Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald/Archive 1

General
"Func," actually, this article contains factual evidence drawn upon from the original trial transcripts, grand jury transcripts, and letters to and from Kassab and other principals in the case, as well as many other factual documents. I believe what you are protesting is that the truth does show MacDonald was the sole murderer. If nothing else, even putting all physical evidence aside, MacDonald has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his own guilt.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why not study the documents and see the truth for yourself? You claim, for example, that Fatal Vision was "pretty much" shown to be a fabrication, when nothing could be further from the truth. Aren't you greatly misleading people about that, when you know as fact that the vast majority of the book is taken directly from court transcripts, polygraph exam results, grand jury testimonies, and MacDonald's own words? You also claim that the crimelibrary website has a "very complete" picture of the case, when in fact, it is completely one-sided, describing few, if any, of the very damaging items of evidence which proved MacDonald's guilt.

It was easy to tell by your original "article" that you were not familiar with many evidentiary items and rulings in the case. That's okay, but why not take the time to study what is known and proven before you put up an "article" so obviously biased towards innocence? In the revised article, for example, you talk about psychiatrists coming to the conclusion that MacDonald was "sane" and "normal," but you fail to say that all the doctors at Walter Reed, with the exception of Sadoff who was hired by the defense, concluded that MacDonald certainly did possess personality traits that could incline him to murder. You mention candle wax (that old, old standby of supporters), but fail to say that some of the wax was birthday-candle-type wax, and that the wax on the underside of the coffee table was found to be old and full of household debris. You praised Fatal Justice without telling the reader of the countless documented factual errors and misrepresentations in that book. How is that unbiased? The revised article is much more factual, and, by the way, contains many of your original statements as well as additional statements that show the other side of the story. You also noted in your link to The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site that the site contained documents showing MacDonald's guilt, leading the reader to believe that that website is predisposed towards guilt. Yet if you had studied the site, you would see quite a few documents that are favorable to MacDonald. The goal of the owner of that website is to present the factual documents and let the reader make up his or her own mind. If you disagree with the truth, you need to be talking to Jeffrey MacDonald and the witnesses about it...not arguing with those who disagree with you, and not arguing about factual evidence.

To Rhobite: You wrote: "I am reverting due to the many POV issues with 68.230.42.210's version, such as claiming that the judge acted 'rightly', MacDonald was 'justly' convicted, offhand remarks like 'as many murderers do'." I understand you are not familiar with the case, so you may not realize that saying the judge acted "rightly" was not my opinion; it was fact, backed up by the Supreme Court and appeals courts. There has never been any proof that any of the jurors or the trial judge or the prosecution team acted inappropriately; therefore MacDonald can indeed be considered to be justly convicted. And, as I'm sure you know, many murderers who are certainly guilty do claim innocence. However, as a concession to you, I have removed the phrases you were concerned about.

As formerly written, the "article" here presented only one side of many of the issues; the revised article left those comments in but also showed facts pertaining to the other side of the issues. This should serve your readers much better than presenting only one side of the case.

WTF!!!
Who the hell wrote this article, government prosecutor Brian Murtagh??? This article is seriously biased, and needs a complete NPOV rewrite from top to bottom. The website www.crimelibrary.com, which Wikipedia frequently uses as a reliable source of information on crime cases, has a very complete picture of the case, and numerous news articles can be found with quick google searches.

There is no mention of the fact that Joe McGinniss's book "Fatal Vision" has been pretty much proven to be a complete fabrication and act of fraud on McGinniss's part, and the entire article literally sounds like it is speaking with the POV of the (very biased) prosecution. In particular, the article presents "facts" that have not only never been proven, but for which there was never any credible evidence in the first place. There is no mention of the obvious coverups of the Army investgators in the 1970s, of the mishandling of evidence by government officials in the 1980s, and of the FBI's refusal to turn over evidence to the defense team, including materials that can be tested for DNA evidence.

Jeeze... I hate sounding like a conspiracy nut... ;-) but here is a case of very possible judicial impropriately on a massive scale, and the article needs to better reflect this fact. I'll try some editing of it over the next few days, but I don't have as much time to devote to WP as I used to. :(

func (talk) 04:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's Talk, OK?
Anon User:68.230.42.210 has been repeatly:
 * adding material that does not conform to WP:NPOV
 * deleting other contributor's material, without explaination, here or on their edit summary
 * refusing to discuss their changes, either here on the talk page, or on their on talk page, where I have left two messages.

I would like the anon to understand that this is an encyclopedia, and not a blog. While their opinions will be valued and are indeed requested here on the talk page, they have no place in the article itself. Please respond, so that we can begin to work together to resolve this issue. Thanks, func (talk) 18:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Reverting an article more than 3 times during any 24 hour period is against Wikipedia policy, and can result in your being temporarily banned from editing the encyclopedia at all. func (talk) 18:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure: I came here because Func asked me to. I read both versions of the article and while I'm not familiar with the case, I am reverting due to the many POV issues with 68.230.42.210's version, such as claiming that the judge acted "rightly", MacDonald was "justly" convicted, offhand remarks like "as many murderers do". Guilty or innocent, those types of remarks are inappropriate in any Wikipedia article. Rhobite 21:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

More POV problems
Please don't add these claims to the article again: Please read the Neutral point of view policy before continuing to edit. Up to this point you have not followed it. Thanks. Rhobite 16:42, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, Potter and Bost chose a "cut and paste" method..."
 * "Potter and Bost also mislead the reader"
 * "However, understandably, they chose not to tell the reader that the gloves were, in fact, oven mitts!"
 * "Yet they do not tell the reader that the reinvestigation was handled flawlessly"
 * "Nor would they want the reader to know that Jeffrey MacDonald..."
 * "Moreover, holes in the pajama top matched holes in Colette's chest, showing that MacDonald stabbed through the top and into Colette as she lay dead or dying on the floor"
 * "Not a single shred of any type of evidence ever surfaced to show that at least six intruders were in the apartment"
 * "...maintains his innocence despite the overwhelming evidence against him and despite having already demonstrated numerous times the consciousness of his guilt."

Revisions
Rhobite, the phrases you referred to have been removed. Also, if I might, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I find it offensive to be told by "Func" that I "refused" to discuss the editing of this article. The fact is that I was not aware, since it is nowhere on the "edit" page that I could see, that it was a requirement that an editor discuss the changes. Additionally, the very first time I saw that there was a message waiting, I immediately clicked to read it and then had to try to figure out how to answer it, so it is wrong of "Func" to suggest that I refused to answer. I also resent the implication that editing an article should result in the editor being banned, since the original article contained virtually nothing but one side of the story and the only changes made were to show the other, factual side of the story, which came directly from trial and grand jury transcripts as well as many other factual documents. Therefore "Func" should have no problem with them. Yet he/she does, because obviously this person wants only one side of the case presented and is not interested in both sides being shown. For example, mistakes by the CID were listed, yet absolutely nothing was said about the reinvestigation which showed those mistakes to be of no consequence. For another example, candle wax was mentioned in the original article, meant to suggest to the reader that "intruders" were present with dripping candles, yet not a word was written showing that some of the wax was consistent with birthday candles, and other wax was found to be old and full of household debris. Actually, the revision left "Func's" statements almost entirely intact, and only contained additions to show the other side of the case. To suggest that someone be "banned" because they present factual evidence which is in opposition to someone else's POV is reprehensible and not what I think this encyclopedia intends to do. I hope the removal of the phrases you mentioned meets with your approval, and I do hope that "Func" can put aside his bias long enough to agree that the revised article does indeed now present both sides of the issues he raised.


 * Hi, I was away for the weekend. I would like to apologize, as I see my manner in approaching you was inappropriate, given that you are new to Wikipedia. I did not mean to suggest that you would be "banned", but rather, that continually changing, and in many cases deleting, other contributor's content without discussion can sometimes result in temporary protection of an article, and in other cases temporary "banning" of an editor. The article is being improved, and I very much appreciate the efforts you have made in this direction. Sorry for coming on so strong... (Wikipedia editing can make people mean, sometimes ;-). func (talk) 16:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links
Please refrain from putting into the Links the false information that The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site is biased toward guilt. Read the site and you can see that is not true. The site contains factual documents pertaining to the case, including many favorable to MacDonald, and further editing of this link will result in my asking for this article to be locked.


 * I know almost nothing about the case, but I'd say that it's not appropriate to claim that one site contains "factual" information while simply deleting the link to the other site. It could be very biased for us to claim that certain sites are factual. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy - this appears to be a violation of that policy. Please review WP:NPOV. Thanks. Rhobite 04:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Link edited
The link for The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site on this article has been edited to satisfy your requirements, and now reads: "This website presents trial transcripts, grand jury testimonies, depositions, declarations, CID reports, FBI reports, psychological and psychiatric evaluations and other documents pertaining to the case." That should take care of the problem. 04:57, 4 May 2005 SureEnough

Consider the man
I've not always been entirely of one mind regarding this case; given MacDonald's special knowledge as a soldier and a physician it would seem that he would have employed more sophisticated, less evidence-strewn methods to kill the victims had he determined that they should die. Just my 2¢, and I'm probably not the only one who thinks so. knoodelhed 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The several theories regarding the possible motives of MacDonald, including the amphetamine theory and the rage theory, posit that MacDonald was not thinking/acting rationally when he committed the crimes. These directly counter the view that "MacDonald didn't do it because he would have done it differently".  Madman 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey R. MacDonald article should be merged here
Here is another Wikipedia article on MacDonald. In my strong opinion, any additional information from that article not already present in this one should be merged here and that title redirected here. Madman 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

 * See also: Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald/Archive 1. knoodelhed 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this statement loaded?
"The "Fire Island Four," a group whom MacDonald had previously come in contact with in an innocent way long before the murders, were most likely the persons MacDonald drew upon when making up his descriptions of the so-called "intruders."" - CS

Fine tuning needed
I had never heard of MacDonald and these murders, so this wikipedia entry was my introduction. Presumably Colette was MacDonald's wife, but she is not introduced and not identified as such. Also, towards the end of the article, there is mention of a military hearing. That is the first time the military hearing is referenced. Where does the hearing fit into the timeline and is that where MacDonald's double jeopardy claims come into play? - Friends Forever? 15:54, 06 March 2006

Another point of confusion
I don't want to sound petty in the midst of much more pressing subject matter, but ... what the hell is "a yard of lumber wood"? A yard of wood as in firewood is a huge, running stack of material, not something you can pick up. It's referred to in the next sentence as one of the three murder weapons, so then are we talking about a piece of lumber? Perhaps apiece that's a yard long? A big stick from the yard? Maybe from a lumber yard? I didn't try to edit for clarity as I don't know enough about the factual details of this case to make a change, but perhaps someone who does can better identify that murder weapon.

Merge discussion
Of course, this article should be merged with Jeffrey MacDonald. Why are we even discussing it? Madman 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Overly Contentious
This article seems overly contentious, especially in the discussion of the book "Fatal Justice," where every claim supposedly made by the book is followed immediately by an arm-waving sentence in refutation. Perhaps the book should be allowed its own section, and the refutations should be collected in a subsequent section ... ?

Article Edit
I reversed this edit/addition (below) to the article. I thought some discussion would be helpful before including it. It refers to the claims of Jimmy Friar, an incarcerated individual who came forward during the trial. The defense knew about him, but decided not to call him. Personally, I think this is a dubious claim, one of many related to this case and shouldn't be part of the murder narrative.

"During the night of the murders, a witness mistakenly called Jeffrey R Mcdonald's home, at the time of the murders. The witness had actually meant to call another doctor of the name Jeffrey McDonald. As the witness answered the phone, a woman answered, hystericaly laughing. The witness claimed he could hear a man in the background saying, "What are you doing? Get of the damn phone." This evidence was never reviewed."

please sign your posts with four tildas
I notice there are an awful lot of anonymous edits and posts here. Please remember that even if you do not wish to register an account, you can date-time stamp your posts with your ISP # by typing four tildas (~'s) after your post. It's important to do that so other editors know who said what and when. That way, messages can be left on your talk pages if need be. ThanksLiPollis 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not touched this page but I'll do that in future when I add to a discussion. 75.19.37.56 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical Facts Missing
This article has some serious omissions and inconsistencies and serious flaws, which does not present the account as detailed in Joe McGinniss’ book: Fatal Vision, nor in the movie of the same name, which is allegedly based on his book and other credible legal sources. Some of the most serious I will offer a correction.

1. The Wikiarticle states:

''As MacDonald retaliated by beating her with a piece of lumber, Kimberley—whose brain serum was found in the doorway—was struck, possibly by accident. Believing Colette dead, MacDonald carried the mortally wounded Kimberley back to her bedroom. After stabbing and bludgeoning her (Kimberley's blood was discovered on the pajama top MacDonald said he hadn't been wearing while in her room), he went to Kristen's room, intent on disposing of the last remaining witness.''

The elder daughter, Kimberley, is alleged to have overheard her mother and Jeffery fighting and arguing which prompted her to come into the room crying. Jeffery, (the prosecution and the evidence believes), who was already in a “drug induced” rage, raised the 2 x4 (not lumber) over his head which inadvertently struck Kimberley in the head rendering her unconscious. It has never been determined from corner's report if she was actually mortally wounded. Also, the 2 x4 was not merely a "piece of lumber." After the Manson Murders, Mac Donald kept it in their bedroom closet for protection.

The younger daughter, Kristen, was never a witness to McDonald’s alleged crime. Throughout the entire crime she was asleep in her bed. It was determined by the coroner that she never awoke during the fighting. The evidence only determined that Mac Donald entered her bedroom AFTER he realized that Colette was dead, and had garnered the idea of blaming the crime on drug, crazed hippies. An idea he first obtained from inadvertently noticing the front cover of Esquire magazine profiling the Charles Manson LaBianca killings, that had taken place earlier that year (1969). He then (the prosecution theorized) decided to make the killings of the two girls appear as if they were killed by a similar type crazed-hippie group. Thus, the overkill. Kristen was even determined to have been asleep when Mac Donald laid her across his lap and began stabbing her to death.

You also state that during the Army’s Article 32 hearings:

In November 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald because they were "not true", and recommended that civilian authorities investigate Helena Stoeckley.

I do not know where you obtained this information, but it is not based on what was presented in Joe McGinniss’ book: Fatal Vision, nor in the movie. According to McGinniss, and the movie, Colonel Rock told Mac Donald outright, that the Army’s findings did not uncover enough sufficient evidence to convict him of the triple murders. Therefore, according his statement, the Amry had no choice but to drop all charges against Mac Donald. Mac Donald, angry, stated to the Colonel that he would have rather that the Army find him “not guilty,” in which the Colonel responded, “we cannot do that.” This outcome of the hearing is what alledgedly anger Mac Donald which led him to begin the very public campaign of discrediting the Army’s investigation. He started by arrogantly discussing the Army’s incompetence on various talk-shows and in other major print media.

BTW: In spite of her drug-crazed state, Helena Stoeckley had repeatedly maintained her innocence throughout the total ordeal. There was never any evidence that she was anywhere near Ft. Bragg or Mac Donald's house during the killings. This was a weak and hopeless strategy employed by Bernie Segel, Mac Donald's charismatic, hollywood-styled lawyer, to bolster the so-called "crazed hippie defense."

However, I think the most glaring omission in the Wikiarticle, is the absolute major and critical role that Colette’s parents, mainly her step father, Mr. Freddie Kasab (spelling?) played in getting the case before a grand jury, and pushing for MacDonald to finally stand trail for the deaths of their daughter Colette and her girls. It was Mr. Kasab, whom in the beginning, originally believed Mac Donald to have been innocent of the crimes, and thought that the Army was simply targeting Mac Donald as the scapegoat because they had botched the crime scene and was not competent to find the “real killers.” It was Mr. Kasab who initially fought with the military, and held very public press conferences stating his dissatisfaction with the military's investigation. He did this to alsp aid in influencing the outcome of the up-coming Article 32 hearing. It was Mr. Kasab who then utilized all of his political connections to win a "no findings" during MacDonald’s Article 32 hearings. It was Mr. Kasab who also testified with the highest love and conviction before the Article 32 board on Mac Donald’s exemplary character as a doctor, attentive father and a loving husband.

Subsequently, the Army was forced to drop all charges against Mac Donald, who was more than ready to leave the past behind and start a new life of fun and leisure surrounded by beautiful women. However, it was Mr. Kasab’s insistence that Mac Donald retrieve the transcripts of the entire article 32 hearing so that he (Mr. Kasab) could comb through every detail to prove to his satisfaction that Mac Donald was innocent, and not just because the Army could not come-up with enough evidence. Once this was accomplished it was Mr. Kasab's intention to push the Amry to go after the "real killers."

In due time, the tide began to turn against Mac Donald, when he kept putting Mr. Kasab off, and making excuses on why he could not obtain the transcripts; and after Mac Donald would agree for a fee, to speak about the case to the press and on talk shows, but not to Mr. Kasab. During the original hearings, it was Mac Donald who had refused to allow the Kasabs to sit in on any of the testimony. He had lied to them and told them that the hearing was for military personnel only. That is why Mr. Kasab did not hear all of the testimonies, the coroner's report, nor Mac Donald's version of the events that took place on the night of the killings. When Mac Donald kept dragging his foot on obtaining the transcripts, Mr. Kasab then became suspicious. After confronting Mac Donald one final time on why he would not obtain the transcripts, Mac Donald blew his top, and thus the enmity and the war began.

Mr. Kasab, finally did obtain the transcripts, and after spending almost one week (without sleep) reviewing them with a fine-tooth comb, he became completely convinced of Mac Donald’s absolute guilt, and spared no expense at using all of his money and connections to bring him to trail. In total it took Mr. Kasab ten years, an enormous amount of money, many painful and sometimes tragic set backs, and even his health, but he persevered and brought Mac Donald to trail where he was finally convicted. The years of fighting to bring Mac Donald before the grand jury, and finally a trail, took its toll on the Kasabs. Both eventually died. Probably from the heartbreak and the stress.

Finally, another major motive the is omitted from the Wikiarticle, is that both Mr. Kasab and the prosecution had speculated could have been Mac Donald’s trigger, was the use of methamphetamines. They speculated that during his medical school years, he was alleged to have been a recreational to heavy meth user. They confirmed this by finding this drug, along with a history of written prescriptions by Mac Donald to himself.

They believed he might have experienced a drug induced psychosis which sent him into a rage. They believed that this might have trigged a long deep-seated rage that he held against Colette. A women whom he only married and probably used her status and parents money to help him through medical school. Once he'd finished his residency, he was not ready to have more children and remain married to her. During the initial investigation by the prosecution, they found tons of evidence of his numerous infidelities during the marriage and immediately following her death.

They also speculated that at the night of the killings, his rage was trigged probably by Kimberley wetting his side of the bed. She often slept with Colette. When he lifted her to place her in her bed, he noticed that she was wet. They believed he then decided at during the course of their argument, to tell Collete that he was going to take on another new position as the sports doctor for a boxer who was due to travel for an event in Cuba, and that he too would be going. They speculate that she then became enraged because he would not be there when their third child was born. It was this event that all agree might have sparked the first blow coming from the hair brush held by Colette.

It would help complete and add more factual clarity to the article if the above information could also be included.

--MWHS (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just would like to make one final comment. This case has fascinated me from its beginning. From reviewing the wikiarticle and some of the comments, and especially the glaring omission of Mr. Freddie Kasab, it appears that this article could be biased by Mac Donald supporters who have been very aggressive in unsuccessfully trying to obtain his release. It was Mr. Kasab's complete and total devotion in seeking justice for his daughter and grandchildren that Mac Donald rests in prison today. This undeniable fact is the major theme in both the book and in the movie. I was living in Calif. when the Mansion and Mac Donald case broke. I have watched the movie at least half-dozen times, and have kept old articles concerning some of Mac Donald's recent appeals for a new trail, and I have watched some of the rare interviews he has done proclaiming his innocence in news specials. To not mention Mr. Kasab and hailed this man as a champion in seeking justice for his family is truly suspicious to me. --MWHS (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken in some of your rememberances of what is in Fatal Vision. Also, I don't find the article to be pro-MacDonald - I think it presents the facts well and without interjecting POV.

Can you point to where Fatal Vision states that the piece of wood used for a weapon was kept by MacDonald because of his fear subsequent to the Manson murders? That's the first I've heard of that and I've read Fatal Vision many times. And also lots and lots of case documentation. The case docuemntation shows that it came from the same wood as used to make Kimberley's bed slats, that it was unfinished, and that its dimensions matched those of the broken master bed footboard, suggesting it was a piece of scrap wood/lumber that was being used to support the footboard of the master bed and that's where MacDonald got it from.

A lot of info in this article comes from case documentation (see references) - I'd rather reference that type of info than Fatal Vision (nothing against Fatal Vision - I think the actual case documents are better for reference). For example, your statement questioning the accuracy of the following sentence from the article: "In November 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald because they were "not true", and recommended that civilian authorities investigate Helena Stoeckley." What is in this article is exactly what Col. Rock said in his Article 32 report - see the recommendations section of that report. Also, an Article 32 is the military equivelant of a Grand Jury hearing - "convicting" or finding someone "not guilty" at an Article 32 hearing is never an option - dismissing the charges is and that's exactly what happened. http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/article-32_rock_1970-10-13_p02.html.

If you look at the trial testimony and autospy report of the doctor who performed Kimberley's autopy, he said that the blow she received at the master bedroom door was very severe and likely rendered her comatose - she had severe facial fractures from that blow and her brain serum was found at the door to the master bedroom.

Freddy Kassab. His role is mentioned in this article, although I did update to reflect that he and Mildred filed a complaint against MacDonald. To include more to the extent you suggest - to hail Freddy - I don't agree with that (although I think he was a hero in this case) - it's not an article about Freddy and to include more would be too POV. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC).