Jeffrey MacDonald

ender18d · 09-08-2012, 11:24

From the front page of CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/08/justic...html?hpt=hp_c1

Interesting that this is being brought forward again. I'm curious as to whether any new evidence is put forward in the book. Some of the folks on here may have known him. I honestly don't know enough to make an informed opinion on the matter, but would be interested to hear from folks who have solid knowledge and/or first-hand experience with the man. Any opinions?

**Pete** · 09-08-2012, 14:02

As with most issues people who follow this subject are divided into two camps.

Those that say he did it and those that say he didn't. My family is split right down the middle on it.

Some say is he confessed years back he would be out of prison by now. He got life and has done 33 years.

I'm in the "Didn't" camp.

BrokenSwitch · 09-08-2012, 14:58

I heard about this case when I took a forensic science course in high school. The instructor taught it as an example of "what not to do" when investigating a crime scene.

Dozer523 · 09-08-2012, 15:15

The book and the mini-series were told from the "guilty" perspective. And from the perspective that in the 10 intervening years he was living way to big/well.

Even back in the '87 the quarters were still there -- just boarded up. I remember them as a duplex, thought how creepy it would be to live next door. I wouldn't want to live within sight of it. Good thing the Army doesn't really worry about curb appeal.

**The Reaper** · 09-08-2012, 16:02

He and McGinness stayed in a house next to me prior to and during his trial in Raleigh. I saw him in passing and spoke, he seemed like a decent guy.

The house at 544 Castle Dr. stayed empty and preserved as a crime scene for may years. A buddy of mine said that the MPs on duty used to have to go in as part of their rounds and check it out regularly.

Lots of people drove by and gawked, and no one wanted to stay there, so in their infinite wisdom, the Army changed the name of the street and renumbered the quarters.

People still figured it out, so they were eventually torn down, I think they have been rebuilt by Picerne Housing with new units.

Ultimately, there is only one person alive who knows what really happened, and he may or may not be telling the truth.

TR

ender18d · 09-08-2012, 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Ultimately, there is only one person alive who knows what really happened, and he may or may not be telling the truth.

TR

Roger that sir.

I was just curious as QP's tend to be pretty good judges of character most of the time, and was wondering if there was a general consensus in the regiment.

miclo18d · 09-10-2012, 06:21

From my understanding, yes, the evidence handling was horrible, but then they didn't have the techniques that we have today. That being said, I never believed the Helter Skelter bull... "It wasn't me...it was the one armed man!"

This story is brought up every few years by regular news and the investigation channels on cable.

Utah Bob · 09-10-2012, 06:35

I'm in the "he did it" camp.
But what do I know?

Dozer523 · 09-10-2012, 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

I'm in the "he did it" camp.
But what do I know?

You think everbody's guilty.
And if they didn't do it you'll charge em with intent, predisposition and or conspiracy to commit.

mojaveman · 09-10-2012, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozer523

The book and the mini-series were told from the "guilty" perspective. Even back in the '87 the quarters were still there.

I didn't even know about the story until I watched a made for television movie on the subject around '84. Like many others at Bragg I then had to go and look at the house. I remember that in Group there were ill jokes and many comments, discussions, arguements, etc. about whether or not he was guilty. From what I heard the Military Police and CID screwed-up the initial investigation somewhat and actually may have helped his defense.

I lean towards believing he did it.

**The Reaper** · 09-10-2012, 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozer523

You think everbody's guilty.
And if they didn't do it you'll charge em with intent, predisposition and or conspiracy to commit.

Pre-crime?

TR

Dozer523 · 09-11-2012, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Pre-crime?

TR

We're talkin' about Utah Bob. That "But what do I know? " is a dead give-away.

**Pete** · 09-16-2012, 04:43

Author argues in book that MacDonald didn't get a fair trial

http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012...6?sac=fo.local

"............."We may never be able to prove with absolute certainty that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent," author Errol Morris says in the epilogue. "But there are things we do know. We know that the trial was rigged in favor of the prosecution."

Morris says investigators and prosecutors "pursued an unethical vendetta against Jeffrey MacDonald and that evidence was lost, misinterpreted and willfully ignored."............."

longrange1947 · 09-16-2012, 14:23

I'm more inclined to believe that a shoddy investigation was made in which they figured they had their man and thus made the evidence fit. But hey, what do I know.

**Pete** · 09-18-2012, 12:24

MacDonald hearing: Witness testifies another person was in the Fort Bragg home on night of murders

http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012...3?sac=fo.local

".............."My mother said Helena was there and MacDonald was not guilty of the crimes,'' Gene Stoeckley said.

In 1982, he said, Helena Stoeckley Davis visited her mother, whose name is also Helena, in Fayetteville. Gene Stoeckley said his mother told him his sister knew she was dying and brought her infant son with her. Just before his mother died, he said, she told him of his sister's 1982 visit.

He said he then found the website of Jeffrey MacDonald's wife, Kathryn, and contacted her by email, despite his fear of drawing more unwanted attention to his family. Kathryn MacDonald visited his mother at an assisted living facility in Fayetteville.

Kathryn MacDonald brought in a lawyer from Raleigh. An affidavit was drafted and read to his mother, who was legally blind, Gene Stoeckley said. She signed it after making minor corrections, he said.

In cross examination, federal prosecutors tried to show inconsistencies in what Helena Stoeckley Davis told her family..........................."

That was a little detail I didn't know about - remember - they are talking about the mother not the daughter. The mother was referring back to the 1982 visit of the daughter. So the mother believed the daughter was involved.