Jeffrey MacDonald

[kma367]

Based on Fatal Vision, as well as the lack of corroboration for any of the many, many defense theories given throughout the decades, I believe he is guilty.

MacDonald's latest challenge to his conviction is on appeal at the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I cannot wait for them to issue their opinion.

kma367

[Deleted]

It has been a long time since I have read anything about this case but I remember at the time thinking he was guilty. I do remember his wounds seemed insignificant compared to the vicious attack on his wife and children and even by his account, I have trouble believing he would have walked away with such minor injuries. The lack of defensive wounds to his hands and arms and his extra marital affairs didn't help anything either.

[Deleted]

KMA, I am of the same opinion on this one. If the facts of the book are to be believed, I don't see any other logical conclusion. Back in 1987, I actually went to the street where the murders took place and sat outside the house at 544 Castle Drive.

Based on info in the book and seeing the layout of the side-by-side Army housing units, I believe it would have been impossible for several tripping hippies to kill three people and fight a Green Beret without the neighbors hearing it.

Interestingly, the murders happened in 1970. When I was outside the "house" in 1987, it was STILL boarded up and uninhabited. Very eerie.

Two circumstantial things made me think he was guilty:

1) the next door neighbor's teenage daughter's room was directly over the living room of the MacDonald's unit. She was in her bed at the time of the murders and heard nothing.

2) There were Christmas or Valentine Day cards standing up on the mantle of the MacDonald's unit. A light "jump" on the floor knocked them down, yet they somehow remained standing during a fight to the death between several drug-crazed hippies and a green beret?

Hey, it ain't DNA, but it makes sense.

[Objective Dan]

I believe that J. MacDonald is guilty. It took me years to come to that conclusion but after a close study of law including law school and the ability to weigh all factors, I just have a difficult time accepting any other conclusion

[Deleted]

I've been studying the Jeffrey MacDonald case for years, and imo, there is no doubt whatsoever about his guilt.

A good reference website for anyone interested in the case:

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/

Mac is still appealing, and will never give up fighting this losing battle until the day he draws his last breath. It will be interesting to see how Judge Fox rules on the latest motions filed during the last weeks of September.

[Deleted]

Judge Fox has allowed Mac's attorney Christine Mumma to withdraw as his attorney.

Regarding the latest filings entered yesterday, it looks like the defense still can't get its act together. On Oct. 7, Mac's attorney Christine Mumma claimed that his Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment applied only to Judge Fox's August 8 Order (denying relief under IPA X § 3600),), but it actually applies to his July 24 Order (denying Mac's § 2255 claims).

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/uploads/uploads.html

[Deleted]

I see that the defense has filed a "Response to Government's Motion for Supplemental Briefing on Movant's Rule 59(e) Motion," in which Widenhouse says he'll be happy to do a supplementatl briefing re: the recent FBI review, but doesn't want the government to have 30 days to respond. Instead, Widenhouse wants 60 days for any supplemental briefing,and wants the government to file its response at the same time.

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/2014/2014-10-17_doc372_EDNC_def_response.pdf

[Deleted]

Today, the government filed its reply to the Oct. 17 Widenhouse response, re: supplemental briefings:

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/uploads/uploads.html

[Deleted]

I was doing some research this morning, and ran across an excerpt from the government's brief filed on Dec. 29, 1979, which seemed to me to be particularly germane to some of the things that have been going on recently in the MacDonald case:

From pages 135-136 of www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/1979/1979-12-29_4thCircuit_EDNC_gov_brief.html

"Scientific evidence is admissible only if the principle upon which the evidence is based is 'sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs.' Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923); United States v. Baller...However neither absolute certainty of result nor unanimity of scientific opinion are required for admissibility. For example, in United States v. Cyphers, 553 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1977) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 843 (1978), an expert's opinion that human hairs found on items used in the robbery 'could have come' from the defendant was entitled to be admitted for whatever value the jury might give it. The Court explained that where a witness, properly qualified as an expert, bases his opinion on what he believes to be a reasonable scientific inference, his opinion should ordinarily be admitted subject to cross-examination concerning the propriety of the testing techniques used and the validity of conclusions drawn from his observations. In addition, the newness of a scientific technique does not alone render its results inadmissible, since 'every useful development must have its first day in Court.' United States v. Daller, supra, at 438; United States v. Brown, 557, F.2d 541 (6th Cir. 1977)."

[kma367]

Future administrations are likely to regret the current AG's "re-evaluation" of scientific testimony in prior cases that amounts to nothing more than a dispute over semantics. "Could have originated from" is not a definitive identification and, in fact, is no different than "consistent with." It was part of the acceptable language at the time. Prisoners will now be filing challenges to their convictions based on criticism of testimony that was not improper.

[Deleted]

KMA: You are *so* right. JTF (who speaks very highly of you) has also posted at length about this on other boards, and it looks like we're all in agreement.

FYI, I noticed that Judge Fox filed an order today:

"MacDonald shall file his supplemental briefing within forty-five (45) days of the filing date of this order. The Government shall file its response within thirty (30) days of MacDonald's filing of his supplemental briefing. The court reserves ruling on the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pending the supplemental briefing."

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/uploads/uploads.html

I'll be anxious to see what nonsense...oops. sorry, I mean arguments...Widenhouse will come up with. Can't wait; should make for some great reading.

[Deleted]

Looks like the government has brought in a new attorney re: Mac's latest appeal on the additional DNA testing, but I still don't see any informal opening brief by MacDonald, which was due in the 4th Cir. by Nov. 17. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if he's going to file at all.

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/uploads/uploads.html

[Deleted]

Kathryn and Jeffrey MacDonald have moved to extend time for filing the brief on his latest appeal, claiming that Mac was under "communication restrictions" (solitary, maybe?) and that he hasn't been able to find a lawyer yet. The 4th Circuit granted the motion, but didn't give him as much time as he'd asked for, so now his informal opening brief is due Dec. 26.

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/uploads/uploads.html

[Deleted]

The defense's memorandum in support of altering or amending judgment (and renewing its request for a COA) has been filed, containing pretty much what some of us expected. The renewed attempts to discredit Malone, Stombaugh and Fram were a given, but I doubt they'll be persuasive enough to get Judge Fox to amend/alter his judgment.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I also think this memorandum was very weak in addressing the "evidence as a whole." Widenhouse brings up candle wax, Stoeckley's clothing and her "confessions" to her mother and her attorney, the Jimmy Friar phone call, and a few other such things (again!), but of course ignores damaging evidence such as the rubber gloves, the bloody footprints, the bloody impressions on the bathmat, the bedding evidence, MacDonald's own demonstrations of consciousness of guilt, etc.

Bottom line is that I don't think this 26-page pile of garbage is worth the paper it's written on, and I'll be looking forward to seeing the Government response tearing it apart.

Also, on the other issue, the appeal to the 4th Circuit, Kathryn and Jeffrey MacDonald still haven't filed (they were given an extension of time until Dec. 26), and the Court issued a notice of default yesterday.

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/uploads/uploads.html

[kma367]

Whineyhouse must be desperate if he's citing "Fatal Justice" as his source. Judge Fox addressed the Stoeckley allegations and Whineyhouse is completely ignoring that. I picture him putting his fingers in his ears and saying, "La la la la la..." whenever anyone points out the weakness of the Stoeckley allegations based on the fact that NO EVIDENCE linked Stoeckley or Mitchell. I, too, can't wait to read the Government's response.

If MacDonald doesn't find another attorney to handle the IPA appeal, he will likely default on that. I'm wondering why Whineyhouse doesn't step up to the plate and file the brief for him.

BTW, how are you, Bunny?