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.
Anyone think he's innocent of the murder of his wife, 2 young daughters and unborn child in the 70's?
I saw a re-run today on a show aired back in 2006, I think. He's trying to get a new trial, based on the fact of the woman "in the floppy hat" who testified it was her and some other friends in his house who did it all. She recanted her story later on, but his "justice" team is trying to get him a new trial based on that evidence. The woman, too, in the mean time, has passed away.
And, of course he found a woman to marry who believes he's a wonderfully, kind considerate psychopath, oops, husband.
Any thoughts on this case?
His bid for a new trial hasn't yet been resolved?...seems that was years ago. I think he was guilty as SIN!! That nut hippy woman was just trying to get her 15 minutes in - has nothing to do with the tangible evidence used to convict McDonald.
You might want to read the book " Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinnis. McGinnis had a reputation as a good author and was given access by McDonald and his lawyers to all of the evidence (as well as to McDonald himself). McGinnis began researching his book believing that McDonald was innocent and slowly reached the conclusion he was guilty of murdering his family.
The facts of the case are essentially these:
1. McDonald was a physician with a wife and young family and was a soldier in the army.
2. One morning he was found wounded in his home with stab wounds and the rest of his family (his wife and young children) were dead from stab wounds.
3. Army investigators could not resolve discrepancies between McDonald's account of what occurred and the facts. For example, McDonald testified the "murderers" held a pick axe above his head and stabbed him with it. The problem is that the ceiling of the home where this occurred is to low too hold an axe over their head. No neighbors reported hearing any noises while this crime was being committed and the housing on the military base were duplex type buildings with adjoining walls. McDonald's wounds were superficial and all his family members had lethal wounds in parts of their body that would have resulted in rapid death. It was the type of thing that only someone like a doctor with alot of medical knowledge could have done.
4. What complicates the case is that there was a sad, tragic woman who lived in the area named Helen Stoeckly who had used drugs for so long that she was quite psychotic. Helen allegedly confessed that she and a band of others had committed the slayings. The problem is that there is no other evidence that ties Helen or anyone else to this crime scene.
The evidence strongly suggests that McDonald killed his own family quickly and than inflicted superficial wounds on himself in an attempt to avoid falling under suspicion.
You might want to read the book " Fatal Vision" by Joe McGinnis. McGinnis had a reputation as a good author and was given access by McDonald and his lawyers to all of the evidence (as well as to McDonald himself). McGinnis began researching his book believing that McDonald was innocent and slowly reached the conclusion he was guilty of murdering his family.
The facts of the case are essentially these:
1. McDonald was a physician with a wife and young family and was a soldier in the army.
2. One morning he was found wounded in his home with stab wounds and the rest of his family (his wife and young children) were dead from stab wounds.
3. Army investigators could not resolve discrepancies between McDonald's account of what occurred and the facts. For example, McDonald testified the "murderers" held a pick axe above his head and stabbed him with it. The problem is that the ceiling of the home where this occurred is to low too hold an axe over their head. No neighbors reported hearing any noises while this crime was being committed and the housing on the military base were duplex type buildings with adjoining walls. McDonald's wounds were superficial and all his family members had lethal wounds in parts of their body that would have resulted in rapid death. It was the type of thing that only someone like a doctor with alot of medical knowledge could have done.
4. What complicates the case is that there was a sad, tragic woman who lived in the area named Helen Stoeckly who had used drugs for so long that she was quite psychotic. Helen allegedly confessed that she and a band of others had committed the slayings. The problem is that there is no other evidence that ties Helen or anyone else to this crime scene.
The evidence strongly suggests that McDonald killed his own family quickly and than inflicted superficial wounds on himself in an attempt to avoid falling under suspicion.
I think he's guilty.
Read it then saw the movie and I'm on the fence still. While I "think" he probably did it I can't for the life of me determine any motive.
I read the book and I still think he is guilty as sin and I also watched the made for tv movie . the book really opens your eyes and enlightens you . Yep if I was sitting on the jury I do believe my vote would be guilty.
I've always thought he was guilty....maybe he snapped and when he realized what he did he stabbed himself. i think he was trying for a random Manson type thing happened to his family as this wasn't too far off the heels of the Manson crimes
McGuinnes is good He wrote Blind Faith which happened in Toms River NJ...my former sil babysat this guys kids...
Anyone think he's innocent of the murder of his wife, 2 young daughters and unborn child in the 70's?
I saw a re-run today on a show aired back in 2006, I think. He's trying to get a new trial, based on the fact of the woman "in the floppy hat" who testified it was her and some other friends in his house who did it all. She recanted her story later on, but his "justice" team is trying to get him a new trial based on that evidence. The woman, too, in the mean time, has passed away.
And, of course he found a woman to marry who believes he's a wonderfully, kind considerate psychopath, oops, husband.
Any thoughts on this case?
From what I read, I believe he is guilty. It's the little things that stick out that don't add up. One example given above is the ax being held high when the ceiling was too low for that. Another is the fact that the coffee table couldn't just be knocked down on its side--when the law enforcement people tried it it would always roll all the way over so that the top was on the floor. The coffee table had to be PLACED on its side. The last part is that he was a doctor and everyone else in the house gets butchered like meat but he gets a tiny careful incision that wasn't life-threatening. Plus a magazine about the Manson murders is in the living room and he suddenly has the same type of people invade his home. C'mon.
I read "Fatal Vison" and re-read the book again. It took me a LOT of convincing, but I feel Mc Donald is guilty as well. IMO, not a cut and dry case and definitely one of the more interesting and complex cases. I also saw the MFTV movie years ago.
I read Fatal Vision, too. I couldn't get over how detailed the book was. Seemed to really put forth much solid physical evidence, not circumstantial at all. The way they put together the blood evidence, it told the story, was amazing. I think he might have had an arguement with his wife and the child came in, eye witness, so he felt he had to then proceed with murdering the child, then the last child that could eye witness him. The sad thing is that he chose to escalate an already terrible situation (killing his wife) into a one beyond description (killing his 2 children or witnesses). I saw somewheres that the "innocense project" had taken his case on? Couldn't believe that one, but a psychopath is often very convincing.
I read Fatal Vision, too. I couldn't get over how detailed the book was. Seemed to really put forth much solid physical evidence, not circumstantial at all. The way they put together the blood evidence, it told the story, was amazing. I think he might have had an arguement with his wife and the child came in, eye witness, so he felt he had to then proceed with murdering the child, then the last child that could eye witness him. The sad thing is that he chose to escalate an already terrible situation (killing his wife) into a one beyond description (killing his 2 children or witnesses). I saw somewheres that the "innocense project" had taken his case on? Couldn't believe that one, but a psychopath is often very convincing.
With all the requests The Innocence project gets there had too of been something very compelling in the trial transcripts if they did take this case on
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.
