Sitcoms Online - Main Page / Message Boards - Main Page / News Blog / Photo Galleries / DVD Reviews / Buy TV Shows on DVD and Blu-ray

View Today's Active Threads / View New Posts / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board


Unsolved Mysteries Online Main Page / Message Board / Show History / Episode Guide (1987-2002) / Expanded Episode Guide #2 / Expanded Episode Guide #3 / Case Updates / Wiki / Official Site / Related Links / True Crime Shows Message Board / All Other Cases Message Board / Buy The Best of Unsolved Mysteries DVD / Buy Unsolved Mysteries - The Ultimate Collection DVD

Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season on Amazon Instant Video
/
Season 2
/ Season 3 / Season 4 /
Season 5
/ Season 6 / Season 7 /
Season 8
/ Season 9 / Season 10 /
Season 11
/ Season 12 / Watch on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina Episodes

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina - The Complete First Season Episodes on Amazon Instant Video
/ Season 2 / Season 3 / Season 4 / Season 5 / Season 6 / Season 7 / Season 8 / Watch on YouTube


Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends DVD Set

Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums  

Go Back   Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums > Unsolved Mysteries

Notices

SitcomsOnline.com News Blog Headlines Twitter Facebook Instagram RSS

SitcomsOnline Digest: NBC Developing Serendipity Series; Designing Women Making Streaming Media Debut
Fri-Yay: Fall Sitcom Slate Check-In: ABC; Antenna TV Acquires The Facts of Life, Diff'rent Strokes, Who's the Boss? and More
Dancing with the Stars Cast for Season 28; Lilly Singh Gets NBC Primetime Special
Decades Celebrates Bob Newhart's 90th Birthday with Big Marathon; Wanda Sykes & Mike Epps Get Netflix Sitcom
James Corden Gets Extended by CBS; Freeform's Halloween House Returns for 31 Nights of Halloween
Silicon Valley Returns for Final Season; Netflix Gears Up for Elvis Animated Comedy
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of August 19, 2019)


New on DVD/Blu-ray (June/July/August)

The Brady Bunch - 50th Anniversary The Brady-est TV & Movie Collection Will & Grace (The Revival) - Season Two The Good Place - The Complete Third Season Life in Pieces - The Complete Fourth Season Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six

06/04 - The Brady Bunch - 50th Anniversary The Brady-est Brady Bunch TV & Movie Collection
06/18 - Will & Grace (The Revival) - Season Two (Blu-ray)
07/08 - Man with a Plan - Season Two
07/09 - Broad City - Season 5
07/09 - Broad City - The Complete Series
07/09 - Life in Pieces - The Complete Fourth Season
07/09 - Speechless - The Complete Third Season
07/16 - Eight Is Enough - The Complete First Season
07/17 - The Practice (1976) - The Complete Series (WBShop.com)
07/23 - Brockmire - The Complete First Season
07/23 - What I Like About You - The Complete First Season
07/30 - The Good Place - The Complete Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Fourth Season
08/13 - I Love Lucy - Colorized Collection
08/13 - Leave it to Beaver - Seasons One and Two
08/20 - Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


View Poll Results: Do you believe Jeffrey MacDonald's story?
Yes-- He's been wrongly convicted 47 29.75%
No-- He's a convict and he's where he belongs 82 51.90%
The jury's still deliberating 29 18.35%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-21-2009, 10:12 PM   #136
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Looking at this case again. I think there could be a case made for both McDonald's guilt or innocence.

I do not believe this case is as cut and dry as some people believe.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 07:06 PM   #137
egswanso
Member
Forum Regular
 
egswanso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 06, 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinman
Bottom line: people, rumors, theories, and half-cocked ideas lie; physical evidence does not.
Sure it does.

I haven't done enough independant research to conclusively state one way or the other if McDonald is guilty or not, although the serious procedural violations certainly concern me.

But, back to physical evidence, first of all, if a crime scene is compromised, all physical evidence is suspect. Second, presuming the collection is done correctly, you still have the human analysis of the same, which can lead to errors and misinterpretations - the level of the same depends on the nature of the evidence - properly collected DNA is subject to little subjective analysis, while hair, fiber, and handwriting comparisions have a large degree of subjectivity, as even do fingerprints (at least lower point matches).

Moreover, physical evidence does not always have one intrepretation. Certainly, applying occam's razor, certain intrepretations are less likely than others, but alternative explanations are usually possible.

In the instant case, I see you refer to "1600" pieces of physical evidence frequently, however, you must recognize that quality is far more important than quantity. What do you consider the most incriminating pieces of PE?
egswanso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 10:53 PM   #138
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Quote:
But, back to physical evidence, first of all, if a crime scene is compromised, all
That fact alone, makes this case far from cut and dry.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 11:44 AM   #139
Thinman
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 08, 2005
Posts: 178
Default

There are over 1,600 pieces of physical evidence that point to MacDonald being the butcher. There is not one shred of physical evidence that points to foreign intruders. So, I am to assume the bumbling Keystone cops destroyed all of the evidence of intruders, simultaneously manufacturing the 1,600 pieces that implicate the good doctor.

Makes sense to me. I've changed my mind.
Thinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 11:54 AM   #140
Thinman
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 08, 2005
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by egswanso
What do you consider the most incriminating pieces of PE?
Oh for starters, Mac's bloody footprint exiting Kristin's bedroom that was made while he was carrying something heavy, the weapons that came from the MacDonald household, and the fact that Kimberley and Colette were moved from the rooms where they were attacked/killed.

Now, for the lack of physical evidence. The "intruders" were nice enough to not damage the apartment. And there was not one drop of Mac's blood or anyone else's in the living room where he had an epic "battle for his life".
Thinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:00 PM   #141
egswanso
Member
Forum Regular
 
egswanso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 06, 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
That fact alone, makes this case far from cut and dry.
Yes and no. I think it would depend on the scope and scale of the compromise.

Certainly it means that evidence could have been overlooked and/or destroyed in the living room, which means the lack of PE for the "hippies" doesn't necc. mean they weren't there.

More disturbing would be the possability that inexperienced LE could have walked all around the house, from room to room, contaminating and cross-contamining each bedroom, rendering the blood distribution analysis worthless. If the blood evidence is bad, the case against MacDonald becomes much weaker, if not non-existant, since it formed the backbone of the prosecution's case. Even granting that crime-scene investigation was less sophisticated forty years ago, failing to secure and properly catalogue a crime scene is an inexcusable error and the number one reason crimes aren't solved and/or there remain questions.

This all said, the inconsistancies in MacDonald's story are troubling, to say the least. Even granting that trace evidence in the living room might have destroyed, the pictures don't show any evidence of a struggle, which you would certainly expect if his story was true; nor does his story mesh with the "typical" pattern of a hippie/home invasion. While this doesn't, by itself, mean it's false, again, it raises questions. I can't give too much weight to the "confessions" of Stokely, given both her unreliability and the time lag.
egswanso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010, 11:54 AM   #142
sdb4884
UM Meme Guy
Senior Member
 
sdb4884's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 01, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,131
Default

So im guessing that Jeff is still wrongfully in jail ?
sdb4884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010, 12:32 PM   #143
peachysquirt21
Member
Forum Regular
 
peachysquirt21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdb4884
So im guessing that Jeff is still wrongfully in jail ?
Wrongfully in jail??? HAHAHAHAHA Oooooooooook....

Sorry but that scumbag is right where he belongs.
peachysquirt21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010, 02:28 PM   #144
DarkDante
Member
Senior Member
 
DarkDante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1,548
Default

I have always leaned towards Jeff MacDonald being innocent. Granted a lot of this has to do with the UM segment which in my opinion is made to make MacDonald look 100% innocent to begin with.

Mastermind is right there is a good case that could be made both for and against MacDonald's innocence. I think at the very least Jeff MacDonald deserves a new trial, where evidence can be rexamined, everything can be brought up to date (DNA testing and whatnot) and hopefully a definitive resolution can be brought to this case because from everything I've seen there are some serious questions as to how MacDonald's case was handled back then.
DarkDante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2010, 08:28 PM   #145
Clockworkhigh
Member
Forum Regular
 
Clockworkhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 29, 2009
Posts: 604
Default

The prosecutor says in the segment that "how could Jeffrey not get a good look at the woman 4 feet away from him while he was getting beaten?" Well good question. But an easy answer. The woman was hardly his first priority. He was getting beaten with bats by three other guys. It was dark. Plus he may not have gotten cut but just bruised at that time. Which might explain why there was no blood in the living room. Also they say the living room was undisturbed but claim that a coffee table was tipped along with a plant. Sounds somewhat disturbed to me.

Also a lot of things point in Jeffrey's favour. The hypnosis tape (if you believe it), the confession of the Stockly woman, Jeffrey's war on drugs that would have ticked off those kinds of people, the phone call from the patient, the confession Greg Mitchell gave to his friend (who seemed honest) about killing the McDonald family.

And lastly the lack of motive. I don't buy the prosecutors idea that a fight was started about his daughter wetting the bed. Why would that conversation escalate to murder? And why would he off his two young daughters while he was at it? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Clockworkhigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 12:46 AM   #146
Wamisto
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Wamisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 07, 2003
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh
And lastly the lack of motive. I don't buy the prosecutors idea that a fight was started about his daughter wetting the bed. Why would that conversation escalate to murder? And why would he off his two young daughters while he was at it? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think it makes sense. Please check the previous page (p.9), because I discussed this under the username "WHMIS" (background on that: I signed up for an account not too long ago, and then discovered that I already had an account years ago with the username "Wamisto" but had forgotten about that since I stopped using this forum after early 2004. So I returned to my original account when I discovered that. Kind of a cool side story!)
Wamisto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 03:46 AM   #147
peachysquirt21
Member
Forum Regular
 
peachysquirt21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh
The prosecutor says in the segment that "how could Jeffrey not get a good look at the woman 4 feet away from him while he was getting beaten?" Well good question. But an easy answer. The woman was hardly his first priority. He was getting beaten with bats by three other guys. It was dark. Plus he may not have gotten cut but just bruised at that time. Which might explain why there was no blood in the living room. Also they say the living room was undisturbed but claim that a coffee table was tipped along with a plant. Sounds somewhat disturbed to me.

Also a lot of things point in Jeffrey's favour. The hypnosis tape (if you believe it), the confession of the Stockly woman, Jeffrey's war on drugs that would have ticked off those kinds of people, the phone call from the patient, the confession Greg Mitchell gave to his friend (who seemed honest) about killing the McDonald family.

And lastly the lack of motive. I don't buy the prosecutors idea that a fight was started about his daughter wetting the bed. Why would that conversation escalate to murder? And why would he off his two young daughters while he was at it? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

With Stockly's confessions you have to take them with a grain of salt IMO. I do not put any value into what she had said.
peachysquirt21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 06:21 AM   #148
mattc
Member
Forum Regular
 
mattc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 16, 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 273
Default

I think he's another brad bishop and scott peterson: A seemingly "perfect" man who turns out to be a sociopath. He certainly is incredibly narcisistic.

Aside from all the evidence that has been discussed for many pages here, this is what always sticks in my mind: First, he lied many times, including telling his father in law that he found the people who did it and he killed them (an outright lie), and second of all, he, to this day, has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.

I don't know why this case bothers me. I think it's b/c this egomaniac has clearly succeeded (based on manipulation) in convincing many many people that he didn't do it. I don't like when a sociopathic killer gets his ego fed even more, and you know it just delights him to know that there are so many out there that think he has experienced an "injustice."
mattc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 10:11 AM   #149
Clockworkhigh
Member
Forum Regular
 
Clockworkhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 29, 2009
Posts: 604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattc
has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.
Hmm, I did not know that part. I agree. A polygraph is something that can clear your name or go a long ways in doing so. After 40 years no polygraph? That is rather weird and the ones on here that didn't take a polygraph (Paul Pollis, Mike Morris) are pretty much considered guilty as sin by 100% of us.

If it were me I would bew tripping over myself in an attempt to take the polygraph just to show I have nothing to hide.
Clockworkhigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2010, 05:12 PM   #150
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Quote:
I think he's another brad bishop and scott peterson: A seemingly "perfect" man who turns out to be a sociopath. He certainly is incredibly narcisistic.

Aside from all the evidence that has been discussed for many pages here, this is what always sticks in my mind: First, he lied many times, including telling his father in law that he found the people who did it and he killed them (an outright lie), and second of all, he, to this day, has refused to take a polygraph test.

I know that most of you will say it's worthless, can't be entered into evidence, etc, but I don't care at this point: If the man has nothing to hide, and he's truly in jail for life erroneously, then you take the damn test.

I don't know why this case bothers me. I think it's b/c this egomaniac has clearly succeeded (based on manipulation) in convincing many many people that he didn't do it. I don't like when a sociopathic killer gets his ego fed even more, and you know it just delights him to know that there are so many out there that think he has experienced an "injustice."
I'm puzzled why so many people feel definitive about one side in this case. This case is one of the truly bizzare cases in history in that it's one of the rare cases where there is as much evidence on one side as there is on the other.

Some things to consider.
1. This case involves a compromised crime scene.
2. This case involves politics from both sides.
3. Both scenarios have the same degree of logic.
4. We actually have suspects other than MacDonald. (unlike a lot of cases such as the OJ simpson case. Nobody has found the "real killers". But in this case we do have "the real killers".

I personally think anyone who is steadfast on one theory is underestimating the above factors.

I think either scenario is plausible in this case.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43 PM.


Frequently Asked Questions

1) How do I contact Unsolved Mysteries with information on segments?

If you any information on cases, you can contact them via:

Website: www.unsolved.com

Contact form on official Unsolved Mysteries site

Please note that their old mailing address and 1-800 phone number no longer work.


2) Where can I watch Unsolved Mysteries?

Unsolved Mysteries is available for streaming on Amazon Instant Video, YouTube and Hulu.


Although the administrators and moderators of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards, nor vBulletin Solutions Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. The owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

VigLink badge

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.