Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He was tired of having a wife and children? He wanted his freedom? Who knows what makes these psychos tick?
McDonald is guilty. No stranger is going to break into a home, brutally murder an innocent 2 year old and not make darn sure that the only man in the house is dead, too. His story never made a bit of sense.
He was a thoracic surgeon with a bright future and could have afforded divorce. Easier solution than triple homicide, I'd say.
He was a thoracic surgeon with a bright future and could have afforded divorce. Easier solution than triple homicide, I'd say.
Any normal person would divorce, work out child custody/visitation, division of marital assets, child support, etc.
But McDonald was done with his family and wanted to start over again without them. So he killed them and tried to pin it on some fictitious Manson family like characters. But the police saw through his lies.
One thing that always stuck in my head, which of course does not in and of itself prove guilt, is that the living room coffee table was lying on its side, supposedly knocked over in the struggle with the killers. But when the cops tried to reenact what happened, the top-heavy coffee table would never land on its side. It flipped all the way over and landed with the legs sticking up every time. The only way you could get the coffee table on its side was to deliberately place it that way.
Of course, there was also the fact MacDonald had one neat, non-threatening, surgical incision in his side, while the woman and children in the house were stabbed multiple times.
He was tired of having a wife and children? He wanted his freedom? Who knows what makes these psychos tick?
McDonald is guilty. No stranger is going to break into a home, brutally murder an innocent 2 year old and not make darn sure that the only man in the house is dead, too. His story never made a bit of sense.
Right. Trying to figure out the psychopathic brain is not an easy task. Amazing how a green beret only had a puncture wound in his chest/lung pneumothorax w/ everyone else dead in the house. And, that he was a surgeon. Not a difficult conclusion to make here.
Mcdonald is Guilty.
Reasons:
1- It was a shotgun wedding - he felt trapped into marriage.
2- He was unfaithful.
3 -Wife and kids brutally murdered - he has a few puncture wounds and a bump on the head.
4 - Crime scene looked staged.
5- Floppy hat girl and drug friends were known in the area - easy to name as suspects.
6 - All members of family had different blood types - police were able to establish how murders happened.
7- On Dick Cavett show - he makes jokes?
8- In-laws were suspicious of him.
9- He made inconsistent statements.
10- He was a Green Beret - he should have been able to stop the murders if done by outsiders.
Mcdonald is Guilty.
Reasons:
1- It was a shotgun wedding - he felt trapped into marriage.
2- He was unfaithful.
3 -Wife and kids brutally murdered - he has a few puncture wounds and a bump on the head.
4 - Crime scene looked staged.
5- Floppy hat girl and drug friends were known in the area - easy to name as suspects.
6 - All members of family had different blood types - police were able to establish how murders happened.
7- On Dick Cavett show - he makes jokes?
8- In-laws were suspicious of him.
9- He made inconsistent statements.
10- He was a Green Beret - he should have been able to stop the murders if done by outsiders.
He is a handsome and smart narcissist.
I agree with everything except #10.
He was a Green Beret only because he was assigned as their surgeon.
It's misleading to consider him a "full flash" Green Beret. He did not go through the same selection and training. (He may have made it through if he tried but we will never know)
Jeffrey McDonald is a family annihilator psychopath who then went on talk shows and talked about it while trying not to smile. Even Richard Ramirez didn’t do that
Jeffrey McDonald is a family annihilator psychopath who then went on talk shows and talked about it while trying not to smile. Even Richard Ramirez didn’t do that
The point about the blood evidence and the pajama pocket in the MacDonald case is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence it must be presented to a court and jury by a real expert. Janice Glisson of the Army CID lab was a qualified serologist, but she was told by Murtagh and Blackburn to shut her trap about the blood evidence and she was in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI lab.
Dr. Thornton said once that he had heard that the Army CID had previously made mistakes in blood typing. MacDonald lawyer Eisman made the quite plausible theory at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 that the wooden club murder weapon could have been dripping blood of the various blood types of the family members, as well as the ice picks, and that might explain why blood was found at strange places. The MacDonald defense experts were never permitted to retest the so-called blood evidence, or any other evidence to see if the FBI lab were total liars. It was all before the days of DNA in murder investigation when blood could be identified to a specific person
Mitchell and Mazerolle did the MacDonald murders. They had accomplices in Dwight Smith and Don Harris and Bruce Fowler with some other female suspects. They were able to strenuously deny it thanks to the Army CID being idle and incompetent. Mazerolle had a fake and forged iron-clad alibi.
This is a bit about the credentials of Stombaugh of the FBI who presented much of the blood evidence at the MacDonald trial in 1979 at one of the very numerous Bench Conferences unheard by the jury:
While it's true a defendant does not have to prove his innocence, someone who claims witnesses against them, are without credentials or are biased, should certainly support those claims with some proof. After 50 years and all the Innocence Project attorney's working on his behalf, haven't been able to make the case for MacDonald's innocence, I think it's safe to say the right man is in prison.
Where did you hear/see/read, that Murtaugh and Blackburn told Janice Glisson to "shut her trap about the blood evidence?" And how do you know that the defense was denied the ability to retest evidence? I imagine that by law, they have the right to do that and Bernie Segal being the bulldog that he was, would certainly not be denied. Could it be that he did have it tested, it wasn't to the defenses advantage so he simply made that claim, so as not to make his client look guilty.
As for Dr Thornton "hearing" the CID made mistakes in blood typing, I think that is pretty suspect. After all blood typing has been in use since it's discovery in 1900. And as for Eisman's theory of the blood dripping from the weapons.....well blood spatter analysis was first discovered in the 1890's and was being used regularly in the 1950's. All of CID and FBI analysts would have to be incompetent to make those mistakes.
Where is the evidence Mitchell and Mazerolle et al, were guilty? Confessions? Many drug abusers, alcoholics and mentally ill people confess to crimes they don't commit. Let's not forget those who are coerced into confessions. Most DA's won't even press charges against someone who simply confesses, without corroborating evidence for that very reason. More often than not, they recant, as did Stoeckly! Their fingerprints were ruled out
As an aside; many colleges allow for life experiences as part of their qualifications for earning degrees, so don't be so quick to rule out Stombaugh and all the expert witnesses the prosecution called. https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/co...rk-experience/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where is Your Evidence?
