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

Fri-Yay: Fall Sitcom Slate Check-In: CBS; E! Gets Reality Sitcom Meet the Frasers
Comedy Central Gets Phoebe Robinson Series; Crank Yankers Returns for 5th Season
Fox to Air Holiday Comedy Series; CBS and Viacom to Combine
The Flintstones Coming to MeTV in Fall 2019; Lifetime Tackles The College Admissions Scandal
Freeform Celebrates 30 Days of Disney in September; A-List Stars Visit Fox's Animation Domination This Fall
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of August 12, 2019)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Emmy Awards to Go Without Host; New Caroline in the City DVDs Arrive


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 04-16-2009, 02:14 PM   #121
Thinman
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 08, 2005
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peachysquirt21
If anyone is still on the fence about this case, I suggest you check out CM's website. It has alot of very detailed info about this case from the beginning to the end. Now I just do not see how anyone could think MacDonald is innocent.
That is exactly what I have been telling this board for years. Do some outside research. Christina Masewicz's website is the best resource out there for this case. I can see how if someone's only knowledge of this case came from UM, they would lean toward not guilty. UM is famous for putting doubt in the viewer's minds and that is exactly what kept ratings high for all those years. UM tried hard to be unbiased in the MacDonald segment, but by giving the pro-prosecution side first and the pro-defense side last, the viewer had the pro-Mac stance fresh on their minds. Hence, 90% of this forum believes Mac is innocent.
Thinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009, 03:51 PM   #122
MegtheEgg86
Member
Senior Member
 
MegtheEgg86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2008
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 4,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoticstate
I am not assuming your post was directed at me, but this was my first post not only to this thread but to this board. I didn't make a post simply to repost the "same points" by the "same handful of posters" (which, BTW, could also be argued for people who are pro-MacDonald). I thought that perhaps an opinion from someone who thought for years that MacDonald was innocent, only to change her view, might be appreciated.
No, I know you're new to the board (welcome, BTW) and offering some fresh insight by posting your ideas. I apologize if my post seemed abrasive to you (it wasn't meant to be). This is, obviously, a hotly contested case, and I think at times some of the posts in this thread lean towards outright flames that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

I am personally not pro-MacDonald. At one point in time I did feel quite strongly that he was innocent, but I've been undecided for a very long time now. Thus far I haven't been completely convinced either way.

In any event, I apologize.
__________________
"Why is she lying?, it makes me wonder. What is she hiding?, it makes me wonder."

Go Vols!
MegtheEgg86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009, 05:03 PM   #123
psychoticstate
Member
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 15, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6
Default

No problem, MegtheEgg. I have posted elsewhere about this case and for whatever reason, this case is definitely one of those that gets people's tempers up. People seem to feel very passionately about it, one way or the other.

Thank you for the welcome!

peachysquirt, your experience sounds very much like mine. CM's website is a treasure trove of information (although sad information).
psychoticstate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 05:15 PM   #124
cami
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 05, 2009
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoticstate
No problem, MegtheEgg. I have posted elsewhere about this case and for whatever reason, this case is definitely one of those that gets people's tempers up. People seem to feel very passionately about it, one way or the other.

Thank you for the welcome!

peachysquirt, your experience sounds very much like mine. CM's website is a treasure trove of information (although sad information).

ITA, nothing brings out the passion more than this case. For one thing, Mac himself will never let it die. He keeps peppering the court with his motions, that don't go anywhere, but he'll continue probably until the day he dies. I too have read most of CM's website. When you read the lab documents and the investigative reports and the transcripts, you're eyes are definitely opened. There is no way anyone but Mac committed this crime.
cami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 05:32 PM   #125
cami
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 05, 2009
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
This is another one of those cases where I think people are too close to the flame here to give unbiased opinions.

This is another example of a case where because it's been so many years, facts have been distorted, faded and contadicted.

For every argument that Mac is innocent, there's an equally compelling one that damns him. and there seems to books and mountains of info to back up either side. It;s like the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

This is why it;s so important for cases to be solved within the 1st 48 hrs. It's the period where the evidence is the most clearest. where the case has no bias. Where the evidence leads the investigation.

When a stories this old, it become difficult to tell what is a fact and what isn;t.

When you have a bias, it;s like a rorshach test. if your already thinking of the butterfly, of course your going to see the butterfly.

The good detective is the one that case look a the blotch objectiveley and see all the images within the blotch and make a rational decision that there is one true image in there

Not really. All the documents from that time are now online. They've been acquired through the FOIA. That's why those of us who have read them can confidently assert an opinion based on those documents.

I do agree the first 48 hours are the most important but remember the year. In 1970, nothing like this has ever happened except in LA a few months prior and no way would anyone believe the father would or could do this. The CIA had their suspicions the first day but they didn't have the techniques they have today to analyze this evidence and interrogate suspects.

Mac was granted dna testing a few year's ago and the results pointed straight at him once again.
cami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 09:07 PM   #126
peachysquirt21
Member
Forum Regular
 
peachysquirt21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 454
Default

The lady who runs the forensic astrology website just recently did a reading on this case. Here is the link to the post.

http://forensicastrology.blogspot.co...y-murders.html

I thought what she had to say was interesting.
peachysquirt21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2009, 11:00 PM   #127
cami
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 05, 2009
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peachysquirt21
The lady who runs the forensic astrology website just recently did a reading on this case. Here is the link to the post.

http://forensicastrology.blogspot.co...y-murders.html

I thought what she had to say was interesting.

That was interesting.... most of it was incorrect as in the times of death and the 911 call. As well, it's been proven that both children were dead before Colette was.
cami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 11:02 PM   #128
mattc
Member
Forum Regular
 
mattc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 16, 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 273
Default

This is also a tough one for me. I do feel that there is "reasonable doubt," as well as a prosecutor who was clearly in it for the betterment of himself. I do, however, find Macdonald to be someone who could easily be deemed a "sociopath." In all the interviews I have seen of him, he strikes me as someone coldly removed from the case, and talking only about himself and how this has effected him (and forgetting that the real tragedy was the fact that his wife and two daughters were murdered). I understand that, if he IS innocent, he would be focused on his wrongful conviction, but he really appeared cold and sociopathic to me. He almost seems like a male version of Diane Downs (as I'm sure many of you know her case on this forum).

I know it's wrong to decide one's guilt based on appearance and body language, but since we are all speculating here, I figured it was appropriate. He just doesn't seem like a great guy, and he appears to be a master manipulator who is very narcissisistic.

Am I the only one?
mattc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 05:33 AM   #129
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

i never believe Jeff was guilty. this link sums things up pretty nicely.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...n_summary.html
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 09:40 AM   #130
Thinman
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 08, 2005
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
i never believe Jeff was guilty. this link sums things up pretty nicely.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...n_summary.html
So, you will look at that but not Christina Masewicz's website?
Thinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 10:11 AM   #131
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Three observations about this case.

1. This case like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, the JFK assassination are similar in that it is extremly difficult to find unbiased information. It seems like every source of info has come into the case with their own theory and have cherry picked the info that fits it. So I would say view any website regarding Mac's case with a grain of salt.

2. What makes this case unique is that it is one of those rare, either or cases. Either Mac killed his familly or the woman and the soldiers did it. It's really a matter of choosing suspects. It's not like if Mac is innocent, we have to go looking far and wide for the real suspects. You have the choice of two murder suspects.

3. All do apologies to all lawyers on this site. But this case is less of a murder investigation and more of a legal tete-a-tete on whether Mac should be in jail or not. This case really does show the difference between lawyers and investigators. Lawyers are trying to prove a position that they've taken. Detectives/Investigators are trying to find a suspect and the evidence needed to arrest that suspect. The detective could care less who is the suspect just as long as he's found a viable suspect. The lawyer could care less whether his position is wrong, just as long as jury rules in his favor.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 12:50 AM   #132
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinman
So, you will look at that but not Christina Masewicz's website?
I don't recall ever saying I wouldn't look at Christina Masewicz's website. In fact, if you would like to post a link, I'd be happy to take a look at it. I do try to get both sides of the story. Though I will say, I doubt my mind on this subject can be swayed.

There were something like 35 points on that link I posted that pointed to intruders. IIRC, the only things the prosecution brought to the table were this wildly-constructed timeline of events, and attempted to poke holes in it. Even assuming McDonald's version of events isn't entirely accurate, that doens't make him the murderer. I don't expect him to remember everything correctly. It was mass chaos, he was beaten and his wife 2 and kids were killed. He is going to be focused on helping them and getting help himself, not trying to remember every step he took and in what order. Plus, he's injured so his thinking isn't going to be exactly very clear. And the claim that there weren't signs of a struggle, because the only things they found were an overturned coffee table and plant. But Mcdonald says that he was beaten up before he could get up off the couch, it's not like he ever claimed they were fighting all over the house. And the claim that he suffered much less severe wounds. If you listen to Helena Stoeckley, she stated that she never itended to kill them, just rough McDonald up a little because they believed he was narcing about drugs. They didn't kill McDonald because they didn't intend to. Once things got out of hand, Helena left.

There's hair and other physical evidence of intruders, that seals the deal for me. That, plus that Helena Stoeckly knows way too much information not to be involved. Her recollections of that night were very detailed, mentions of a barking German Shepard, that McDonald was reading a book, the t.v. was on but it was off the air, the stab marks on Collette in the shape of an S. And then there's the phone call. And many witnesses place her very near the crime scene at the time of the murders. She died mysteriously right before planning to release a bomshell in the case that would have implicated intruders. She just knows way too much not to have been involved. It's a shame her testimony was dismissed.
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 09:30 AM   #133
Thinman
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 08, 2005
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
I don't recall ever saying I wouldn't look at Christina Masewicz's website. In fact, if you would like to post a link, I'd be happy to take a look at it. I do try to get both sides of the story. Though I will say, I doubt my mind on this subject can be swayed.
Fair enough. Have at it...

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/
Thinman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 06:42 PM   #134
WHMIS
Member
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Default

I would like to begin by responding to some of the questions and issues raised by other posters.

1. “There is absolutely no history of violence”. It often happens that there has been abuse, but it has not been documented. Sometimes abuse gets reported, sometimes it does not. And some people are lifetime “stuffers” - until one day they snap and the picture isn`t pretty. Also, someone else pointed out that others witnessed to his temper and tendency towards rage.

2. “MacDonald was also a victim of the attack” ... “Why do it in this manner?” This is a common theme in certain murders. Darlie Routier (though there is some doubt about her guilt) immediately comes to mind. It seems quite logical to me, especially for 1970. Yes, you could poison them, but it looks pretty suspicious when a military man`s wife takes off with his children, vanishing without a trace. “My wife took off with the kids.” But pretty soon, suspicion will catch up, the authorities will do a bit of digging, and he will be charged with murder. But if you rough yourself up pretty good, giving yourself a nasty gash, a punctured lung, and a concussion, people are more likely to suspect that it was done by druggies - especially when you write “PIG” on the wall in blood, a la the Tate murder which took place the year earlier. This might not be the way most would do it, but when you are a doctor, you have the expertise and the knowledge to self-inflict certain injuries that make it seem as though a person would never do that to himself. So one of the defenses was that since it was possible the punctured lung could have easily been more severe, no man would inflict such a wound. I would argue that a doctor would know exactly where to stick that weapon to make it appear that way.

3. “Why kill his children and why do it in this matter?” Good question, but I think there is a good answer. If MacDonald is guilty, it was a crime of passion. Why his children too? First, they were witnesses, and second and most importantly, as it has been said earlier, these children were “oopsies” (the first one occurring in high school, which prompted the shotgun wedding in the first place), and he resented them just as much as his wife for “holding him back” from his ambitions. Brad Bishop also killed his children, when his beef was with his condescending wife. Who knows what gets into these men`s heads. Why not just take off to Vietnam? Because he will eventually have to come back, and pay alimony, deal with her nagging phone calls and guilt trips over abandoning the family, and having to live with the fact that she will eventually “move on” (how many men have killed their ex`s because of the “if I can`t have her, no one can” mentality? These are all moot points anyway, as it was a crime of passion (though this thinking, which had been stewing for a while, may have contributed to his lack of restraint in getting to the point of flying off the handle). Needless to say, there are sufficient reasons as to “why” he would do this.

4. “Why would Bryant Lane lie?” Many people come out with “information” about a big case to get attention or just for “kicks”. Personally, I thought Lane came across as being rather phony - the way other story-tellers and chronic liars do. Consdier, too, that Lane was his ``best friend``. I would think that best friends of druggies and murderers probably do not have the best of character either and would not be beyond telling such fibs. Then again, it might just be me.

Last edited by WHMIS; 11-21-2009 at 07:12 PM.
WHMIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2009, 07:06 PM   #135
WHMIS
Member
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Default

Now, I have a few questions of my own:

1. Why, months after the murders, did MacDonald move to an expensive townhouse and purchase a Mercedez Benz? Did he have a life insurance policy? And why would a grieving husband and father use money he gained from such a heinous murder of his loved ones to start living the “high life”?

2. It has been pointed out that the prosecutor was a shady individual, and that he might have “doctored” (no pun intended) the evidence. This is indeed a real possibility. However, does it not seem as though Jeffrey MacDonald himself, even if we are to assume he is innocent, is just as shady an individual or even moreso? And if so, does it not greatly limit the credibility of the “I think he is innocent because the prosecutor is corrupt” argument? Do we not have to look at the evidence, rather than the charadcter of the people involved, to find out if it was the shady prosecutor who doctored the evidence, or the shady MacDonald who doctored the crime scene?

3. Most importantly, as Mr. Lane so sincerely recalled, Greg Mitchell said they were only planning to “teach him a lesson” and “rough up his family”, but that “things went wrong”. The question Dr. MacDonald`s lawyers have to answer is: “Why did things go wrong, and What specifically went wrong to account for why his family members were murdered so viciously?” If the plan was to rough up the family members, how did a planned roughing up turn into 37 stab wounds to the daughter, and 48 stab wounds to the wife? What triggered this? And why did not whatever triggered this turn into an equally savage assault on the man they were upset with to begin with - Dr. MacDonald? It has been said he had Green Beret training, and that he was strong enough to defend himself. But yet, three men with weapons were able to inflict quite a bit of damage (including a knife wound that went in and came out cleanly without any twisting or tuning of hte body). Is it possible that these three men were unable to do any more than that becuase MacDonald was able to successfully fight them off?

Two more statements:

1. Although the woman`s testimony is worthless in a court of law due to the fact that her story has changed so often, it must be said that this does not mean that her recollections on the BBC documentary were not true. Therefore, WE (the court of public opinion) may either believe or disbelieve her testimony. I personally am suspicious of it.

2. Therefore, all things considered, I believe he is probably guilty, though I am not sure I believe that ``beyond a reasonable doubt``. I would invite any of our posters to reply to my questions and to my statements, and no doubt, answers can be given and objections made. But with what I have read, it seems like the answers and objections made by those who believe in his guilt have made more sense, at least to me.
WHMIS 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 10:55 AM.


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.