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

[David1819]

Taken from Murderpedia:

MacDonald had said that one of the intruders was a woman who was carrying a burning candle and chanting "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs", a style of killings that investigators found suspiciously reminiscent of the recently publicized Manson murders. Three candle wax drippings, which were different from one another in chemical composition, were found in the apartment. Colette was known to be fond of burning candles, though none of the wax could be matched to any candles in the house. Some of the wax was found to be consistent with birthday-candle wax; other wax drippings were studied and found to be old and filled with household debris.

I suppose if Macdonald did premeditate he could have dropped the candle wax. If we take the girl with the floppy hat and blonde wig as Helena Stoeckley, which is highly likely, wasn't she seen a few blocks away from the apartment and why would she linger outside?

I think it's possible that faced with a cold Eastern winter and longing for the Californian sun the article about the murder in Los Angeles set Macdonald's mind racing about what life could be like for him if only he were a free man again..

I cannot imagine Macdonald premeditating a scenario that requies him to seriously harm himself.

Then you need to take into account the witness that saw the girl with the floppy hat. Then you have the witness that made a phone call to his house, and spoke to someone who sounded like a hippie. Then you have the candle wax that does not match the other candles in the home.

I think this is a classic case of reasonable doubt.   

[Steve_uk]

I cannot imagine Macdonald premeditating a scenario that requies him to seriously harm himself.

Then you need to take into account the witness that saw the girl with the floppy hat. Then you have the witness that made a phone call to his house, and spoke to someone who sounded like a hippie. Then you have the candle wax that does not match the other candles in the home.

I think this is a classic case of reasonable doubt.

But the pyjama top threads were not found in the vicinity of the life and death struggle in the lounge. Macdonald would have known where to injure himself in order to preserve his own life. Wikipedia tells us:

MacDonald suffered cuts and bruises on his face and chest along with a mild concussion. He also had a stab wound on his left torso in what a staff surgeon referred to as a "clean, small, sharp" incision that caused his left lung to partially collapse. He was treated at Womack Hospital and released after one week..

As nobody testified to the other points isn't it all hearsay?

[sandra L]

The scene was completely contaminated by the 20 plus people who were allowed to traipse through it before any evidence had been preserved - there's no way of knowing where threads originated, or if they were transferred by people moving about the house.

Also, there's some doubt about some of the fibres being from the pyjama top at all - some have since been identified as black wool fibres.

I think the blonde synthetic hairs in the hairbrush need to be adequately explained - where did they come from, and why were they not disclosed to the defence at the time?

Isn't it a bit of a dangerous leap to suggest that because someone didn't testify, their information is "only hearsay?" It's the oldest trick in the book, ignoring people whose information doesn't support the chosen "line" of the prosecution. But when you have a number of people whose stories all tie in with each other, who have nothing to gain from their information and who could not, at the time of first telling, have known others would corroborate their experiences, I'd say you are looking at evidence in the commonly understood context - it's just evidence that didn't make it into court.

[David1819]

Here is the latest public letter from Macdonald

JANUARY  2015
 Dear Friends and Supporters:

 Since we last updated you after the Evidentiary Hearing (Sept 2012), much has happened in the legal case:  First a renewed sense that Jeff’s vindication was imminent, followed by a year during which post-hearing briefs were filed.  Then, many agonizing months waiting for the district court’s decision.
 In July 2014, Judge Fox (who has presided over the case for nearly 25 years to date) ruled against us unilaterally.  This was not unexpected, given that he has never once ruled in favor of the defense through all of that time.  Each of his denials has resulted in an appeal to the 4th Circuit; indeed, it was the 4th Circuit which remanded the case back to Judge Fox for an evidentiary hearing that he had ruled against convening.

 I (Kathryn) specifically recall Judge Fox commenting to the lawyers at the close of the hearing that he hoped the post-trial briefs would the last step in providing “the totality of the evidence”.  He then said, (in effect) ‘…But in this case, you never know when something else might come up’.

 His thoughts were prophetic:  Before the defense could even begin taking substantive action to appeal,  Attorney General Eric Holder’s office (the OAG) sent prosecutors the results of an investigation of 3 key forensic experts.  In its scathing report, the OAG found that disgraced former FBI agent Michael Malone (who falsely testified about the origins of 22” synthetic blonde fibers found in a hairbrush by the phone which corroborated testimony shows Helena Stoeckley answered during the murders) scientist Paul Stombaugh (who executed the dramatic but incredibly un-scientific “pajama top experiment”) and FBI agent Robert Fram (who was deeply involved in the evaluation and dissemination of exhibits for DNA testing) – all presented misleading, overstated, or fraudulent findings as fact –not just in “other cases” as prosecutors have long maintained- but in the MACDONALD CASE.

 Just this week, defense counsel moved the court to vacate Jeff’s conviction based on these admissions from the Justice Department itself.  These revelations alone exemplify devastating  Constitutional violations; in the context of the “evidence as a whole” the damage to the government’s “case” is irreparable.

 There is no force more powerful than the Truth.  It refuses to be subdued, ignored or vanquished.  We enter the New Year, tenacious and unwavering, and grateful for the incredible dedication of our morally grounded friends and supporters.

Most Sincerely,
Jeff and Kathryn MacDonald

[nugnug]

ive done a bit of resarch on  Eskatrol. and its funny i cant any murders linked to to its use other than this one.

now surely if you if your going to say a prescription drug couse people to comit murder you need at least 2 examples of it happing.


makes me think the prescription drugs thoery is shaky to say the least.

[Steve_uk]

The scene was completely contaminated by the 20 plus people who were allowed to traipse through it before any evidence had been preserved - there's no way of knowing where threads originated, or if they were transferred by people moving about the house.

Also, there's some doubt about some of the fibres being from the pyjama top at all - some have since been identified as black wool fibres.

I think the blonde synthetic hairs in the hairbrush need to be adequately explained - where did they come from, and why were they not disclosed to the defence at the time?

Isn't it a bit of a dangerous leap to suggest that because someone didn't testify, their information is "only hearsay?" It's the oldest trick in the book, ignoring people whose information doesn't support the chosen "line" of the prosecution. But when you have a number of people whose stories all tie in with each other, who have nothing to gain from their information and who could not, at the time of first telling, have known others would corroborate their experiences, I'd say you are looking at evidence in the commonly understood context - it's just evidence that didn't make it into court.

But there were many pyjama threads in the master bedroom and Kirsten's room, but only one found in the lounge where the fight with the hippies was supposed to have occurred. Macdonald claimed the pyjama top was torn in this fight, which it might well have been, but forensic tests proved it was soaked with Colette's blood before it was torn and not afterwards. Why were threads from Macdonald's pyjama top found intertwined with one of Colette's hairs in the bedspread in the master bedroom when Macdonald refuted any contact with the bedspread or the sheet on top? Why is there no blood spatter pattern in the lounge if they wielded a club in that area?  Why would the intruders move the bodies of Colette and Kimberley once they killed them?

[sandra L]

But there were many pyjama threads in the master bedroom and Kirsten's room, but only one found in the lounge where the fight with the hippies was supposed to have occurred. Macdonald claimed the pyjama top was torn in this fight, which it might well have been, but forensic tests proved it was soaked with Colette's blood before it was torn and not afterwards.

The possibility of transfer by those who entered the house still stands. Would modern testing still conclude that the blood was deposited before it was torn?

From the letter posted by David:

Before the defense could even begin taking substantive action to appeal,  Attorney General Eric Holder’s office (the OAG) sent prosecutors the results of an investigation of 3 key forensic experts.  In its scathing report, the OAG found that disgraced former FBI agent Michael Malone (who falsely testified about the origins of 22” synthetic blonde fibers found in a hairbrush by the phone which corroborated testimony shows Helena Stoeckley answered during the murders) scientist Paul Stombaugh (who executed the dramatic but incredibly un-scientific “pajama top experiment”) and FBI agent Robert Fram (who was deeply involved in the evaluation and dissemination of exhibits for DNA testing) – all presented misleading, overstated, or fraudulent findings as fact –not just in “other cases” as prosecutors have long maintained- but in the MACDONALD CASE

None of the claimed forensic evidence from the original case can be trusted in view of these results and the contamination of the scene at the time.

Why were threads from Macdonald's pyjama top found intertwined with one of Colette's hairs in the bedspread in the master bedroom when Macdonald refuted any contact with the bedspread or the sheet on top? Why is there no blood spatter pattern in the lounge if they wielded a club in that area?  Why would the intruders move the bodies of Colette and Kimberley once they killed them?

To my knowledge, it is often not possible, even today, to accurately date when fibres or hairs have been deposited somewhere - they were husband and wife, slept in the same bed (normally) - the thread/hair could have been deposited on the bed clothes at any point. Wielded a club does not immediately mean blood was drawn. I've no idea why intruders would move the bodies, but then again I've no idea why they would brutally murder a pregnant woman and two small children - who can tell what people out of their normal minds on hallucinogens might do, or why?

The evidence in the case doesn't prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jeff MacDonald was the person who murdered Colette and the children and that, for me, is where the difficulty with this case lies.

[Steve_uk]

All the indications were that there was no life and death struggle in the lounge area as asserted by Macdonald-in fact there was no blood present whatsoever which precludes any transfer or contamination from any source. There were no indications that a pyjama top had been held by the defendant in the way he described to ward off blows raining down upon him. Far more likely that he had placed the pyjama top on the body of his wife and stabbed her through it with an ice pick.

The Defence also has to explain a fibre from Macdonald's pyjama top under Kristen's fingernails when he stated he wasn't wearing it when he went into her room(he had to admit he'd been there when his footprint in Colette's Type A blood was found leading out of the room, suggesting that he had at one stage stepped on the bloodied bedding). Also damning was Colette's blood spattered on the wall behind Kristen's bed suggesting that she had been clubbed as she tried to save her daughter.

There were no bloody fingerprints of Macdonald's anywhere suggesting that he had worn gloves at an early stage, gloves which were kept in a fairly inaccessible location under the kitchen sink but where his blood was found in front of the cabinet. Far more likely that he had scrubbed his hands after the massacre in the bathroom sink where he self-inflicted his wounds then used the phone to call Police. In Kimberley's room we find a hair of Macdonald's on the pillow and under the covers a pubic hair. The wax found there was old and dried, similar to birthday candle wax.