psychopath” (first coined in the early 1800s) connotes a genetic propensity towards violence and "moral depravity” or “moral insanity,” as opposed to a “sociopath” where such character disorders are viewed to have been spawned by environmental considerations such as child rearing issues.

Although JM might indeed exhibit the latter two characteristics, I just don’t see any concrete evidence towards a propensity towards violence. If you’ve ever been severely sleep-deprived, you might understand the feeling of wanting to lash out at anyone who gives you even the slightest cause of annoyance. Most of us manage to restrain our impulses in such a situation whereas JM apparently could not. The killing of the younger child might have been a panic reaction towards self-preservation, though, of course, inexcusable as McGinniss suggested. Thanks again and best regardsHistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that the killing of the wife was in a heat of passion and rage; the killing of the older daughter was likely accidental as you described. So, clearly, the killing of the younger daughter was the most horrific, it being intentional and premeditated. (She, being an infant and being asleep, would not even serve as a "witness" to implicate MacDonald; hence, she was completely innocent and her murder was absolutely unnecessary. I can think of many fact patterns where the other two would be murdered, but the infant spared. For example, the intruders did not realize that the family had an infant, so they attacked only the others of whom they were aware. The baby, being asleep and being silent, did not draw their attention.) I am not a psychiatrist and I do not know the vagaries and distinctions in the formal definitions of psychopath versus sociopath. If I were sleep deprived and hyped from amphetamines, I still cannot imagine that I would ever entertain the thought (much less, the action) of slaughtering an infant. Whether I was panicked or not. It takes a "special" kind of person/mindset to (A) even formulate that thought; (B) to actually consider it as a "good" alternative; and (C) to carry it through. For 99.99% of the population, no amount of sleep deprivation and/or amphetamine use would lead to actions and decisions such as those of MacDonald. You also say: "I just don’t see any concrete evidence towards a propensity towards violence." That statement makes me think of two specific thoughts. (1) Apparently, he was a college football player. Not that that is an indication of "violence" per se, but it is clearly an aggressive and violent sport. And it was an activity that interested him. (Interestingly, I wonder what position he played?) And (2) He was not only inclined to be interested in a military career, but he was also trained as a Green Beret. Again, not necessarily "violence" per se, but that does entail a certain level of aggression and violence. On top of all this, I think we need to factor in an extremely large dose of narcissism on his part. A recipe for disaster. You even stated in an above post (with which I agree) that even today he is allowing his pride and his reputation ("as it were") to obstruct his truthfulness. I am not as convinced as you are that his genetic propensities are not toward violence. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your considered input. I too am not a psychiatrist so this point cannot be satisfactorily answered by either of us. I do recognize the validity of your points and can’t categorically say that you are wrong. I don’t want to come off as if I’m defending JM in any way. As you say, for whatever reason the murder of the younger child was premeditated and on that ground I would have voted for the death penalty had that option been open to the jury at that time. Even though the murder of the younger child was premeditated, I still think it possible that it was motivated by panic, his not thinking clearly, as opposed to a desire to want to rid himself of all his immediate family obligations as the opportunity arose in one sudden moment. Although I don't think the child was old enough to have been a danger to him by contradicting his story even had she been awake—and as you state her having been unharmed in the wake of marauding intruders would not have raised unanswerable questions—, perhaps he was uncertain of this point. In any event, acting in his perceived interest of self-preservation is hardly a defense or even a mitigating factor, so we agree on that point as well.

Regarding the house having been dark, I don’t know for certain if this point had ever occurred to anyone before me and, if so, if the question was put to JM. I would surmise that if it were to be that JM would fall back on: “I guess I wasn't thinking straight,” which, ironically, would be the exact truth, though not in the manner he would mean to imply.

Thank you very much again for your time and best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the points in your posting. Needless to say, there will always be many unanswered questions, as MacDonald has no interest or reason to provide a truthful account. So, at the end of the day, he is exactly where he belongs. Thanks for the intelligent discourse. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Primary Sources + Contextualizing "Affairs" (Extramarital) in article (2014)

I'm not familiar enough with this subject to edit the article. However, there is clearly an over-reliance on primary sources like trial transcripts and a dearth of reliable secondary/tertiary sources and so I've tagged accordingly.

I also wanted to provide feedback on something very specific and encourage you to consider it in improving the article: there is a decontextualized reference to "extramarital affairs" in the "Prosecution" subsection that I believe is confusing b/c the topic is not introduced to the reader at any point before in the article. The specific passage reads:

"Another piece of damaging evidence against MacDonald was an audio tape made of the April 6, 1970 interview by military investigators. Listening to this tape, the jury heard MacDonald's matter-of-fact, indifferent recitation of the murders. They heard him become angry, defensive, and emotional in response to suggestions by the investigators that he had committed the murders. He asked the investigators why would they think he, who had a beautiful family and everything going for him, could have murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters in cold blood for no reason. The jury also heard the investigators confront MacDonald with their knowledge of his extramarital affairs, to which MacDonald calmly responded, “Oh... you guys are more thorough than I thought.”"

What is the relevance of the "extramarital affairs" and where is the supporting detail and sourcing, please? Why aren't any alleged affairs introduced way, way before in the article so that the reader knows this crucial detail of the subject's behavior and/or relationship issues/status/drama prior to the current mention (which still remains totally decontextualized)? This seems especially sloppy and confusing because of what's written in the following section:

"Despite the evidence, the prosecution was hampered by the lack of motive for MacDonald to have committed the murders, since he had no history of violence or domestic abuse with his wife or children. Since Dupree refused both the defense and prosecution requests for any psychiatric evaluation to be done for MacDonald, he also refused the prosecution's request to allow into evidence any part of the Article 32 transcripts from MacDonald's 1970 U.S. Army hearing. Dupree ruled that since the current trial was a civilian trial and the Article 32 military hearing had several reports from the military investigators, which claimed that MacDonald may have murdered his wife and two daughters in a drug-induced rage, it was considered biased and hearsay."

That is, there's no mention of extramarital affairs as any kind of a factor in the murder(s), or salient to the subject's story - at least up til this point in the article. JDanek007^Talk 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Word Choice

This is under the section "The murders":

"They found the front door closed and locked and the house dark inside. When no one answered the door, they circled to the back of the house, where they found the back screen door closed and unlocked but wide open."

This seems to be contradictory. It says that the screen door was closed but wide open. What is meant by this? Could we get someone to edit this to clarify it?

168.8.249.187 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Beret Doctor?

The article says that CID didn't believe that Dr. McDonald could have been "bested" by three druggies when he was a Green Beret. He was a doctor ASSIGNED to 3rd SFG, but was he really a Green Beret? Did he go though Special Forces Assessment and Selection? Or was he just assigned to the Support Battalion for 3rd SFG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4A88:6F00:D6D:748D:CCF7:D123 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that he was an actual Green Beret, since the article says he joined the army on 7/1/1969 and was assigned to the Green Berets less than three months later - that's barely enough time to complete basic army training, never mind the special forces selection and training or the three years prior military service you need before you're eligible for SF selection. 24.115.46.109 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what Reliable Sources state. Please review WP:FORUM for what the Talk Pages are and are not for, such as what you think. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Answer: It's complicated. First of all, Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) did not exist before 1990. Secondly, MacDonald did indeed never attend the 6 month Q-Course (making him what was in those days called "flash-qualified" -- a "real Green Beret"). He probably never would have been allowed to. Thirdly, like it or not (and the "Guardians of the Tab" definitely do not) anyone assigned in 1969 to a US Army Special Forces unit would wear (and be) a "Green Beret" from the date of their assignment orders. That includes everyone, not excepting the surgeon and the cook. For purposes of the article, he must remain, technically, "a Green Beret doctor". Was CID right in thinking that his physical prowess had to have been something extraordinary? No. No more that any other 26 year old physician off the street. (There are many other "Green Beret myths" that will probably never die!) 216.164.62.52 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeffrey R. MacDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825050451/http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_16.html to http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417115341/http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab-1973_p0.html to http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab-1973_p0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905020021/http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/25/4029207/federal-judge-upholds-jeffrey.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/25/4029207/federal-judge-upholds-jeffrey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The last link is in fact an anti-MacDonald site run by his detractors, and I think it should be described as such. The website run by his supporters is not listed. Thanks. bt10ant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note a site formerly maintained by Macdonald supporters - spoecifically his wife - that was previously listed on the page has not existed for a long time, and that's why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.253.2 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I happen to think the guy is as guilty as sin (in the interest of putting all my cards on the table).....but even I notice the NPOV issues with this article. A good example is this:

MacDonald's defense called forensic expert James Thornton to the stand. He unsuccessfully tried to rebut the government's contention that the pajama top was stationary on Colette's chest, rather than wrapped around MacDonald's wrists as he warded off blows, by conducting an experiment wherein a similar one was placed over a ham, moved back and forth on a sled, and stabbed at with an ice pick.[22]

The source for that is the trial transcript itself. (Via the Jeffrey MacDonald web site, which takes the position he is the killer.) To say Thornton was unsuccessful clearly violates wiki's rules on OR. To reach that conclusion, one would have to produce a interview with one of the jurors and (even then) qualify it by saying something about how it was the opinion of the jurors that he was unsuccessful. (After all, juries have fallen for junk science before. If Thornton's conclusions are also disputed by another expert (outside of the prosecution's case), those view can be presented with a RS.) The article makes a number of statements like that. I think it likely needs an overhaul.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hoover

Anybody think it worth mentioning Hoover's death as being a catalyst? From the beginning, he forbade the FBI from getting involved because of the mess the CID made of it.....after he died, they got into it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. The article is well-informed, and researched, but is still difficult to navigate from start to finish are there is some unnecessary detail, and some sections still read like a collage of pertinent information, unnecessary depth, and misplaced detail. Everything (or certainly nearly everything) that needs to be included is already here. In my own opinion, if said reputable reference can be found, it should perhaps be included in a note? I have watched a lot of documentaries about this case, have read a lot, including several books with extensive chapters devoted to the case, but never an actual book solely devoted to the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You ought to read 'Fatal Vision'. It's pretty good. On the other side of the aisle (in terms of what the author believes) is 'Wilderness of Error'. It's a pretty good read too. (It kind of updates it too (for someone in my age bracket) who really didn't follow it after the Fatal Vision mini-series and book back in the 80's.) In any case......this is more of a point I've seen the docus make than the books. I may add something.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A couple of problems

1. At one point in the article it says "No fragments of skin were recovered from beneath the fingernails of any of the victims." But later on the point is made that yes: Colette had some skin under her nails and it was lost.

2. We probably should include the fact it came out in the Article 32 that the flower pot was stood up by army personnel. In the April 6, 1970 interview with the CID they accused Jeff of setting it up.

3. A big point of contention over the years (that goes unmentioned here) has been that coffee table in the living room. The investigators said it should have flipped all the way....but Col Rock went to the residence himself and flipped it over and a chair (braced against the wall) stopped it from going all the way.

I may address this myself in the coming days if someone doesn't beat me to it. ThanksRja13ww33 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

With regards to point one, the reference states that (in reference to the supposed struggle with the three male intruders) "[the perpetrators] seem to have left no microscopic physical clues at the scene of the crime: no fragments of skin under the fingernails of their resisting victims". Later on the same page of the same reference, Segal states at the hearing much of the Military Police procedures had destroyed potential fingerprint or forensic evidence. Maybe a note would suffice? I read your earlier comment attesting to your personal conviction in MacDonald's guilt, and am inclined to agree wi' you. That skin sample would have sourced from MacDonald's face. No excuses offered, but MP were unused to crimes along these lines and full forensic procedures. Gave Segal a lot of ammo. in the courtroom. Still awaiting the Fatal Vision book I ordered last week. Not gotten to the table yet.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't remember how the book Fatal Vision dealt with both the flower pot and the coffee table. The mini-series Fatal Vision copped to the flower pot being set upright by a third party.....but it omitted the fact that Col. Rock verified the coffee table could be stopped from going all the way. A Wilderness of Error (the book) noted both. It may seem trivial, but it kind of symbolizes the problems with the case from Day 1 (that Mac & Co have brought up again and again so ergo, it is probably notable enough for the article).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I will probably add to the article at some point McGinniss's Eskatrol theory. (From the book Fatal Vision. It's mentioned in the Fatal Vision article the last time I looked.) That was a big revelation at the time as the motive was always the aspect of the crime even people who believed he was guilty struggled with.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

At one point we say: "To the chagrin of Provost Marshal Robert Kriwanek, on October 13, 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald as insufficient evidence existed to prove his guilt." Actually Rock went further saying the charges were "not true". MacDonald has used that to claim double jeopardy. (Which has been rejected by the appeals courts) I need to address this too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am only going off the references I have, and can access. Reference states he resented the criticism of the Army's competence. The book arrived today.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's no problem. I am kind of doing this as a "punch list" for myself. (To use a term from my business.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Just got through the introduction chapter. If yous like I'll leave the article until your concerns are resolved. (I work with data input and Excel spreadsheet analysis/creation so am not averse to exhaustive tasks.) Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit as you think is necessary....but you can leave the stuff on this list to me. I think I have an idea as to how I want to say it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Also probably worth mentioning Blackburn was (later) disbarred. That's become a big part of Mac's appeals.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"no wet footprints were found at the crime scene" was added recently. I need to address that too. (More accurately to something that is claimed.) As Col Rock pointed out: if there were no wet footprints....that means the MPs were not there either. (And we know they were.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the supposed intruders entered from the rear of the house, having to cross a muddy yard following a night of rain? MP drove to the scene and only one entered from the rear before rushing to the front of the house?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

IIRC that is correct. But it still begs the question of: where is Mica's footprint? (The guy who went around back.) For that matter, where are the other footprints of the other MPs (and medical personnel and so on)? If the criteria is "wet" only footprints.....then there are others missing as well. I'm going to get to this (i.e. all the points I've raised so far) Thursday or Friday. So that will give me time to hunt down what exactly Col. Rock said on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ken Mica on the way to the crime scene

I'm going to add a brief comment about Ken Mica seeing a gal in a hat on the way to answering the call for help that night of the murders. This is a significant point that goes unmentioned. (And I delve into it some here because my addition will be much shorter.) Mica has said how odd it was to see that. This came up at the trial.....however he was not asked if it was Helena Stoeckley. And (in fact), after the trial, he has made it clear that the woman wasn't Helena. Mica has also said that his interviews with shows like Unsolved Mysteries, False Witness, 20/20, 48 Hours, etc were edited to intimate it was Helena.

I think it's worth mentioning because it's been another point that Team Mac has brought up a lot over the years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Mac lying to the Kassabs

We note the fact that Mac lied to the Kassabs about tracking down (and killing) one of the intruders (as well as other things)...but the article currently ascribes his motive "to discourage Kassab's efforts to obtain a copy of this [Article 32] transcript" and [later] "to placate Mildred and Alfred Kassab, whom he described as "bizarre" and "fanatics" regarding their interest in their search for justice."

In the interest of NPOV, I think we should mention his side of it, i.e. he has claimed he was trying to get them past their grief. He (for example) told American Justice while it was (in retrospect) a "crazy" thing to do.....he also said it was a "attempt to somehow assuage their grief a little, and get them past step one in overcoming their own grief".

Unless there are any objections, I can drop it in.

And by the way, I don't think he described the Kassabs as "bizzare" solely on the basis of their pursuit of justice. He mentioned some of Mildred's bizarre statements (at least according to him) after the murders.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I get the impression, from reading McGinnis's book, that as MacDonald moved to NY, then CA, without trying to honor his promise to bring the (non-existent) perpetrators to justice (and with Alfred then as his staunch supporter), as Kassab continued making noise about identifying the killers, he tried repeatedly to dissuade/placate him while playing (poorly) the "heartbroken husband and father" card. Making the ludicrous claim of killing one of the perpetrators in response to increased noises from Kassab about pursuing other legal avenues. It is in the reference, alongside MacDonald referring to Mildred as Colette's "so-called mother" at the 1974 grand jury hearing, adding "she's been bizarre for a long time" as he was, apparently "trying to build a new life" and Alfred an "alcoholic fanatic" who was "driving [him]crazy" with phone calls etc. P. 438 of Fatal Vision details this.

IIRC, part of that bizarreness [sp?] was some statement she supposedly made where she [Mildred] wished that "Bobby's [Colette's brother] kids were killed, not yours." Mac recalled this statement at the Grand Jury. So it's stuff like that (assuming he is telling the truth) is what he was referring to.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Again I try and keep a neutral mind,Rja13ww33, but, to me, he was making this up as he went along, as justification for his inaction and rebuffing etc. Mildred had miscarried two or three daughters before Colette was born, and always wanted girls (from what I read). I know some mothers have favorite children, but I don't sense it here. I take this claim in the context of the other outlandish claims he made. Maybe adding this in a note on the article would suffice?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC).

I think a note would probably handle it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

He tried discouraging him from obtaining the 2,000-page transcript, then got his mother to bring it, saying he needed it back after one weekend as he needed it for legal means. Three years later nothing had been done on MacDonald's part. I did mention I am trying to keep a NPOV, Rja13ww33. It is difficult, not least because even if you try and find facts or circumstance in MacDonald's favor, they are few and far between. Also, I am trying to remain aware of the length of the article and the exhaustive record of charges, legal hearings, convictions, appeals, "new evidence" hearings, overrulings, appeals etc.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is getting somewhat long. (That's always the tough part of editing here: a target length.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the article reads well to the Grand jury section. Everything between this section and the Ongoing legal efforts section (with the possible Trial section and subsections) needs trimming?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't trim anything just yet. The strategy I have typically followed is: write long.....and wait for complaints later. :) Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Who said this?

In the article it was added (about the Grand Jury): "Also to testify was an individual who stated that, in his experience, individuals under the influence of LSD seldom become violent..."

The cited source doesn't mention that but Joe McGinniss said in Fatal Vision (the book) the person who said that was "The newspaper reporter who had covered the Article 32 hearing and who had interviewed MacDonald on the morning the charges against him were dropped also agreed to testify."(p. 479)

I've never been clear on who this person was (or if he testified). Checking the witness list for the Grand Jury, I don't see a reporter down as a witness. (Interestingly enough, this guy is given a scene in Fatal Vision (the miniseries)....testifying to the Grand Jury. But he is not identified there either.)

Anyone know who this is (and/or if he actually testified)? We probably should be clear on that point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

All I know is it's page 482 of the source. If it is too vague, maybe it should go?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. When I wrote the above, the first citation after that was the Joe Nickell book. (Not Fatal Vision) I was just curious if anyone knew who this was because in the miniseries, he's on the stand saying the stuff about "4 people on acid couldn't organize a trip to the toilet". I wouldn't get rid of it. Maybe just introduce it by saying something like "a reporter who had covered the Article 32 hearing and interviewed MacDonald told Joe McGinniss [insert acid head's organizing skills (or whatever) here]". You've already dropped the citation in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If the Jury should find.....

I may be nitpicking but I noticed the part about how Blackburn framed his questions to Mac (at trial) in the form of "If the jury should find..." was removed. I thought that was noteworthy. It was a point for Blackburn in closing and was part of the shown testimony in the movie Fatal Vision. It is also (as far as I know) unique as trials go. I can't think of one (other than this one) where the attorney framed the questions this way.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That was on the second day. I have included the second day's testimony following the recess, Rja13ww33. Sorry, I should have kept it there to begin with. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wade Smith

I added brief statements and notes about how short Wade Smith's time in front of the jury was. If anyone feels it should be elaborated upon further: let me know. A lot of observers have expressed the opinion that it was a mistake to have Segal in front of the jury that much and that his argument didn't fit the profile of this particular jury. (Interestingly enough, Richard Cahn (who helped the Kassabs file their citizens complaint) was one of the people who expressed this pov.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that stems from Segal's haughty attitude. He was supposed to argue for two hours, leaving Smith 1hr 15m.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Description of attorney Bernard Segal

After reading the wiki article about this well respected and influential lawyer, I don’t think “flamboyant civilian defense attorney” is accurate or fair. TKnLA (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

All the sources describe him like this. His manner in the courtroom (and outside) over the years between 1970 and 1979 speak as such to me. If you think the mention should be moved somewhere within a section devoted to the trial or hearings?--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the sources on Mac's side describe him that way. ('A Wilderness of Error' for example.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The "alleged" confession of Helena Stoeckley, is not alleged.

Stoeckley confessed to being part of the murders, in the form of an affidavit and Gunderson recorded video testimony of her confessing details to her involvement (on the Internet you view for yourself the video of her giving details of the murder)

At times Stoeckley denied having anything to do with the murders. But that does not change the fact that she really did confess to being involved.

You can argue if Stoeckley is lying or not, and you can point out that she has previously denied involvement in the murder, but --her confession definitely happened and thus is not alleged--

The subsection should be changed to simply: "Confession of Helena Stoeckley" YeshuaAdoni (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not alleged she made a statement. Perhaps it is alleged whether it constitutes being a "confession" as opposed to the ramblings of a drug-riddled fantasist who'd followed the extensive media coverage of the murders and constantly changed her story, with, of course, a lack of any physical evidence indicating more than four persons were in the house that night, let alone four or five mescaline heads hell-bent on slaughter but treating the sole male occupant with kid gloves (all this despite the way the army trampled about the scene). All avenues are covered in depth in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The subsection is on her confession of the crime.

The argument you are making is nonsense,.

If you want to post doubt about the truthfulness of her confession, so be it. But -- her confession is not alleged -- and the subsection title should be changed.

Although there IS an alleged confession, but it's not Helena.

From the aftermath subsection: "Gregory Mitchell, whom Helena Stoeckley accused of murdering Colette MacDonald, died of cirrhosis of the liver on June 2, 1982, at the age of 31. Like Stoeckley, Mitchell is known to have been a heavy narcotics user. Prior to his death, he is alleged to have confessed to his involvement in the murders to acquaintances.[213]" YeshuaAdoni (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument is not nonsensical to me. Matter of opinion. All avenues are explored in this exhaustive article. Mitchell was one of the individuals named by Stoeckley as the "five members of what she described as a 'drug cult' (who) had developed a deep grudge against MacDonald as he had 'refused to treat heroin- and opium-addicted' patients" (In 1971 two of these individuals named by Helena Stoeckley as participants in the murders had been traced and questioned. A further individual is known to have been in jail from January 28 to March 10, 1970. The three denied any involvement and all agreed to—and passed—polygraph tests.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone confesses to something, their actions are a confession. If other people doubt the honesty of that persons statements, they does not make the action of their confession alleged.

What you are describing, is a voluntary choice of denying reality.

You already agreed that the confession is not alleged.

Stop this nonsense. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

How is it nonsense? My only apology would be I should have expounded previously no conclusive determinations could be made to the validity of her statements. Therefore, can it be counted as a "confession" as opposed to inconclusive ramblings? ("a conclusion cannot be reached as to whether she, in fact, knows who perpetrated the homicides or whether she, in fact, was present at the scene of the murders".) If the title reads "Confessions of Helena Stoeckley" it may lead the reader to assume her guilt, or, for that matter, validity in her statements. She sad to Segal when he pestered her she was a fantasist. Everyone who knew her (including her mother) said she constantly "needed attention" and would do or say anything to receive it. That was one of the reasons she was a police informant. Maybe a separate title altogether would settle this? Statements of Helena Stoeckley?--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone can falsely confess to a crime. They still confessed. It's not alleged.

Someone can confess to a crime, and there be no evidence to support they actually did the crime. They still confessed. It's not alleged.

"Statements of Helena Stoeckley" is even worst than "alleged confession". Stoeckley made many statements about all kinds of topics (too many to count), and this subsection is about her statements of confessing to involvement in the murders.

The subsection should be: "Confession of Helena Stoeckley"

YeshuaAdoni (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

kieronoldham suggested: "Later confessions of Helena Stoeckley"

And I think that describes her statements better. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The word "unsubstantiated" or even "fanciful" should precede any "confession" by her. I appreciate your observation. I do, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyhow, in 1980 she made (an unsubstantiated) "confession". It was post-conviction, so "Later confession" is somewhat uncontentious.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Stockley's confession is not alleged: she gave it one time on tape. In the case of Gregg Mitchell, that is secondhand (in that he supposedly confessed to a number of people).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I just, personally, held concern that a title simply reading "Confession of Helena Stoeckley" may lead the casual observer to believe it held validity/truthfulness, Rja13ww33. All options are open for scrutiny given the article (which we have both worked upon), but such a stark insertion as a header could negate the remainder of the work. Kinda like believing a headline without reading the periodical. Just a concern of mine.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I get what you are saying now.....and I have no issue with a header saying something like "later statements of Helena Stoeckley". Given the fact that just about every appeals court that has looked at her statements and rejected them.....I agree that weight is a concern.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Interview with Mac in 1979

I came across this interview with Jeff.....and this fascinated me because it is about the only time I've seen him asked if he was certain if Helena Stoeckley was the woman he saw that night (with the candle):

[4]

Not sure if it is worthy of inclusion....but thought I'd bring it up because I've never seen him asked that anywhere else. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is intriguing, Rja13ww33. Difficult to decipher some of the audio. Convenient how he tries to portray himself as the victim yearning for justice (again accusing the army of trampling the crime scene) yet he had refused to consent to polygraphs for years prior to this. Claims for six weeks he repeatedly went to investigators asking when they were going to talk to him about the case when, by six weeks later, he was already dating other women and had already refused to be polygraphed. I wonder if a ref. could be found? Would certainly be worthy of adding in the ext. links.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been some arguing over the years on wiki over using YouTube even as a external link. (So I didn't add it. I've never seen this interview referenced in a RS on the case.) This aspect of it has always fascinated me because I've never been sure if he's been asked point blank about it (until now). It's interesting because he once lied to his father-in-law that he killed someone who he was convinced was there....but here is Stoeckley and Gregg Mitchell walking around free as a bird (up until they died in the early 80's) and he never even contemplated going after them to my knowledge.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That early 70s claim he made about killing one of the perpetrators was when Kassab was talking about taking justice into his own hands, and not buying his continued stalling efforts (of the supposedly grieving father). Like I once said on here, if it were not for the crimes themselves, I could burst out laughing at MacDonald's claims of innocence.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Urine Stain

It is mentioned in this article that the argument may have started because of Kristen MacDonald's habit of wetting the bed. MacDonald did indeed state that he had found Kristen in the bed and she had wet it. However, no mention is made in the article itself of the fresh urine stain on the bed. The issue is that analysis proved that the urine stain on the bed was from the urine of Kimberley MacDonald, not Kristen. This information is buried in a note. A casual reader would assume that it was Kristen who had the bedwetting problem and it was she who had wet the bed that night, but this is not the case. It was Kimberley who wet the bed and she who wet the bed that night. I consider this a damning bit of evidence against MacDonald, because he surely could not have mistaken Kimberley for Kristen, yet it was not Kristen's urine. Why would he lie about that if he were innocent? On the other hand, if he is guilty, a motive for lying about it would have been that Kristen was two years old, while Kimberley was five years old, and a two-year-old wetting the bed is less likely to elicit frustration and anger than a five-year-old wetting the bed. When it's a five-year-old, it's a problem, when it's a two-year-old, not so much of a problem. It seems that he decided to state that it was Kristen so that investigators would be less likely to consider it a source of anger on his part. During the stressful moments of trying to cover up the crime, MacDonald did not stop to think that his daughters may have had different blood types and that if they did, that would pinpoint the source of the urine to Kimberley. 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:D19D:4676:54EF:5659 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)