Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald

message: The pyjama top was PROVED not to have been ripped after it got bloody but BEFORE it got bloody. There are many other discrepencies in this article, please do not trust it. 77.99.225.95 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a disgrace 

message: I was pleased to see that an update on the DNA evidence was made, but the new developments that came with it have been excluded. I think it's rather biased to only include new information that condemns MacDonald, when it's equally notable that three witnesses have come forward claiming that Mitchell confessed to the crime - in addition to Britt's allegation that Stoeckly personally confessed to him.
If we're going to add new information, there needs to be a balance between evidence favoring the prosecution and evidence favoring MacDonald. Otherwise, it gives the reader the false impression that MacDonald's lawyers presented new evidence and it was all soundly rejected. The same would be true if the fact that the hair was his was excluded and only the pro-MacDonald evidence was revealed. Somebody needs to summarize the new facts of the case (available many places, including crimelibrary.com) in a detailed, accurate, non-biased manner, giving equal time to both sides.
--67.169.111.72 03:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased inclusions 

message: What's the motive that MacDonald had to commit these horrific acts?Tom Cod 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of a case, leaving aside Charles Manson, that supports the credibility of MacDonald's defense see Richard Mattingly Murder Case. Tom Cod 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacDonald's Alleged Motive? 

message: This is an incredibly one-sided article which does not even attempt to treat the government and defense cases, or competing secondary source material, fairly or objectively. The information and tone of the language are clearly intended to condemn both Dr. MacDonald and his supporters. the article should be flagged as biased or edited to reflect a neutral point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.235.62 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: The article states: At the urging of his wife and attorneys, he had a parole hearing on May 10, 2005. How can this be if his wife died in 1970? Obviously, the article is missing information on his apparent remarriage. The article seems to be missing a lot of information. 144.92.192.127 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parole 

message: Any particular reason for the massive edit done by User:Ldbosco that wiped out much of the sourcing in this article? I'm thinking the whole thing should be rolled back, since it seems to be unsourced and overlinked. Dstumme (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I considered reverting after he had made two edits, but I waited to see what other edits he planned to make. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive edit 

message: I've twice reverted very extensive edits by User:Kkmpl that included removal of cited content and references, no edit summaries, and does not adhere to WP:NPOV IMHO. The editor is welcome to bring issues to this talk page. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another massive edit 

message: Here is from a site about the book "Fatal Justice"...."FBI agent Michael P. Malone filed false affidavits in response to MacDonald's 1990 habeas petition. They now knew that agent Malone, who was named by the Justice Department to have testified falsely in other cases, filed false affidavits on the 22 inch blond saran fiber found in the MacDonald home." Why is there no mention of this? Malone was an FBI Agent from the FBI Lab who testified about fiber evidence, as an expert, even though hair and fiber research is not a "science," by any means, but is a highly subjective process. Malone was accused by another FBI agent of tailoring his evidence to suit prosecutors, a case of "forensic prostitution". This involved the accusation that he intentionally gave false testimony in the Alcee Hastings impeachment trial. This is part of the FBI Lab corruption revealed by Dr. Frederic Whitehurst. Malone is the man who gave critical testimony that damned Jeffery MacDonald, and it's not even mentioned.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a mention about the July 1991 denial of his 1990 petition (which included his claims re: Malone). Malone is not specifically mentioned, but utimately, the courts reviewed and denied his claims re: prosecutorial misconduct, including the claims re: Malone. Also, Malone did not testify at trial, so I'm not sure how his testimony damned MacDonald. The evidence he provided was for the Government's response to Macdonald's 1990 post-trial appeal and was regarding the three blond synthetic hairs found in a hair brush -1) they were from different sources (calling into question the claim that Helena Stoeckley had brushed her wig with this brush, leaving the hairs); 2) one of the hairs matched an FBI doll exemplar and 2) they were made from Saran, which he stated was not used for human wigs, but rather for dolls. 165.189.169.156 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of FBI Agent Accused of "Forensic Prostitution" 

message: The overseers of this page need to mention that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 6, 2010 not only DENIED the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss MacDonald's appeal but expanded the issues to be decided in the appeal. This article needs to mention that the Court of Appeals expanded MacDonald’s appeal to consider DNA test results as well as evidence that the original prosecutor threatened to indict Helena Stoeckley for murder if she testified contrary to his wishes. This article also needs to mention that submissions are to be made on June 15th.
The overseers who keep this page biased against MacDoanld are just going to have bite the bullet for the next several months. This bias of who is moderating this article is obscene. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth Circuit Ruling of May 6t, 2010 

message: Perhaps there should be more discussion of Morris's book?  It is only mentioned vaguely and simply to assert that McGinniss's work has problems - which suggests that it is along the lines of Malcolm's book.  But, from what I can gather from reviews, Morris's book seems to be largely an attempt to show that MacDonald was probably innocent.  Given Morris's prominence and general credibility, doesn't his book deserve more extended treatment in the article? 98.111.161.5 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Morris's book is not so much an attempt to show MacDonald's probable innocence-- he is careful to leave open the possibility that MacDonald may in fact be guilty-- as an attempt to show that MacDonald did not receive a fair trial and that the available evidence is (largely due to inept behavior by investigators immediately after the murders) too much of a muddle for his guilt ever to be proven. Slightly more treatment of it in the article may indeed be appropriate; whatever mention there is probably doesn't belong in the section on Fatal Vision, as it is not primarily a response to that book. 76.179.179.249 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errol Morris book 

message: I'm not familiar enough with this subject to edit the article. However, there is clearly an over-reliance on primary sources like trial transcripts and a dearth of reliable secondary/tertiary sources and so I've tagged accordingly.
I also wanted to provide feedback on something very specific and encourage you to consider it in improving the article: there is a decontextualized reference to "extramarital affairs" in the "Prosecution" subsection that I believe is confusing b/c the topic is not introduced to the reader at any point before in the article. The specific passage reads:
"Another piece of damaging evidence against MacDonald was an audio tape made of the April 6, 1970 interview by military investigators. Listening to this tape, the jury heard MacDonald's matter-of-fact, indifferent recitation of the murders. They heard him become angry, defensive, and emotional in response to suggestions by the investigators that he had committed the murders. He asked the investigators why would they think he, who had a beautiful family and everything going for him, could have murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters in cold blood for no reason. The jury also heard the investigators confront MacDonald with their knowledge of his extramarital affairs, to which MacDonald calmly responded, “Oh... you guys are more thorough than I thought.”"
What is the relevance of the "extramarital affairs" and where is the supporting detail and sourcing, please? Why aren't any alleged affairs introduced way, way before in the article so that the reader knows this crucial detail of the subject's behavior and/or relationship issues/status/drama prior to the current mention (which still remains totally decontextualized)? This seems especially sloppy and confusing because of what's written in the following section: 
"Despite the evidence, the prosecution was hampered by the lack of motive for MacDonald to have committed the murders, since he had no history of violence or domestic abuse with his wife or children. Since Dupree refused both the defense and prosecution requests for any psychiatric evaluation to be done for MacDonald, he also refused the prosecution's request to allow into evidence any part of the Article 32 transcripts from MacDonald's 1970 U.S. Army hearing. Dupree ruled that since the current trial was a civilian trial and the Article 32 military hearing had several reports from the military investigators, which claimed that MacDonald may have murdered his wife and two daughters in a drug-induced rage, it was considered biased and hearsay."
That is, there's no mention of extramarital affairs as any kind of a factor in the murder(s), or salient to the subject's story - at least up til this point in the article. JDanek007Talk 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources + Contextualizing "Affairs" (Extramarital) in article (2014) 

message: This is under the section "The murders":
"They found the front door closed and locked and the house dark inside. When no one answered the door, they circled to the back of the house, where they found the back screen door closed and unlocked but wide open."
This seems to be contradictory.  It says that the screen door was closed but wide open.  What is meant by this?  Could we get someone to edit this to clarify it?
168.8.249.187 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Word Choice 

message: The article says that CID didn't believe that Dr. McDonald could have been "bested" by three druggies when he was a Green Beret. He was a doctor ASSIGNED to 3rd SFG, but was he really a Green Beret? Did he go though Special Forces Assessment and Selection? Or was he just assigned to the Support Battalion for 3rd SFG?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4A88:6F00:D6D:748D:CCF7:D123 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia reflects what Reliable Sources state. Please review WP:FORUM for what the Talk Pages are and are not for, such as what you think. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: It's complicated. First of all, Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) did not exist before 1990. Secondly, MacDonald did indeed never attend the 6 month Q-Course (making him what was in those days called "flash-qualified" -- a "real Green Beret"). He probably never would have been allowed to. Thirdly, like it or not (and the "Guardians of the Tab" definitely do not) anyone assigned in 1969 to a US Army Special Forces unit would wear (and be) a "Green Beret" from the date of their assignment orders. That includes everyone, not excepting the surgeon and the cook. For purposes of the article, he must remain, technically, "a Green Beret doctor". Was CID right in thinking that his physical prowess had to have been something extraordinary? No. No more that any other 26 year old physician off the street. (There are many other "Green Beret myths" that will probably never die!) 216.164.62.52 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Beret Doctor? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jeffrey R. MacDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825050451/http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_16.html to http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/cid_record_3_16.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417115341/http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab-1973_p0.html to http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/kassab-1973_p0.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905020021/http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/25/4029207/federal-judge-upholds-jeffrey.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/25/4029207/federal-judge-upholds-jeffrey.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I happen to think the guy is as guilty as sin (in the interest of putting all my cards on the table).....but even I notice the NPOV issues with this article. A good example is this:
MacDonald's defense called forensic expert James Thornton to the stand. He unsuccessfully tried to rebut the government's contention that the pajama top was stationary on Colette's chest, rather than wrapped around MacDonald's wrists as he warded off blows, by conducting an experiment wherein a similar one was placed over a ham, moved back and forth on a sled, and stabbed at with an ice pick.[22] 
The source for that is the trial transcript itself. (Via the Jeffrey MacDonald web site, which takes the position he is the killer.) To say Thornton was unsuccessful clearly violates wiki's rules on OR. To reach that conclusion, one would have to produce a interview with one of the jurors and (even then) qualify it by saying something about how it was the opinion of the jurors that he was unsuccessful. (After all, juries have fallen for junk science before. If Thornton's conclusions are also disputed by another expert (outside of the prosecution's case), those view can be presented with a RS.) The article makes a number of statements like that. I think it likely needs an overhaul.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Anybody think it worth mentioning Hoover's death as being a catalyst? From the beginning, he forbade the FBI from getting involved because of the mess the CID made of it.....after he died, they got into it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. The article is well-informed, and researched, but is still difficult to navigate from start to finish are there is some unnecessary detail, and some sections still read like a collage of pertinent information, unnecessary depth, and misplaced detail. Everything (or certainly nearly everything) that needs to be included is already here. In my own opinion, if said reputable reference can be found, it should perhaps be included in a note? I have watched a lot of documentaries about this case, have read a lot, including several books with extensive chapters devoted to the case, but never an actual book solely devoted to the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You ought to read 'Fatal Vision'. It's pretty good. On the other side of the aisle (in terms of what the author believes) is 'Wilderness of Error'. It's a pretty good read too. (It kind of updates it too (for someone in my age bracket) who really didn't follow it after the Fatal Vision mini-series and book back in the 80's.) In any case......this is more of a point I've seen the docus make than the books. I may add something.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoover 

message: 1. At one point in the article it says "No fragments of skin were recovered from beneath the fingernails of any of the victims." But later on the point is made that yes: Colette had some skin under her nails and it was lost.
2. We probably should include the fact it came out in the Article 32 that the flower pot was stood up by army personnel. In the April 6, 1970 interview with the CID they accused Jeff of setting it up. 
3. A big point of contention over the years (that goes unmentioned here) has been that coffee table in the living room. The investigators said it should have flipped all the way....but Col Rock went to the residence himself and flipped it over and a chair (braced against the wall) stopped it from going all the way.
I may address this myself in the coming days if someone doesn't beat me to it. ThanksRja13ww33 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to point one, the reference states that (in reference to the supposed struggle with the three male intruders) "[the perpetrators] seem to have left no microscopic physical clues at the scene of the crime: no fragments of skin under the fingernails of their resisting victims". Later on the same page of the same reference, Segal states at the hearing much of the Military Police procedures had destroyed potential fingerprint or forensic evidence. Maybe a note would suffice? I read your earlier comment attesting to your personal conviction in MacDonald's guilt, and am inclined to agree wi' you. That skin sample would have sourced from MacDonald's face. No excuses offered, but MP were unused to crimes along these lines and full forensic procedures. Gave Segal a lot of ammo. in the courtroom. Still awaiting the Fatal Vision book I ordered last week. Not gotten to the table yet.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember how the book Fatal Vision dealt with both the flower pot and the coffee table. The mini-series Fatal Vision copped to the flower pot being set upright by a third party.....but it omitted the fact that Col. Rock verified the coffee table could be stopped from going all the way. A Wilderness of Error (the book) noted both. It may seem trivial, but it kind of symbolizes the problems with the case from Day 1 (that Mac & Co have brought up again and again so ergo, it is probably notable enough for the article).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I am only going off the references I have, and can access. Reference states he resented the criticism of the Army's competence. The book arrived today.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no problem. I am kind of doing this as a "punch list" for myself. (To use a term from my business.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got through the introduction chapter. If yous like I'll leave the article until your concerns are resolved. (I work with data input and Excel spreadsheet analysis/creation so am not averse to exhaustive tasks.) Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and edit as you think is necessary....but you can leave the stuff on this list to me. I think I have an idea as to how I want to say it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I thought the supposed intruders entered from the rear of the house, having to cross a muddy yard following a night of rain? MP drove to the scene and only one entered from the rear before rushing to the front of the house?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC that is correct. But it still begs the question of: where is Mica's footprint? (The guy who went around back.) For that matter, where are the other footprints of the other MPs (and medical personnel and so on)? If the criteria is "wet" only footprints.....then there are others missing as well. I'm going to get to this (i.e. all the points I've raised so far) Thursday or Friday. So that will give me time to hunt down what exactly Col. Rock said on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of problems 

message: I'm going to add a brief comment about Ken Mica seeing a gal in a hat on the way to answering the call for help that night of the murders. This is a significant point that goes unmentioned. (And I delve into it some here because my addition will be much shorter.) Mica has said how odd it was to see that. This came up at the trial.....however he was not asked if it was Helena Stoeckley. And (in fact), after the trial, he has made it clear that the woman wasn't Helena. Mica has also said that his interviews with shows like Unsolved Mysteries, False Witness, 20/20, 48 Hours, etc were edited to intimate it was Helena. 
I think it's worth mentioning because it's been another point that Team Mac has brought up a lot over the years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Mica on the way to the crime scene 

message: In the article it was added (about the Grand Jury): "Also to testify was an individual who stated that, in his experience, individuals under the influence of LSD seldom become violent..."
The cited source doesn't mention that but Joe McGinniss said in Fatal Vision (the book) the person who said that was "The newspaper reporter who had covered the Article 32 hearing and who had interviewed MacDonald on the morning the charges against him were dropped also agreed to testify."(p. 479) 
I've never been clear on who this person was (or if he testified). Checking the witness list for the Grand Jury, I don't see a reporter down as a witness. (Interestingly enough, this guy is given a scene in Fatal Vision (the miniseries)....testifying to the Grand Jury. But he is not identified there either.)
Anyone know who this is (and/or if he actually testified)? We probably should be clear on that point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is it's page 482 of the source.  If it is too vague, maybe it should go?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. When I wrote the above, the first citation after that was the Joe Nickell book. (Not Fatal Vision) I was just curious if anyone knew who this was because in the miniseries, he's on the stand saying the stuff about "4 people on acid couldn't organize a trip to the toilet". I wouldn't get rid of it. Maybe just introduce it by saying something like "a reporter who had covered the Article 32 hearing and interviewed MacDonald told Joe McGinniss [insert acid head's organizing skills (or whatever) here]". You've already dropped the citation in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who said this? 

message: I may be nitpicking but I noticed the part about how Blackburn framed his questions to Mac (at trial) in the form of "If the jury should find..." was removed. I thought that was noteworthy. It was a point for Blackburn in closing and was part of the shown testimony in the movie Fatal Vision. It is also (as far as I know) unique as trials go. I can't think of one (other than this one) where the attorney framed the questions this way.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That was on the second day. I have included the second day's testimony following the recess, . Sorry, I should have kept it there to begin with. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the Jury should find..... 

message: I added brief statements and notes about how short Wade Smith's time in front of the jury was. If anyone feels it should be elaborated upon further: let me know. A lot of observers have expressed the opinion that it was a mistake to have Segal in front of the jury that much and that his argument didn't fit the profile of this particular jury. (Interestingly enough, Richard Cahn (who helped the Kassabs file their citizens complaint) was one of the people who expressed this pov.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that stems from Segal's haughty attitude. He was supposed to argue for two hours, leaving Smith 1hr 15m.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wade Smith 

message: After reading the wiki article about this well respected and influential lawyer, I don’t think “flamboyant civilian defense attorney” is accurate or fair. TKnLA (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources describe him like this. His manner in the courtroom (and outside) over the years between 1970 and 1979 speak as such to me. If you think the mention should be moved somewhere within a section devoted to the trial or hearings?--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Even the sources on Mac's side describe him that way. ('A Wilderness of Error' for example.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of attorney Bernard Segal 

message: Stoeckley confessed to being part of the murders, in the form of an affidavit and Gunderson recorded video testimony of her confessing details to her involvement (on the Internet you view for yourself the video of her giving details of the murder)
At times Stoeckley denied having anything to do with the murders.  But that does not change the fact that she really did confess to being involved.
You can argue if Stoeckley is lying or not, and you can point out that she has previously denied involvement in the murder, but --her confession definitely happened and thus is not alleged--
The subsection should be changed to simply:
"Confession of Helena Stoeckley" YeshuaAdoni (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not alleged she made a statement. Perhaps it is alleged whether it constitutes being a "confession" as opposed to the ramblings of a drug-riddled fantasist who'd followed the extensive media coverage of the murders and constantly changed her story, with, of course, a lack of any physical evidence indicating more than four persons were in the house that night, let alone four or five mescaline heads hell-bent on slaughter but treating the sole male occupant with kid gloves (all this despite the way the army trampled about the scene). All avenues are covered in depth in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is not nonsensical to me. Matter of opinion. All avenues are explored in this exhaustive article. Mitchell was one of the individuals named by Stoeckley as the "five members of what she described as a 'drug cult' (who) had developed a deep grudge against MacDonald as he had 'refused to treat heroin- and opium-addicted' patients" (In 1971 two of these individuals named by Helena Stoeckley as participants in the murders had been traced and questioned. A further individual is known to have been in jail from January 28 to March 10, 1970. The three denied any involvement and all agreed to—and passed—polygraph tests.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

text: How is it nonsense? My only apology would be I should have expounded previously no conclusive determinations could be made to the validity of her statements. Therefore, can it be counted as a "confession" as opposed to inconclusive ramblings? ("a conclusion cannot be reached as to whether she, in fact, knows who perpetrated the homicides or whether she, in fact, was present at the scene of the murders".) If the title reads "Confessions of Helena Stoeckley" it may lead the reader to assume her guilt, or, for that matter, validity in her statements. She sad to Segal when he pestered her she was a fantasist. Everyone who knew her (including her mother) said she constantly "needed attention" and would do or say anything to receive it. That was one of the reasons she was a police informant. Maybe a separate title altogether would settle this? Statements of Helena Stoeckley?--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

text: The word "unsubstantiated" or even "fanciful" should precede any "confession" by her. I appreciate your observation. I do, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyhow, in 1980 she made (an unsubstantiated) "confession". It was post-conviction, so "Later confession" is somewhat uncontentious.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I just, personally, held concern that a title simply reading "Confession of Helena Stoeckley" may lead the casual observer to believe it held validity/truthfulness, . All options are open for scrutiny given the article (which we have both worked upon), but such a stark insertion as a header could negate the remainder of the work. Kinda like believing a headline without reading the periodical. Just a concern of mine.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I get what you are saying now.....and I have no issue with a header saying something like "later statements of Helena Stoeckley". Given the fact that just about every appeals court that has looked at her statements and rejected them.....I agree that weight is a concern.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "alleged" confession of Helena Stoeckley, is not alleged. 

message: I came across this interview with Jeff.....and this fascinated me because it is about the only time I've seen him asked if he was certain if Helena Stoeckley was the woman he saw that night (with the candle):
Not sure if it is worthy of inclusion....but thought I'd bring it up because I've never seen him asked that anywhere else. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is intriguing, . Difficult to decipher some of the audio. Convenient how he tries to portray himself as the victim yearning for justice (again accusing the army of trampling the crime scene) yet he had refused to consent to polygraphs for years prior to this. Claims for six weeks he repeatedly went to investigators asking when they were going to talk to him about the case when, by six weeks later, he was already dating other women and had already refused to be polygraphed. I wonder if a ref. could be found? Would certainly be worthy of adding in the ext. links.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there has been some arguing over the years on wiki over using YouTube even as a external link. (So I didn't add it. I've never seen this interview referenced in a RS on the case.) This aspect of it has always fascinated me because I've never been sure if he's been asked point blank about it (until now). It's interesting because he once lied to his father-in-law that he killed someone who he was convinced was there....but here is Stoeckley and Gregg Mitchell walking around free as a bird (up until they died in the early 80's) and he never even contemplated going after them to my knowledge.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That early 70s claim he made about killing one of the perpetrators was when Kassab was talking about taking justice into his own hands, and not buying his continued stalling efforts (of the supposedly grieving father). Like I once said on here, if it were not for the crimes themselves, I could burst out laughing at MacDonald's claims of innocence.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview with Mac in 1979 

message: It is mentioned in this article that the argument may have started because of Kristen MacDonald's habit of wetting the bed.  MacDonald did indeed state that he had found Kristen in the bed and she had wet it.  However, no mention is  made in the article itself of the fresh urine stain on the bed.  The issue is that analysis proved that the urine stain on the bed was from the urine of Kimberley MacDonald, not Kristen.  This information is buried in a note.  A casual reader would assume that it was Kristen who had the bedwetting problem and it was she who had wet the bed that night, but this is not the case.  It was Kimberley who wet the bed and she who wet the bed that night.  I consider this a damning bit of evidence against MacDonald, because he surely could not have mistaken Kimberley for Kristen, yet it was not Kristen's urine.      Why would he lie about that if he were innocent?  On the other hand, if he is guilty, a motive for lying about it would have been that Kristen was two years old, while Kimberley was five years old, and a two-year-old wetting the bed is less likely to elicit frustration and anger than a five-year-old wetting the bed.  When it's a five-year-old, it's a problem, when it's a two-year-old, not so much of a problem.  It seems that he decided to state that it was Kristen so that investigators would be less likely to consider it a source of anger on his part.  During the stressful moments of trying to cover up the crime, MacDonald did not stop to think that his daughters may have had different blood types and that if they did, that would pinpoint the source of the urine to Kimberley. 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:D19D:4676:54EF:5659 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   Urine Stain