Lawyers for Jeffrey MacDonald, Back In Court Filing to Overturn 1979 Conviction

[Adam]

Police found no evidence against Jeremy. Police concluded it was Shelia (Twice)

The only evidence against Jeremy was "discovered" by the relatives and all of this evidence has been discredited.

There are over 100 pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. So it was Bamber as he made the unbelivable claim that Neville phoned him. 

Are you not going to back up you're 'no' answer that Bamber's only execution time period was 12pm - 2am ? Just saying 'no' does not mean it is not correct. Third request. 

[David1819]

There are over 100 pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. So it was Bamber as he made the unbelivable claim that Neville phoned him. 

Are you not going to back up you're 'no' answer that Bamber's only execution time period was 12pm - 2am ? Just saying 'no' does not mean it is not correct. Third request.

the supposed Execution time period can be anytime they are all in the house.

[Adam]

the supposed Execution time period can be anytime they are all in the house.

All in the house and up and awake ? Impossible.

Why would Bamber risk that if he can attempt it when they are all in bed asleep ?

Sheila could have an outburst at any moment. Day or night, when there is everyone or no one inside. And certainly when there is no loaded rifle available. However she woke and got out of bed. Everyone else asleep so not provoking her. 

The least likely time for Sheila to have her outburst was 12pm - 2am. The only possible time to commit a silent multiple execution was betweem 12pm - 2am.

[sandra L]

Many of your questions should be answered in the this documentary nugnug posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnvr0c5ZofY

I believe his sentence ends when he is 150 or something 

Thanks for this David. I've watched it twice, just to make sure I haven't missed anything, but  the questions I asked aren't answered by it. The fibres on the club, originally claimed to match the pyjama top may, in fact have been black wool - I saw something else that mentions black wool fibres on Colette's body which didn't match any other items in the house.

But there doesn't seem to be anything about later DNA testing to say whether, for example, the claims that massive amounts of Colette's blood were found on the bed of one of the children were actually supported by the evidence. Nor is there anything about whether the claimed row was separate from the claimed bed-wetting incident.

There is some evidence that Colette was approached after her evening class by a group matching the description of "the hippies," but it's not clear exactly what the significance of that is.

As a circumstantial case, it doesn't seem particularly strong by today's standards. Can you tell me where the sentence ending when he's 150 comes from? The only thing I've seen, as I said, was the claim in Fatal Vision that he would be eligible for parole in 1991.

[Steve_uk]

Thanks for this David. I've watched it twice, just to make sure I haven't missed anything, but  the questions I asked aren't answered by it. The fibres on the club, originally claimed to match the pyjama top may, in fact have been black wool - I saw something else that mentions black wool fibres on Colette's body which didn't match any other items in the house.

But there doesn't seem to be anything about later DNA testing to say whether, for example, the claims that massive amounts of Colette's blood were found on the bed of one of the children were actually supported by the evidence. Nor is there anything about whether the claimed row was separate from the claimed bed-wetting incident.

There is some evidence that Colette was approached after her evening class by a group matching the description of "the hippies," but it's not clear exactly what the significance of that is.

As a circumstantial case, it doesn't seem particularly strong by today's standards. Can you tell me where the sentence ending when he's 150 comes from? The only thing I've seen, as I said, was the claim in Fatal Vision that he would be eligible for parole in 1991.

There's more here as to forensics:  http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Overview.html

[sandra L]

Thank you - guess I'll be reading for a while!!

[nugnug]

i think he did but the appeal really should suceed becouse of all the evdence the jury dident hear and there seems to be a hell of lot.

[sandra L]

Still reading!!!!

[Steve_uk]

A review of A Wilderness of Error by Errol Morris:



https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/apr/14/jeffrey-macdonald-murder-errol-morris

[David1819]

Thanks for this David. I've watched it twice, just to make sure I haven't missed anything, but  the questions I asked aren't answered by it. The fibres on the club, originally claimed to match the pyjama top may, in fact have been black wool - I saw something else that mentions black wool fibres on Colette's body which didn't match any other items in the house.

But there doesn't seem to be anything about later DNA testing to say whether, for example, the claims that massive amounts of Colette's blood were found on the bed of one of the children were actually supported by the evidence. Nor is there anything about whether the claimed row was separate from the claimed bed-wetting incident.

There is some evidence that Colette was approached after her evening class by a group matching the description of "the hippies," but it's not clear exactly what the significance of that is.

As a circumstantial case, it doesn't seem particularly strong by today's standards. Can you tell me where the sentence ending when he's 150 comes from? The only thing I've seen, as I said, was the claim in Fatal Vision that he would be eligible for parole in 1991.

150 years was a guess from my memory its actually 127. I was close tho 

He continues to maintain his innocence. His projected "release date" after serving his three consecutive life terms from the date of his August 29, 1979 conviction is April 5, 2071 (excluding the time between July 29, 1980 and March 31, 1982 when he was free on bail), by which time he would be 127 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald#Parole

I'm surprised you have never heard of this case Sandra. Its a possible MOJ classic

Here is a another documentary on the case
https://youtu.be/JAJNaSKz748

[David1819]

A review of A Wilderness of Error by Errol Morris:



https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/apr/14/jeffrey-macdonald-murder-errol-morris

I Have it on PDF if you want a copy of it Steve

[Steve_uk]

I Have it on PDF if you want a copy of it Steve

Yes post it or quote from it thanks.

[Steve_uk]

150 years was a guess from my memory its actually 127. I was close tho 

He continues to maintain his innocence. His projected "release date" after serving his three consecutive life terms from the date of his August 29, 1979 conviction is April 5, 2071 (excluding the time between July 29, 1980 and March 31, 1982 when he was free on bail), by which time he would be 127 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald#Parole

I'm surprised you have never heard of this case Sandra. Its a possible MOJ classic

Here is a another documentary on the case
[url=https://youtu.be/JAJNaSKz748]https://youtu.be/JAJNaSKz748[/url]

The way he says at 11:29 "there's no way at this time they'd ever get a conviction" is chilling.

[David1819]

The way he says at 11:29 "there's no way at this time they'd ever get a conviction" is chilling.

You really do put allot of weight on the most insignificant things sometimes Steve. 

This was before the trial had even been set and his lawyer was arguing they cannot put him on trial due his sixth amendment privilege (speedy trial)

[Steve_uk]

You really do put allot of weight on the most insignificant things sometimes Steve. 

This was before the trial had even been set and his lawyer was arguing they cannot put him on trial due his sixth amendment privilege (speedy trial)

Well it was just one of several anecdotes including the chat show where he never seemed to grieve for the victims, though I suppose we all grieve differently. Maybe some doctors do like to play God in that they give life with one hand and make life and death decisions on the other. I still can't decide whether he set up Helena Stoeckley(but why risk involving three others?) and used them in a premeditated plan or it was all spur of the moment and he had to devise some makeshift story.