Interesting post on the Jeff. MacDonald (Fatal Vision) case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2159702&mesg_id=2159702

EDIT: The hair found in his wife's hand was his.

I haven't read any books on this case recently, but it seemed to me that his story was too contrived.

Now I wonder who the other hair belongs to??

His "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" thing seems to be conveniently borrowed from the Tate/LaBianca murders, which occurred just six months prior.

And the idea that an outsider(s) could viciously butcher Colette and the two girls, and inflict just minor damage to Jeffrey is, frankly, laughable.

The other hair could belong to literally anybody, from previous tenants, the child's playmates, any of the original investigators, etc. I don't think it's real exculpatory for Jeffrey, when balanced with the evidence against him.

The guy's a liar, a cheater, and was hooked on speed at the time of the killings. As horrible as it is to contemplate, it's not hard to see him as the murderer.

I knew a family who had one, and the thing was litter-trained and sat on the dad's lap when he watched TV. I'd get one tomorrow except my temperamental female cat would be SOOOO jealous.

I just got the pic off the internet. They do make good pets, I hear.

Thanks for posting that. I missed it.

I guess that doesn't look good for him, but who knows? I would like to look back into this case because it's been a long time since I have.

Thanks for posting. :hi:

Jeffy boy has to say about his hair being found in his dead wife's hand. Because it contained DNA, the roots must have been present, which might not be so easy to explain away since the presence of roots suggests the hair was yanked out.

He could have planted the "stranger" hairs in his daughter's hand. In fact, I thought it had proved to be synthetic, which appeared to me to be an attempt by him to frame that woman drug addict who wore the yellow wig. There was talk that the synthetic fibers could have come from a doll or even a stuffed toy animal belonging to his daughters.

I've long been convinced the right person is in prison for the murders.

Long may he rot.

to use this as proof that Helena Stoekely was in the house. I too have often thought that it was from a doll's head.

No matter what, the evidence and the preponderance of evidence points at one person.

Remember at the end of "Fatal Vision" where the author talks about the photograph that showed the suitcase in the bedroom taken with blood all around it, but none on it? In other words, the suitcase was taken out (with thoughts of running by MacDonald?) after the bloodshed.

I always wondered why that important point was never brought up more in the rest of the book-just one sentence near the end of the book.

Yes, long may he rot. Acid, hippies, "kill the pigs"...:eyes:

Helena Stoekley. When I was typing my post I couldn't think of it.

Yes, I do remember the suitcase, and I too thought it was important that no blood was found on it. And I also wondered why a bigger deal wasn't made of it.

The suitcase makes me think of the Sheppard case, in which Sheppard said he grappled with the killer of his wife after the murder, and the killer stole Sheppard's wristwatch and put it in a bag (which was later found close by, outside).

The watch had blood splatters on its face, meaning it was in close proximity to Mrs. Sheppard when she was being murdered. Okay, maybe not a big deal if Dr. Sheppard was a witness to it.

But there were no splatters, or even smeared blood, found on Sheppard's wrist adjacent to where his watch would have been (or on his forearms or anywhere else) even though Sheppard swore he didn't wash, not even after he grappled with the blood-smeared killer on the sandy beach, which was when he said the killer took his watch. (No sand was found stuck in the watchband...hmmm.) Nor did Sheppard wash, he swore, after he took his dead wife's pulse.

Anyway, blood splatter, or lack of it, like with the suitcase in the MacD case (which is what this thread is supposed to be about - sorry for going OT) is a big deal IMO. It was also blood splatter evidence that absolutely convinced me that Darlie Routier is the murderer of her sons. (Oops, there I go again.)

Yeah, acid, hippies, kill the pigs. How cliche'.

...such crimes were committed by IDIOTS to scare people. It's not as far-fetched as you might think. The people committing the murders out in California were confirmed idiots.

Personally, I think McDonald is innocent, but not everyone is privy to that info. The case is far from closed.