Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald/Archive 1

message: Who the hell wrote this article, government prosecutor Brian Murtagh??? This article is seriously biased, and needs a complete NPOV rewrite from top to bottom. The website www.crimelibrary.com, which Wikipedia frequently uses as a reliable source of information on crime cases, has a very complete picture of the case, and numerous news articles can be found with quick google searches.
There is no mention of the fact that Joe McGinniss's book "Fatal Vision" has been pretty much proven to be a complete fabrication and act of fraud on McGinniss's part, and the entire article literally sounds like it is speaking with the POV of the (very biased) prosecution. In particular, the article presents "facts" that have not only never been proven, but for which there was never any credible evidence in the first place. There is no mention of the obvious coverups of the Army investgators in the 1970s, of the mishandling of evidence by government officials in the 1980s, and of the FBI's refusal to turn over evidence to the defense team, including materials that can be tested for DNA evidence.
Jeeze... I hate sounding like a conspiracy nut... ;-) but here is a case of very possible judicial impropriately on a massive scale, and the article needs to better reflect this fact. I'll try some editing of it over the next few days, but I don't have as much time to devote to WP as I used to. :(
func(talk) 04:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF!!! 

message: Rhobite, the phrases you referred to have been removed.  Also, if I might, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I find it offensive to be told by "Func" that I "refused" to discuss the editing of this article.  The fact is that I was not aware, since it is nowhere on the "edit" page that I could see, that it was a requirement that an editor discuss the changes.  Additionally, the very first time I saw that there was a message waiting, I immediately clicked to read it and then had to try to figure out how to answer it, so it is wrong of "Func" to suggest that I refused to answer.  I also resent the implication that editing an article should result in the editor being banned, since the original article contained virtually nothing but one side of the story and the only changes made were to show the other, factual side of the story, which came directly from trial and grand jury transcripts as well as many other factual documents.  Therefore "Func" should have no problem with them.  Yet he/she does, because obviously this person wants only one side of the case presented and is not interested in both sides being shown.  For example, mistakes by the CID were listed, yet absolutely nothing was said about the reinvestigation which showed those mistakes to be of no consequence.  For another example, candle wax was mentioned in the original article, meant to suggest to the reader that "intruders" were present with dripping candles, yet not a word was written showing that some of the wax was consistent with birthday candles, and other wax was found to be old and full of household debris.  Actually, the revision left "Func's" statements almost entirely intact, and only contained additions to show the other side of the case.  To suggest that someone be "banned" because they present factual evidence which is in opposition to someone else's POV is reprehensible and not what I think this encyclopedia intends to do.  I hope the removal of the phrases you mentioned meets with your approval, and I do hope that "Func" can put aside his bias long enough to agree that the revised article does indeed now present both sides of the issues he raised.
:Hi, I was away for the weekend. I would like to apologize, as I see my manner in approaching you was inappropriate, given that you are new to Wikipedia. I did not mean to suggest that you would be "banned", but rather, that continually changing, and in many cases deleting, other contributor's content without discussion can sometimes result in temporary protection of an article, and in other cases temporary "banning" of an editor. The article is being improved, and I very much appreciate the efforts you have made in this direction. Sorry for coming on so strong... (Wikipedia editing can make people mean, sometimes ;-). func(talk) 16:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: I've not always been entirely of one mind regarding this case; given MacDonald's special knowledge as a soldier and a physician it would seem that he would have employed more sophisticated, less evidence-strewn methods to kill the victims had he determined that they should die. Just my 2¢, and I'm probably not the only one who thinks so. knoodelhed 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider the man 

message: Here is another Wikipedia article on MacDonald.  In my strong opinion, any additional information from that article not already present in this one should be merged here and that title redirected here.   Madman 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jeffrey R. MacDonald]] article should be merged here

message: :See also: Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald/Archive 1. knoodelhed 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Of course, this article should be merged with Jeffrey MacDonald. Why are we even discussing it? Madman 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: I notice there are an awful lot of anonymous edits and posts here. Please remember that even if you do not wish to register an account, you can date-time stamp your posts with your ISP # by typing four tildas (~'s) after your post. It's important to do that so other editors know who said what and when. That way, messages can be left on your talk pages if need be. ThanksLiPollis 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: please sign your posts with four tildas

message: This article has some serious omissions and inconsistencies and serious flaws, which does not present the account as detailed in Joe McGinniss’ book: Fatal Vision, nor in the movie of the same name, which is allegedly based on his book and other credible legal sources. Some of the most serious I will offer a correction.
1. The Wikiarticle states:
As MacDonald retaliated by beating her with a piece of lumber, Kimberley—whose brain serum was found in the doorway—was struck, possibly by accident. Believing Colette dead, MacDonald carried the mortally wounded Kimberley back to her bedroom. After stabbing and bludgeoning her (Kimberley's blood was discovered on the pajama top MacDonald said he hadn't been wearing while in her room), he went to Kristen's room, intent on disposing of the last remaining witness.
The elder daughter, Kimberley, is alleged to have overheard her mother and Jeffery fighting and arguing which prompted her to come into the room crying. Jeffery, (the prosecution and the evidence believes), who was already in a “drug induced” rage, raised the 2 x4 (not lumber) over his head which inadvertently struck Kimberley in the head rendering her unconscious. It has never been determined from corner's report if she was actually mortally wounded.
Also, the 2 x4 was not merely a "piece of lumber." After the Manson Murders, Mac Donald kept it in their bedroom closet for protection.
The younger daughter, Kristen, was never a witness to McDonald’s alleged crime. Throughout the entire crime she was asleep in her bed. It was determined by the coroner that she never awoke during the fighting. The evidence only determined that Mac Donald entered her bedroom AFTER he realized that Colette was dead, and had garnered the idea of blaming the crime on drug, crazed hippies. An idea he first obtained from inadvertently noticing the front cover of Esquire magazine profiling the Charles Manson LaBianca killings, that had taken place earlier that year (1969). He then (the prosecution theorized) decided to make the killings of the two girls appear as if they were killed by a similar type crazed-hippie group. Thus, the overkill. Kristen was even determined to have been asleep when Mac Donald laid her across his lap and began stabbing her to death.
You also state that during the Army’s Article 32 hearings:
In November 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald because they were "not true", and recommended that civilian authorities investigate Helena Stoeckley.
I do not know where you obtained this information, but it is not based on what was presented in Joe McGinniss’ book: Fatal Vision, nor in the movie. According to McGinniss, and the movie, Colonel Rock told Mac Donald outright, that the Army’s findings did not uncover enough sufficient evidence to convict him of the triple murders. Therefore, according his statement, the Amry had no choice but to drop all charges against Mac Donald. Mac Donald, angry, stated to the Colonel that he would have rather that the Army find him “not guilty,” in which the Colonel responded, “we cannot do that.” This outcome of the hearing is what alledgedly anger Mac Donald which led him to begin the very public campaign of discrediting the Army’s investigation. He started by arrogantly discussing the Army’s incompetence on various talk-shows and in other major print media.
BTW: In spite of her drug-crazed state, Helena Stoeckley had repeatedly maintained her innocence throughout the total ordeal. There was never any evidence that she was anywhere near Ft. Bragg or Mac Donald's house during the killings. This was a weak and hopeless strategy employed by Bernie Segel, Mac Donald's charismatic, hollywood-styled lawyer, to bolster the so-called "crazed hippie defense."
However, I think the most glaring omission in the Wikiarticle, is the absolute major and critical role that Colette’s parents, mainly her step father, Mr. Freddie Kasab (spelling?) played in getting the case before a grand jury, and pushing for MacDonald to finally stand trail for the deaths of their daughter Colette and her girls. It was Mr. Kasab, whom in the beginning, originally believed Mac Donald to have been innocent of the crimes, and thought that the Army was simply targeting Mac Donald as the scapegoat because they had botched the crime scene and was not competent to find the “real killers.” It was Mr. Kasab who initially fought with the military, and held very public press conferences stating his dissatisfaction with the military's investigation. He did this to alsp aid in influencing the outcome of the up-coming Article 32 hearing. It was Mr. Kasab who then utilized all of his political connections to win a "no findings" during MacDonald’s Article 32 hearings. It was Mr. Kasab who also testified with the highest love and conviction before the Article 32 board on Mac Donald’s exemplary character as a doctor, attentive father and a loving husband.
Subsequently, the Army was forced to drop all charges against Mac Donald, who was more than ready to leave the past behind and start a new life of fun and leisure surrounded by beautiful women. However, it was Mr. Kasab’s insistence that Mac Donald retrieve the transcripts of the entire article 32 hearing so that he (Mr. Kasab) could comb through every detail to prove to his satisfaction that Mac Donald was innocent, and not just because the Army could not come-up with enough evidence. Once this was accomplished it was Mr. Kasab's intention to push the Amry to go after the "real killers."
In due time, the tide began to turn against Mac Donald, when he kept putting Mr. Kasab off, and making excuses on why he could not obtain the transcripts; and after Mac Donald would agree for a fee, to speak about the case to the press and on talk shows, but not to Mr. Kasab. During the original hearings, it was Mac Donald who had refused to allow the Kasabs to sit in on any of the testimony. He had lied to them and told them that the hearing was for military personnel only. That is why Mr. Kasab did not hear all of the testimonies, the coroner's report, nor Mac Donald's version of the events that took place on the night of the killings. When Mac Donald kept dragging his foot on obtaining the transcripts, Mr. Kasab then became suspicious. After confronting Mac Donald one final time on why he would not obtain the transcripts, Mac Donald blew his top, and thus the enmity and the war began.
Mr. Kasab, finally did obtain the transcripts, and after spending almost one week (without sleep) reviewing them with a fine-tooth comb, he became completely convinced of Mac Donald’s absolute guilt, and spared no expense at using all of his money and connections to bring him to trail. In total it took Mr. Kasab ten years, an enormous amount of money, many painful and sometimes tragic set backs, and even his health, but he persevered and brought Mac Donald to trail where he was finally convicted. The years of fighting to bring Mac Donald before the grand jury, and finally a trail, took its toll on the Kasabs. Both eventually died. Probably from the heartbreak and the stress.
Finally, another major motive the is omitted from the Wikiarticle, is that both Mr. Kasab and the prosecution had speculated could have been Mac Donald’s trigger, was the use of methamphetamines. They speculated that during his medical school years, he was alleged to have been a recreational to heavy meth user. They confirmed this by finding this drug, along with a history of written prescriptions by Mac Donald to himself.
They believed he might have experienced a drug induced psychosis which sent him into a rage. They believed that this might have trigged a long deep-seated rage that he held against Colette. A women whom he only married and probably used her status and parents money to help him through medical school. Once he'd finished his residency, he was not ready to have more children and remain married to her. During the initial investigation by the prosecution, they found tons of evidence of his numerous infidelities during the marriage and immediately following her death.
They also speculated that at the night of the killings, his rage was trigged probably by Kimberley wetting his side of the bed. She often slept with Colette. When he lifted her to place her in her bed, he noticed that she was wet. They believed he then decided at during the course of their argument, to tell Collete that he was going to take on another new position as the sports doctor for a boxer who was due to travel for an event in Cuba, and that he too would be going. They speculate that she then became enraged because he would not be there when their third child was born. It was this event that all agree might have sparked the first blow coming from the hair brush held by Colette.
It would help complete and add more factual clarity to the article if the above information could also be included.
--MWHS (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Facts Missing