Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

56 views
Skip to first unread message

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/13/99
to
Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her bicept,
and on the murder club found out back.

In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtaugh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact Black wool fibers that were similiar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and bicept. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
witheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-reexamined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debri" and were not
forensicly significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and bicept the fibers are simply household
debri.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it.

Any comment Mirse? Anybody?

Logan

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/14/99
to
>Subject: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/12/99 9:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7eu6is$qj3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>


MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and bicept the fibers are simply household
debri.

*******
Logan: You say above that "The club has been been proven to have come from
the MacDonald home."
If the club came from the MacDonald home, and if the black wool fibers came
from the intruders, then the black wool fibers had to have been placed on the
club after the intruders arrived at the MacDonald home, either when they were
outside or inside the apartment.
Would that be a fair assessment as to how and when the black fibers got on
the club, if we assume for the moment that the black fibers came from the
clothing of one of the intruders?
Mi...@aol.com

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/14/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/12/99 9:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7eu6is$qj3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> >
>
> MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
> was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
> His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
> MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
> the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
> fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
> wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and bicept the fibers are simply household
> debri.
> *******
> Logan: You say above that "The club has been been proven to have come from
> the MacDonald home."

True


> If the club came from the MacDonald home, and if the black wool fibers
came
> from the intruders, then the black wool fibers had to have been placed on the
> club after the intruders arrived at the MacDonald home, either when they were
> outside or inside the apartment.

True.


> Would that be a fair assessment as to how and when the black fibers got
on
> the club,

Yes, it would.

if we assume for the moment that the black fibers came from the
> clothing of one of the intruders?
> Mi...@aol.com
>

Yes.

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/14/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/14/99 1:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7f2l01$kkg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>


> If the club came from the MacDonald home, and if the black wool fibers
came
> from the intruders, then the black wool fibers had to have been placed on the
> club after the intruders arrived at the MacDonald home, either when they were
> outside or inside the apartment.

True.
********
The reason I ask is that when I look at the poster in Fatal Justice of the
description of the three men who attacked MacDonald---this poster was prepared
by MacDonald's defense team for the trial---none of three three men are
described as wearing any black wool fiber jacket or uppper outer clothing.
And if MacDonald was hit several times first with the club/bat, then I find
it curious that there were not any black fibers found on him or around the
couch area where he was attacked.
Obviously, the black man who MacDonald claimed was wearing an army fatigue
jacket with sergeant(sp?) stripes was not wearing a black wool jacket, unless
the fatigue jacket was made of black wool fiber.
As I see it, then, it means the black wool fibers had to come from some
other members
of the group, or it means that one of the men must have been wearing black
wool fiber pants, if we are to believe the black wool fibers came from one of
the intruders.
Again, the poster the defense presented of the three men and one woman just
before the trial did not describe any of them as wearing any outer upper
clothing made of black wool fibers.
Just curious, has anyone speculated as to what type of clothing the black
fibers could have come from? Pants? Jacket? Shirt?
Mi...@aol.com

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to

> ********
> The reason I ask is that when I look at the poster in Fatal Justice of the
> description of the three men who attacked MacDonald---this poster was
prepared
> by MacDonald's defense team for the trial---none of three three men are
> described as wearing any black wool fiber jacket or uppper outer clothing.

True.


> And if MacDonald was hit several times first with the club/bat, then I
find
> it curious that there were not any black fibers found on him or around the
> couch area where he was attacked.

I believe MacDonald was attacked with a bat , not the club.


> Obviously, the black man who MacDonald claimed was wearing an army fatigue
> jacket with sergeant(sp?) stripes was not wearing a black wool jacket,

True.

unless
> the fatigue jacket was made of black wool fiber.

I don't think the jacket was made of black wool.


> As I see it, then, it means the black wool fibers had to come from some
> other members
> of the group,

True.


or it means that one of the men must have been wearing black
> wool fiber pants,

I don't know.

if we are to believe the black wool fibers came from one of
> the intruders.

Where else would the fibers have come from? How else would the fibers have
gotten on Colette and on the club?

There were more than four intruders in the home that night.


> Again, the poster the defense presented of the three men and one woman just
> before the trial did not describe any of them as wearing any outer upper
> clothing made of black wool fibers.

True.


> Just curious, has anyone speculated as to what type of clothing the black
> fibers could have come from? Pants? Jacket? Shirt?
> Mi...@aol.com


I have never heard any speculation on that. What i do know and what you
forgot to mention is that the prosecution misrepresented these black wool
fibers as pajama fibers and used it as their most important evidence against
MacDonald at trial.

I have always said that there were more than four intruders in the MacDonald
home that night.

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/14/99 8:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7f3agd$8b5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com


I have never heard any speculation on that. What i do know and what you
forgot to mention is that the prosecution misrepresented these black wool
fibers as pajama fibers and used it as their most important evidence against
MacDonald at trial.

I have always said that there were more than four intruders in the MacDonald
home that night.

*******
Logan: How many intruders do you personally think were in the MacDonald's
apartment?
If we are to believe what Stoeckley said in Fatal Justic, I count 5:
Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, and the three men who attacked MacDonald. Do you
have a higher count? Do you have names?
Mi...@aol.com

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/15/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/14/99 8:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7f3agd$8b5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com
>
> I have never heard any speculation on that. What i do know and what you
> forgot to mention is that the prosecution misrepresented these black wool
> fibers as pajama fibers and used it as their most important evidence against
> MacDonald at trial.
>
> I have always said that there were more than four intruders in the MacDonald
> home that night.
> *******
> Logan: How many intruders do you personally think were in the MacDonald's
> apartment?

At least 7.


> If we are to believe what Stoeckley said in Fatal Justic, I count 5:
> Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, and the three men who attacked MacDonald.

I told you that Stoekley never told the whole truth because she wasn't given
immunity.


Do you
> have a higher count?

At least 7.

Do you have names?
> Mi...@aol.com

Yes, Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, Cathy Perry, Don Harris?, Ray Cazeras?,
Pam Kriwanek?, "Smitty"? (the black man).

I know for sure Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, and Cathy Perry were there.
The other ones are just speculation.

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/15/99 9:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7f4oh6$dt6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>

Do you have names?
> Mi...@aol.com

Yes, Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, Cathy Perry, Don Harris?, Ray Cazeras?,
Pam Kriwanek?, "Smitty"? (the black man).

I know for sure Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, and Cathy Perry were there.
The other ones are just speculation.

Logan
********
Logan:
1. How do you know that Greg Mitchell was at the murder scene? Did anyone else
besides Stoeckley say that he saw Mitchell at the murder scene? It is one
thing for Mitchell to say he was there, but it is another thing for someone to
say he actually saw Mitchell there.
2. In Fatal Justice, Stoeckley said that she saw
Mitchell attack the wife in the wife's bedroom by himself. Do you have an
opinion as to the weapon(s) Mitchell might have used, or do you think he went
into the bedroom with no weapon at all?
3. Cathy Perry: That is an interesting person for you to name as positively
being at the murder scene. Didn't she also have a history of drug abuse like
Steockley had? How can you be so positive she was there?
If she was at the murder scene as you claim, what did she do there,and what
evidence did she leave behind that leads you to believe that she was there?
What do you think Perry did at the murder scene? Do you believe that she
was an innocent bystander as Stoeckley described herself, or do you believe
that she was an active participant, that is, she used a knife or an icepick to
murder the family?
4. Ray Cazeras: Do you think Cazeras could sue you for slander, because you
accuse him of being at the murder scene and he says he wasn't there? He could
sue you for damages along the same line as MacDonald sued McGinniss, the author
of Fatal Vision.
You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial. This time,
the trial could be shown on Courttv, where the world could watch MacDonald
tell us what happened the night of murders, and then MacDonald could be
cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings would
be very high indeed.
Today, if Cazeras is still alive, Cazeras could be a grandfather. I
doubt if he or any of his friends or relatives read this newsgroup, but if
anyone out there knows anything about Cazeras, I wish you could tell us what
Cazeras thinks about being named---by a poster in this newsgroup---as one of
the murderers of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen
MacDonald back in 1970.
5. "Smitty", the black man: "Smitty" where are you? Are you still alive?
Could you somehow come out and tell us your real name and what you were doing
the night of the MacDonald murders?
Again, if you are still alive, you too may be a grandfather. How would
you like your grandkids to grow up thinking that their grandfather once tried
to do serious physical harm to MacDonald with a baseball bat ,while MacDonald
was lying on a couch in his apartment back in 1970?
And how would you like the same grandkids to grow up believing that
their grandfather also may have taken part in the butchering of Colette, the
wife; Kimberly, age 5; and Kristen, age 2?
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
>Date: 4/17/99 2:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
> Correction: Logan, I left out some words in the following passage.
The correct passage follows this incorrect one.

" You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial."

*******
Correct passage:
Of course, you or Cazeras could bring MacDonald to court to testify. This
time,
>the trial could be shown on Courttv---as you know, there was no Courttv back
in 1979 during MacDonald's trial---where the world could watch MacDonald
>tell us what happened the night of murders. Later, the world could also watch
MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to

> ********
> Logan:
> 1. How do you know that Greg Mitchell was at the murder scene?

Stoekley said he was there and he confessed and he was seen with the group
earlier that night.

Stoekley said Mitchell killed Colette. A forensic pathologist said Colette
was murdererd by a left-handed person. Mitchell is left-handed. Mitchell had
type O blood and type O blood was found on Colette's hand.

Did anyone else
> besides Stoeckley say that he saw Mitchell at the murder scene?

I am not sure if Cathy Perry said he was there or not. Since when does someone
have to be seen at a murder scene in order for them to have been there??

Did anyone say they saw Linda Kasabian at the Manson murder scene?

It is one
> thing for Mitchell to say he was there, but it is another thing for someone to
> say he actually saw Mitchell there.


Stoekley said Mitchell was there.


> 2. In Fatal Justice, Stoeckley said that she saw
> Mitchell attack the wife in the wife's bedroom by himself.

True.

Do you have an
> opinion as to the weapon(s) Mitchell might have used, or do you think he went
> into the bedroom with no weapon at all?

I have no idea.


> 3. Cathy Perry: That is an interesting person for you to name as positively
> being at the murder scene.

She confessed.

Didn't she also have a history of drug abuse like
> Steockley had?

True.

How can you be so positive she was there?

She confessed.

How can you positively say Linda Kasabian was at the Manson murder scene??

> If she was at the murder scene as you claim, what did she do there,and
what
> evidence did she leave behind that leads you to believe that she was there?

I believe she was involved in the murders. It is impossible to match evidence
to someone when the evidence is never tested against that person. Do you
agree??

> What do you think Perry did at the murder scene? Do you believe that
she
> was an innocent bystander as Stoeckley described herself, or do you believe
> that she was an active participant, that is, she used a knife or an icepick
to
> murder the family?

I believe she was an active participant.

> 4. Ray Cazeras: Do you think Cazeras could sue you for slander, because you
> accuse him of being at the murder scene and he says he wasn't there?

He called an FBI agent within the last ten years from prison and told the
agent to get him a lawyer because he wanted to make a statement about the
MacDonald case. The FBI agent called him back and told him he didn't need a
lawyer and never went to question him.

I wonder what he was going to tell the FBI.

A rare sports car that matched the one owned by Cazeras was seen in the either
in or near the MacDonald nieghborhood.

He could
> sue you for damages along the same line as MacDonald sued McGinniss, the
author
> of Fatal Vision.

Yea, sure.

> You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what

> happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial. This time,
> the trial could be shown on Courttv, where the world could watch MacDonald
> tell us what happened the night of murders, and then MacDonald could be

> cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings would
> be very high indeed.

What!! You are in a dream world.


> Today, if Cazeras is still alive, Cazeras could be a grandfather.

Probably in his 50's.

I
> doubt if he or any of his friends or relatives read this newsgroup, but if
> anyone out there knows anything about Cazeras, I wish you could tell us what
> Cazeras thinks about being named---by a poster in this newsgroup---as one of
> the murderers of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen
> MacDonald back in 1970.

I would love to know what he thinks about it.


> 5. "Smitty", the black man: "Smitty" where are you? Are you still alive?
> Could you somehow come out and tell us your real name and what you were doing
> the night of the MacDonald murders? Again, if you are still alive, you too
may be a grandfather. How would
> you like your grandkids to grow up thinking that their grandfather once tried
> to do serious physical harm to MacDonald with a baseball bat ,while MacDonald
> was lying on a couch in his apartment back in 1970?
> And how would you like the same grandkids to grow up believing that
> their grandfather also may have taken part in the butchering of Colette, the
> wife; Kimberly, age 5; and Kristen, age 2?
> Mi...@aol.com
>

Mirse, MacDonald doesn't have to prove that these particular people were in
his home that night. All the DNA has to do is exclude the MacDonald family as
sources for hair, blood ,tissue, on the bodies or under their fingernails.

What the evidence tells me is that other people were in the home that night
and murdererd his family. Sure there is no direct evidence that ties any
specific members of Helena's group to the crime scene because the evidence
was never tested against any of them.

Try giving me some evidence that shows MacDonald murdererd his family.

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
> >Date: 4/17/99 2:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
> > Correction: Logan, I left out some words in the following
passage.
> The correct passage follows this incorrect one.
>
> " You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
> happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial."
> *******
> Correct passage:
> Of course, you or Cazeras could bring MacDonald to court to testify.
This
> time,

> >the trial could be shown on Courttv---as you know, there was no Courttv back
> in 1979 during MacDonald's trial---where the world could watch MacDonald
> >tell us what happened the night of murders. Later, the world could also
watch
> MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was
> >cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings
> >would
> >be very high indeed.
>
>

That makes no sense.

Meaningful Dialogue

unread,
Apr 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/17/99
to
In article <19990417030842...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
> >Date: 4/17/99 2:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
> > Correction: Logan, I left out some words in the following
passage.
> The correct passage follows this incorrect one.
>
> " You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
> happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial."
> *******
> Correct passage:
> Of course, you or Cazeras could bring MacDonald to court to testify.
This
> time,
> >the trial could be shown on Courttv---as you know, there was no Courttv back
> in 1979 during MacDonald's trial---where the world could watch MacDonald
> >tell us what happened the night of murders. Later, the world could also
watch
> MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was
> >cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings
> >would
> >be very high indeed.
>
>

The MacDonald case, as you well know Mirse, was tried in Federal Court.
Federal Cases are never televised.

M D

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
>ubject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>

>ubject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>


Try giving me some evidence that shows MacDonald murdererd his family.

Logan
*******
Logan: I think you are confused as to who has to prove what. The last
time I looked, MacDonald has been in prison for almost 20 years. Did you
forget that? So I don't understand why you say I have to prove anything. Try


giving me some evidence that

shows MacDonald DID NOT murder his family.
If you want to continue to believe MacDonald's unbelievable story about
three men attacking him on the couch, where the three men somehow pulled
MacDonald's pajama top around his hands, although one attacker had a knife in
one hand, another attacker had an icepick in one hand, and a third attacker had
a baseball bat in one or both hands, that's up to you.
As for me, I have trouble understanding how three men could pull
MacDonald's pajama top over his head and around his hands, when they each had
only one hand free.
MacDonald supporters are fighting to get him a new trial. So it is up
to you and other MacDonald supporters to try to convince the public and the
judges hearing the appeals that you have new evidence that proves MacDonald
did not butcher his family, his wife Colette, Kimberly, his 5 year old, and
Kristen, his 2 year old. In other words, the burden of proof is now in your
court.
From what I have seen, you and other MacDonald supporters put a lot of
faith in the idea that Stoeckley is telling the truth when she says that she
was at the murder scene.
But the more we study Stoeckley and her statements, the more we can see
that she was one confused woman, whose testimony, if she were still alive,
would not be credible in court.
As I have said before, because many potential jurors have seen the
sad testimony of Rosa Lopez in the Simpson trial, they may find it easy to
compare Stoeckley's testimony to Rosa Lopez's questionable and sad testimony
in the the Simpson trial.
So remember, it is you who must convince an appeals judge and the public,
which includes me, that you have new evidence that will prove MacDonald is
innocent. It is not up to me or anyone else to try to prove his guilt, because
MacDonald is already where he should be, in prison for a very long time.
And if MacDonald has to depend on Stoeckley or what Stoeckley told others
about the murder scene, I'm afraid MacDonald will continue to be in prison for
a very long time still, because Stoeckley was one pathetic, confused, and
lying female.
How would you like to get a ticket for driving while drunk, and the only
person you can find to testify that you were not drunk would be
someone like Helena Stoeckley? I think you would still be in a lot of
trouble, if she were the only who testified in your defense.
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
From: lbu...@yahoo.com
Date: 4/17/99 3:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <7fan74$h99$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

In article <19990417030842...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
> >Date: 4/17/99 2:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
> > Correction: Logan, I left out some words in the following
passage.
> The correct passage follows this incorrect one.
>
> " You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
> happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial."
> *******
> Correct passage:
> Of course, you or Cazeras could bring MacDonald to court to testify.
This
> time,
> >the trial could be shown on Courttv---as you know, there was no Courttv back
> in 1979 during MacDonald's trial---where the world could watch MacDonald
> >tell us what happened the night of murders. Later, the world could also
watch
> MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was
> >cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings
> >would
> >be very high indeed.
>
>

That makes no sense.

Logan
*******
Logan: What makes "no sense": the idea of you going on Courttv or the way
I said it? What is the matter, Logan, don't you want to go on tv? On
Courttv, you could tell the world what you know about the MacDonald case, and,
who knows, it could be your testimony that finally set MacDonald free.
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: Meaningful Dialogue <meaningfu...@my-dejanews.com>
>Date: 4/17/99 6:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7fb1k3$pr9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

> MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was
> >cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings
> >would
> >be very high indeed.
>
>

The MacDonald case, as you well know Mirse, was tried in Federal Court.


Federal Cases are never televised.

********
Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten.
But is one of us confused? If Cazeras sued
Logan for slander, wouldn't that be done in civil court, such as when Simpson
was sued by
the Goldman family in the civil trial, rather than in federal court?
In that case, couldn't the Cazeras lawsuit be televised? I really don't
know, so maybe a lawyer out there could help us.
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
From: lbu...@yahoo.com
Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>


> ********
> Logan:
> 1. How do you know that Greg Mitchell was at the murder scene?

Stoekley said he was there and he confessed and he was seen with the group
earlier that night.

********
Logan: I don't remember anyone saying or testifying that they saw
Stoeckley and Mitchell earlier that night together. Could you refresh my
memory? But even if they did, I don't see how that would mean that Mitchell
was involved in the murders of the MacDonald family.
As far as I am concerned, even if someone said that they saw Mitchell
walking around downtown Fayetteville with a black man who was wearing a fatigue
jacket, it still would not mean that Mitchell was at the murder scene.
The last time I looked, Mitchell had the right of any citizen to walk
around Fayetteville, North Carolina, at any hour he pleased, without having to
worry that he would be accused of committing all the crimes that may have
occurred while he was walking around minding his own business.
You have to put him at the murder scene, and, if you have no physical
evidence he was there, or if the only witness you have that puts Mitchell at
the murder scene is Helena Stoeckley, then you really have nothing.
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>

Stoekley said Mitchell killed Colette. A forensic pathologist said Colette
was murdererd by a left-handed person. Mitchell is left-handed. Mitchell had
type O blood and type O blood was found on Colette's hand.

*******
Logan: When you say above "A forensic patholigist said Colette was murdered
by
a left-handed person. Mitchell is left-handed",
you don't mention what weapon and injury the
"pathologist" was referring to. What is your source? Could you please
explain.
Did the left-handed person use a knife, an icepick, or a club or a
baseball bat, weapons that MacDonald claimed he was attacked with?
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>

Did anyone else


> besides Stoeckley say that he saw Mitchell at the murder scene?

I am not sure if Cathy Perry said he was there or not. Since when does someone
have to be seen at a murder scene in order for them to have been there??

Did anyone say they saw Linda Kasabian at the Manson murder scene?

*******
I'm afraid that I didn't follow or study the Manson case as closely I
have the MacDonald and the Simspon case. So I couldn't be fair to either case
if I tried to compare the two.
The only reason I followed the MacDonald case, as I may have told this
newsgroup, is that I had an uncle who was stationed at Fort Bragg around that
time, and he eventually settled in the area after he retired. So, everytime
MacDonald is in the news, I pay special attention.
I read Helter-Skelter and saw the tv show, but I read the book as much
because it was a best-seller and a well-written book, and not just because it
was about a murder in Hollywood. I can't remember much about the trial when
it was going on, because I didn't follow it closely. Of course, at that time,
there was no Larry King or Geraldo Rivera or Courttv to comment on the case and
attract my attention.
My point: I can't really comment fairly on the Manson case, because I
haven't studied it.
If I compared it to the MacDonald case, I could only do so on a very basic
level.
. In a few days, I'll stop by the local library to get the book to read up on
it again. But even then, I would feel uncomfortable comparing the Manson
trial to
the MacDonald trial, except on a very basic level.
Mi...@ao.com

bab...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.

In article <7f3agd$8b5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> I have never heard any speculation on that. What i do know and what you
> forgot to mention is that the prosecution misrepresented these black wool
> fibers as pajama fibers and used it as their most important evidence against
> MacDonald at trial.
>
> I have always said that there were more than four intruders in the MacDonald
> home that night.
>

> Logan

bab...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
If you have ever done acid, you would know how hard it is to peel yourself
off a chair, let alone organize a murder. That's what MacDonald said they
were on. Geez, even Manson's cronies didn't use acid the nights they went
out!! Doesn't happen that way.

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: bab...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/18/99 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>

Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

From: bab...@hotmail.com
Date: 4/18/99 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.

*******
Thanks for the information. What is your source? I don't remember reading
about what
the wife wore to class that night. Mi...@aol.com

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> Date: 4/17/99 3:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: <7fan74$h99$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
> In article <19990417030842...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
> mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> > >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> > >From: mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
> > >Date: 4/17/99 2:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
> > > Correction: Logan, I left out some words in the following
> passage.
> > The correct passage follows this incorrect one.
> >
> > " You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
> > happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial."
> > *******
> > Correct passage:
> > Of course, you or Cazeras could bring MacDonald to court to testify.
> This
> > time,
> > >the trial could be shown on Courttv---as you know, there was no Courttv
back
> > in 1979 during MacDonald's trial---where the world could watch MacDonald
> > >tell us what happened the night of murders. Later, the world could also
> watch
> > MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was
> > >cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings
> > >would
> > >be very high indeed.
> >
> >
>
> That makes no sense.
>
> Logan
> *******
> Logan: What makes "no sense": the idea of you going on Courttv or the way
> I said it? What is the matter, Logan, don't you want to go on tv? On
> Courttv, you could tell the world what you know about the MacDonald case, and,
> who knows, it could be your testimony that finally set MacDonald free.
> Mi...@aol.com
>

Mirse, you are living in a dream world. Please come back to reality.

How could i go on Court TV?
What could i say that would "set MacDonald free"?

I know you are smarter than you are trying to act Mirse.

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: Meaningful Dialogue <meaningfu...@my-dejanews.com>
> >Date: 4/17/99 6:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7fb1k3$pr9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

>
> > MacDonald's reactions as MacDonald was
> > >cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings
> > >would
> > >be very high indeed.
> >
> >
>
> The MacDonald case, as you well know Mirse, was tried in Federal Court.
> Federal Cases are never televised.
> ********
> Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten.
> But is one of us confused? If Cazeras sued
> Logan for slander, wouldn't that be done in civil court, such as when Simpson
> was sued by
> the Goldman family in the civil trial, rather than in federal court?
> In that case, couldn't the Cazeras lawsuit be televised? I really don't
> know, so maybe a lawyer out there could help us.
> Mi...@aol.com
>

Please tell me how he could sue me for slander, Mirse.

Meaningful Dialogue

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.


Where did you get this information from? I never heard this before.

M D

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <7fco0k$4er$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> If you have ever done acid, you would know how hard it is to peel yourself
> off a chair, let alone organize a murder. That's what MacDonald said they
> were on. Geez, even Manson's cronies didn't use acid the nights they went
> out!! Doesn't happen that way.

MacDonald NEVER said the group was on acid. How would he know what drugs they
took that night?

How do you know what drugs the Stoekley group took that night?

Since you know exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two nights could
you please share with us exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two
nights of murder?


Once again:

terryh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:

> From: bab...@hotmail.com

> Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.

> *******
> Thanks for the information. What is your source? I don't remember reading
> about what
> the wife wore to class that night. Mi...@aol.com

Interesting you need a source, Mirse. Why can't Babecky make stuff up just
like Joe McGinniss? Babecky is the source.

Colette must have left her clothes in the class because the wool fibers on the
club and Colette matched nothing in the apartment.

Best, Terry

terryh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to

> If you have ever done acid, you would know how hard it is to peel yourself
> off a chair, let alone organize a murder.

I will admit your expertise would have to exceed mine. I am bereft of the
experience.

>That's what MacDonald said they were on.

No he didn't. He was a bit too occupied to do an indepth analysis.

>Geez, even Manson's cronies didn't use acid the nights they went
> out!!

You were with them too? You do get around.

>Doesn't happen that way.

Seems Helena had "peeled herself out of a chair" in spite of your own
difficulty in doing it when you are using drugs, Babecky. Nobody doubts
Helena was higher than a kite. Please tell us how you know about the
condition of all the others? Just making it up? Hallucinating?

Best, Terry

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.

Where did this information come from?

Did you know Colette or did you see her that night?

If what you say is true then why couldn't the army find this clothing in the
MacDonald home?

They tried three different times to match these black wool fibers to anything
they could find in the home, clothing, etc. anything they could find in the
home but they came up with no match.

Why would the black wool be on Colette's mouth, shoulder, bicept, and on the
murder club if she changed he clothes earlier that night?

Please stop saying things that you know are not true.

Logan

ImNot911

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
Terry said:
Colette must have left her clothes in the class because the wool fibers on the
club and Colette matched nothing in the apartment.

Best, Terry

The Bost short study says the wool fibers were of "undetermined origin." To me
this does not say anyone attempted to match the fibers to items in the
apartment. It does not exclude the possibility that at some point in the
attack MacDonald covered his hands with a pair of his socks from the pile of
laundry on the chair in the bedroom.
ImNot911
"You are a disgusting pathetic creep, and I hope your cat gets flattened by
an eighteen-wheeler. (MS <ma...@erols.com> 24 Feb 1999 13:55:47-0700)"

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

> >
>
> Did anyone else
> > besides Stoeckley say that he saw Mitchell at the murder scene?
>
> I am not sure if Cathy Perry said he was there or not. Since when does someone
> have to be seen at a murder scene in order for them to have been there??
>
> Did anyone say they saw Linda Kasabian at the Manson murder scene?
>
> *******
> I'm afraid that I didn't follow or study the Manson case as closely I
> have the MacDonald and the Simspon case. So I couldn't be fair to either case
> if I tried to compare the two.
> The only reason I followed the MacDonald case, as I may have told this
> newsgroup, is that I had an uncle who was stationed at Fort Bragg around that
> time, and he eventually settled in the area after he retired. So, everytime
> MacDonald is in the news, I pay special attention.
> I read Helter-Skelter and saw the tv show, but I read the book as much
> because it was a best-seller and a well-written book, and not just because it
> was about a murder in Hollywood. I can't remember much about the trial when
> it was going on, because I didn't follow it closely. Of course, at that time,
> there was no Larry King or Geraldo Rivera or Courttv to comment on the case
and
> attract my attention.
> My point: I can't really comment fairly on the Manson case, because I
> haven't studied it.
> If I compared it to the MacDonald case, I could only do so on a very basic
> level.
> . In a few days, I'll stop by the local library to get the book to read up on
> it again. But even then, I would feel uncomfortable comparing the Manson
> trial to
> the MacDonald trial, except on a very basic level.
> Mi...@ao.com
>


Then why did you say that it was "evident" that Linda Kasabian was at the
Manson murder scenes? And why did you say it was "evident" that she was
outside and didn't participate in the killings?

Did anyone say they saw O.J. Simpson at the murder scene on Bundy Dr. that
night?

bab...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
The murderers were supposedly chanting :"acid is groovy, kill the pigs"

In article <7fd3o6$dl1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
lbu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <7fco0k$4er$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


> bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > If you have ever done acid, you would know how hard it is to peel yourself

> > off a chair, let alone organize a murder. That's what MacDonald said they
> > were on. Geez, even Manson's cronies didn't use acid the nights they went
> > out!! Doesn't happen that way.
>
> MacDonald NEVER said the group was on acid. How would he know what drugs they
> took that night?
>
> How do you know what drugs the Stoekley group took that night?
>
> Since you know exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two nights could
> you please share with us exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two
> nights of murder?
>
> Once again:
>

bab...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
My info is, of course, Bill Curtis in a 1983 documentary.


In article <19990418104210...@ng148.aol.com>,


mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

> >From: bab...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 4/18/99 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>


> >
>
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

> From: bab...@hotmail.com
> Date: 4/18/99 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>


>
> Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.

> *******
> Thanks for the information. What is your source? I don't remember reading
> about what
> the wife wore to class that night. Mi...@aol.com
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

bab...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
I don't know why you have to be so rude, I got it from a Bill Curtis
documentary in the eighties...

In article <7fd47d$e0i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

> > Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.
> > *******
> > Thanks for the information. What is your source? I don't remember
reading
> > about what
> > the wife wore to class that night. Mi...@aol.com
>

> Interesting you need a source, Mirse. Why can't Babecky make stuff up just
> like Joe McGinniss? Babecky is the source.
>

> Colette must have left her clothes in the class because the wool fibers on the
> club and Colette matched nothing in the apartment.
>
> Best, Terry
>

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >ubject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

> >
>
> >ubject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

> >
>
> Try giving me some evidence that shows MacDonald murdererd his family.
>
> Logan
> *******
> Logan: I think you are confused as to who has to prove what. The last
> time I looked, MacDonald has been in prison for almost 20 years. Did you
> forget that? So I don't understand why you say I have to prove anything.

You are the one saying he is guilty. But you never give any evidence to show
he is guilty. Why don't you ever comment on the governments 16 physical
evidence claims made at trial?


Try
> giving me some evidence that

> shows MacDonald DID NOT murder his family.

Be glad to. The main pieces are as follows:

Brown hairs with their roots intact underneath both of the childrens bloody
fingernails.

Brown hair in Colette's left hand.

Adult bloody palmprint on the footboard of the bed in the masterbedroom.

Fingerprint on a glass filled with chocolate milk.

Black wool fibers on Colette's mouth, shoulder, bicept, and on the murder
club.

Blond wig fibers in a hairbrush.

Candle wax from three different candles.

Three pairs of bloody gloves.

All of this evidence could not be matched to anything or anyone and all of
this evidence was witheld from the defense.

> If you want to continue to believe MacDonald's unbelievable story about
> three men attacking him on the couch, where the three men somehow pulled
> MacDonald's pajama top around his hands, although one attacker had a knife in
> one hand, another attacker had an icepick in one hand, and a third attacker
had
> a baseball bat in one or both hands, that's up to you.

Please tell my why his story is "unbelievable".

Mirse, it is impossible to recreate the fight MacDonald described. When you do
there are always going to be questions. MacDonald recalled the fight as he
remembered it. That is all he can do. Doesn't mean he is exactly right on how
the fight occurred.

There are always going to be questions with any murder case.

How did O.J. kill two people at one time?

Sam Sheppard's story didn't make that much sense but guess what, DNA evidence
proved he did not kill his wife.

> As for me, I have trouble understanding how three men could pull
> MacDonald's pajama top over his head and around his hands, when they each had
> only one hand free.

Who knows, but that is what MacDonald recalls.

> MacDonald supporters are fighting to get him a new trial.

True.

So it is up
> to you and other MacDonald supporters to try to convince the public and the
> judges hearing the appeals that you have new evidence that proves MacDonald
> did not butcher his family, his wife Colette, Kimberly, his 5 year old, and
> Kristen, his 2 year old. In other words, the burden of proof is now in your
> court.

I agree. But i think even you would agree that MacDonald did not recieve a
fair trial. Even you would agree that the prosecution used false evidence and
witheld exculpatory evidence. True?

> From what I have seen, you and other MacDonald supporters put a lot of

> faith in the idea that Stoeckley is telling the truth when she says that she
> was at the murder scene.

Not really. We put alot of faith in the fact that physical evidence that was
witheld from the defense proves other people were there and other poeple
murdered his family.


> But the more we study Stoeckley and her statements, the more we can see
> that she was one confused woman, whose testimony, if she were still alive,
> would not be credible in court.

I have told you why time and time again. IMMUNITY!!


> As I have said before, because many potential jurors have seen the
> sad testimony of Rosa Lopez in the Simpson trial, they may find it easy to
> compare Stoeckley's testimony to Rosa Lopez's questionable and sad testimony
> in the the Simpson trial.

I am not aware of who Rosa Lopez is.


> So remember, it is you who must convince an appeals judge and the
public,
> which includes me, that you have new evidence that will prove MacDonald is
> innocent.

The DNA evidene will prove his innocence.

It is not up to me or anyone else to try to prove his guilt, because
> MacDonald is already where he should be, in prison for a very long time.

O.K. but tell me why YOU believe he is where he should be.


> And if MacDonald has to depend on Stoeckley or what Stoeckley told others
> about the murder scene, I'm afraid MacDonald will continue to be in prison
for
> a very long time still, because Stoeckley was one pathetic, confused, and
> lying female.

You act like the MacDonald's only hopes are pinned on Stoekley but it is
actually the physical evidence that was witheld from the defense that the
defense is pinning their hopes on proving his innocence.


> How would you like to get a ticket for driving while drunk, and the only
> person you can find to testify that you were not drunk would be
> someone like Helena Stoeckley? I think you would still be in a lot of
> trouble, if she were the only who testified in your defense.
> Mi...@aol.com
>

Once again i told you why she never told the whole truth.

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <19990418034851...@ng113.aol.com>,
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

> From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
> > ********
> > Logan:
> > 1. How do you know that Greg Mitchell was at the murder scene?
>
> Stoekley said he was there and he confessed and he was seen with the group
> earlier that night.
> ********
> Logan: I don't remember anyone saying or testifying that they saw
> Stoeckley and Mitchell earlier that night together. Could you refresh my
> memory?

Detective Beasley, the detective who Helena was an informant for.

But even if they did, I don't see how that would mean that Mitchell
> was involved in the murders of the MacDonald family.

He confessed to the murders.


> As far as I am concerned, even if someone said that they saw Mitchell
> walking around downtown Fayetteville with a black man who was wearing a
fatigue

> jacket, it still would not mean that Mitchell was at the murder scene.

I know Mirse.

> The last time I looked, Mitchell had the right of any citizen to walk
> around Fayetteville, North Carolina, at any hour he pleased, without having to
> worry that he would be accused of committing all the crimes that may have
> occurred while he was walking around minding his own business.

True.


> You have to put him at the murder scene,

He put himself at the murder scene.

and, if you have no physical
> evidence he was there,

How can you have physical evidence that someone is at a murder scene when you
never test any of the evidence against that person?


or if the only witness you have that puts Mitchell at
> the murder scene is Helena Stoeckley, then you really have nothing.
> Mi...@aol.com

Mitchell put himself at the murder scene.

Please name one person who put O.J. at the murder scene.

Please name one person who put the Manson family at both of the murder scenes.

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <7fd9fq$i7v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The murderers were supposedly chanting :"acid is groovy, kill the pigs"

Where do you get MacDonald said they were on acid from that??

That is what MacDonald said the woman said. Helena Stoekley admitted to saying
that while in the home.

How does her saying that prove they took acid that night?

Logan


>
> In article <7fd3o6$dl1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lbu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In article <7fco0k$4er$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > If you have ever done acid, you would know how hard it is to peel yourself
> > > off a chair, let alone organize a murder. That's what MacDonald said they
> > > were on. Geez, even Manson's cronies didn't use acid the nights they went
> > > out!! Doesn't happen that way.
> >
> > MacDonald NEVER said the group was on acid. How would he know what drugs
they
> > took that night?
> >
> > How do you know what drugs the Stoekley group took that night?
> >
> > Since you know exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two nights
could
> > you please share with us exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two
> > nights of murder?
> >
> > Once again:
> >

> > Try giving me some evidence that shows MacDonald murdererd his family.
> >

bab...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
So, you deny that Jeffrey MacDonald swore on an affadavit that he heard Helena
say: "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs"?

terryh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/18/99
to
In article <19990418134852...@ng38.aol.com>,
imno...@aol.com (ImNot911) wrote:

> Terry said:
> Colette must have left her clothes in the class because the wool fibers on the
> club and Colette matched nothing in the apartment.
>
> Best, Terry

> The Bost short study says the wool fibers were of "undetermined origin." To


me
> this does not say anyone attempted to match the fibers to items in the
> apartment.

That however is precisely what investigators do so that one can say that an
item is of undetermined origin. I assure you that "undetermined origin" does
not mean the manufacturer is unknown.

>It does not exclude the possibility that at some point in the
> attack MacDonald covered his hands with a pair of his socks from the pile of
> laundry on the chair in the bedroom.
> ImNot911

If the evidence don't fit, make it fit.

Then did Dr. MacDonald flush the socks down the toilet along with the scalpel,
the candles, the drugs, the fingerprint planting kit, the gloves that matched
the ones under the sink instead of the ones the prosecutors forgot to tell the
defense about, the wig that looked like Helena Stoeckley's, the rope, the
scissors? It's a wonder the toilet didn't get stopped up.

Best, Terry

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
In article <19990418134852...@ng38.aol.com>,
imno...@aol.com (ImNot911) wrote:
> Terry said:
> Colette must have left her clothes in the class because the wool fibers on the
> club and Colette matched nothing in the apartment.
>
> Best, Terry
>
> The Bost short study says the wool fibers were of "undetermined origin." To
me
> this does not say anyone attempted to match the fibers to items in the
> apartment.

Well, you read it wrong. The black wool fibers were tested against everything
the FBI could find in the home , clothing, rugs, etc. and they did not make
any match. They tried it twice in 1979 and again in 1990.


It does not exclude the possibility that at some point in the
> attack MacDonald covered his hands with a pair of his socks from the pile of
> laundry on the chair in the bedroom.
> ImNot911

LOL! It is unbelievable what you people come up with.

Logan

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
In article <7fdi4s$ovs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> So, you deny that Jeffrey MacDonald swore on an affadavit that he heard Helena
> say: "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs"?

He did say he heard the girl saying that. Helena admitted she said that.

My question is how does that prove the group was on acid that night?

Please answer my questions below:

Logan

> > MacDonald NEVER said the group was on acid. How would he know what drugs
they
> > took that night?
> >
> > How do you know what drugs the Stoekley group took that night?
> >
> > Since you know exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two nights
could
> > you please share with us exactly what drugs the Manson group took those two
> > nights of murder?
> >
> > Once again:
> >
> > Try giving me some evidence that shows MacDonald murdererd his family.
> >

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/17/99 11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7faaee$6mg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> >
>
> Stoekley said Mitchell killed Colette. A forensic pathologist said Colette
> was murdererd by a left-handed person. Mitchell is left-handed. Mitchell had
> type O blood and type O blood was found on Colette's hand.
> *******
> Logan: When you say above "A forensic patholigist said Colette was
murdered
> by
> a left-handed person. Mitchell is left-handed",
> you don't mention what weapon and injury the
> "pathologist" was referring to. What is your source? Could you please
> explain.
> Did the left-handed person use a knife, an icepick, or a club or a
> baseball bat, weapons that MacDonald claimed he was attacked with?
> Mi...@aol.com


See Fatal Justice, pages 271 and pages 282-283

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
In article <7fd9it$iau$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

bab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> My info is, of course, Bill Curtis in a 1983 documentary.
>

That is strange because the defense did not know the black wool fibers existed
until 89-90. Why would this supposed documentary state what Colette supposedly
wore that night when it had no relevence?

Please stop lieing to these people babecky.

Logan

> In article <19990418104210...@ng148.aol.com>,


> mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> > >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

> > >From: bab...@hotmail.com
> > >Date: 4/18/99 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>


> > >
> >
> > Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

> > From: bab...@hotmail.com
> > Date: 4/18/99 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > Message-id: <7fcnki$43d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>


> >
> > Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.
> > *******
> > Thanks for the information. What is your source? I don't remember
reading
> > about what
> > the wife wore to class that night. Mi...@aol.com
> >
>

ImNot911

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
ImNot911 said:
> The Bost short study says the wool fibers were of "undetermined origin." To
me
> this does not say anyone attempted to match the fibers to items in the
> apartment.

Terry said:
That however is precisely what investigators do so that one can say that an
item is of undetermined origin. I assure you that "undetermined origin" does
not mean the manufacturer is unknown.

****Terry, I disagree with you on the meaning of the term "undetermined
origin." It does not tell me the origin could not be determined. What it says
is that the origin has not been determined. It does not imply anyone
attempted to determine the origin. It means just what it says and nothing else
can be assumed from the words "undetermined origin" except that the origin is
unknown.
For example, I could tell you the bananas on my kitchen counter are of
undetermined origin. That doesn't mean I've tried to find out where they were
grown. It's not a big mystery. It just means I don't know their origin. It
also does not mean I couldn't find out where the bananas were grown, because I
probably could if I made a few phone calls.
Now pay attention here...If I really put forth an effort to discover the
origin of the bananas and found that no one in the world knew where the bananas
were grown, I could then describe the origin of the bananas as indeterminable.
You get it now?

ImNot911

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
Imnot911 said:
> The Bost short study says the wool fibers were of "undetermined origin." To
me
> this does not say anyone attempted to match the fibers to items in the
> apartment.

bugbug said: Well, you read it wrong. The black wool fibers were tested


against everything
the FBI could find in the home , clothing, rugs, etc. and they did not make
any match. They tried it twice in 1979 and again in 1990.

****The murders happened in Feb. 1970. So to say someone tried to match the
fibers in 79 and 90 is really silly IMO. Was the apartment sealed with
contents inside (including all MacDonald's dark wool socks)?

terryh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
In article <19990419004114...@ng141.aol.com>,
imno...@aol.com (ImNot911) wrote:

> ImNot911 said:
> > The Bost short study says the wool fibers were of "undetermined origin." To
> me
> > this does not say anyone attempted to match the fibers to items in the
> > apartment.
>
> Terry said:
> That however is precisely what investigators do so that one can say that an
> item is of undetermined origin. I assure you that "undetermined origin" does
> not mean the manufacturer is unknown.
>
> ****Terry, I disagree with you on the meaning of the term "undetermined
> origin." It does not tell me the origin could not be determined. What it
says
> is that the origin has not been determined. It does not imply anyone
> attempted to determine the origin. It means just what it says and nothing
else
> can be assumed from the words "undetermined origin" except that the origin is
> unknown.
> For example, I could tell you the bananas on my kitchen counter are of
> undetermined origin. That doesn't mean I've tried to find out where they were
> grown. It's not a big mystery. It just means I don't know their origin. It
> also does not mean I couldn't find out where the bananas were grown, because I
> probably could if I made a few phone calls.
> Now pay attention here...If I really put forth an effort to discover the
> origin of the bananas and found that no one in the world knew where the
bananas
> were grown, I could then describe the origin of the bananas as indeterminable.
> You get it now?

Investigators attempted to match the wool fibers to anything in the apartment.

Are you trying to be humorous?

Best, Terry

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/18/99 10:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7fe3kc$6mr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>

> a left-handed person. Mitchell is left-handed",
> you don't mention what weapon and injury the
> "pathologist" was referring to. What is your source? Could you please
> explain.
> Did the left-handed person use a knife, an icepick, or a club or a
> baseball bat, weapons that MacDonald claimed he was attacked with?
> Mi...@aol.com


See Fatal Justice, pages 271 and pages 282-283

Logan
>
*******
Logan: if you cite a book or a resource, you should give details in
your answer and THEN refer the reader to the source of your answer. For
example, before you refer us to the pages in Fatal Justice above, you should
give us details of the passage , and THEN tell us where to verify your answer
in
Fatal Justice, pages 271 and page 282-283.
Remember, you and I are not the only ones who read these messages. If this
was just a discussion between you and me, then we would not need this
newsgroup, because we could just send e-mail to each other.
Also, many persons who surf the Internet and who read the MacDonald
messages on this board do not have a copy of either Fatal Vision or Fatal
Justice, or they don't care to take the time to look in the books, because they
are not as interested in the MacDonald case as some of us are. So we must
make sure to keep that in mind when we respond to MacDonald messages here.
For instance, you cite pages in Fatal Justice above. For some unknown
reason, you assume that I have a copy of the book before me. Did it ever
occur to you that the copy of Fatal Justice I often refer to in my messages is
a library copy? This means that I don't always have the copy on hand, because,
as you know, library books have to be returned. For instance, it just so
happens that I don't have the copy now, so there is no way for me to know what
your response to my message is.
So, please, it is easier on us posters if you give details in your
responses, and then cite
the source for those details, if, for example, the details came from books such
as Fatal Justice and Fatal Vision.
Simply giving us the page numbers in a book and expecting us to look it up
is a waste of time, because by the time I may get around to getting Fatal
Justice out of the library, I will probably forget this message of yours.
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
From: terryh...@my-dejanews.com
Date: 4/18/99 1:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <7fd47d$e0i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:

> From: bab...@hotmail.com

> Collette wore black wool clothing to her class that night.
> *******
> Thanks for the information. What is your source? I don't remember
reading
> about what
> the wife wore to class that night. Mi...@aol.com

Interesting you need a source, Mirse. Why can't Babecky make stuff up just


like Joe McGinniss? Babecky is the source.

Colette must have left her clothes in the class because the wool fibers on the


club and Colette matched nothing in the apartment.

Best, Terry
*******
Hallinan: Thanks for suggesting that the wife may have left her clothes
back in the class. I didn't think of that. I guess the military police and
the CID should have checked out the classroom soon after the murders, because
by the next morning the janitor probably would have picked up the clothes and
disposed of them.
I do find it strange that a half-naked Colette did not attract any
attention on her way home, or that the passenger in the car didn't notice that
Colette was not wearing the same outer clothing she was wearing when she
arrived at class. Oh, well, it was dark at night and everyone in Fayetteville
were too tired to pay attention to a partially dressed pregnant woman.
Thanks again for another insightful theory
concerning the MacDonald case. I'm getting ready right now to contact Rivera
about your case-solving theory about the clothes that were left back at the
classroom by MacDonald's wife the night of the murders.
Best. Mi...@aol.com


MIRSE

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: lbu...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/18/99 9:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7fe1hk$53q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>In article

It does not exclude the possibility that at some point in the
> attack MacDonald covered his hands with a pair of his socks from the pile of
> laundry on the chair in the bedroom.
> ImNot911

LOL! It is unbelievable what you people come up with.

Logan

*********
Logan: My, my. And you are the one who
believes without question that a self-admitted drug abuser named Helena
Stoeckley who had all kinds of mental problems is telling the truth when she
says that she was at the MacDonald murder scene?
If anything is unbelievable around here, it is Helena Stoeckley's story
about being at the murder scene. She was one sad and pathetic
person, who one day says she cannot remember what happened the night of the
murders, because she had taken so many drugs. Then on another day, she
remembers such details as seeing a book on MacDonald's chest when he was lying
on the couch in a room described as "dark" by MacDonald. What a sad, lying
person.
Mi...@aol.com

terryh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/19/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers

You ditch the imaginary wool clothes that no investigators could find and we
can return Colette's clothes.

It is not my theory that Colette arrived at the apartment without her clothes.
It is yours and your friends.

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to

> bugbug said: Well, you read it wrong. The black wool fibers were tested
> against everything
> the FBI could find in the home , clothing, rugs, etc. and they did not make
> any match. They tried it twice in 1979 and again in 1990.
>
>

****The murders happened in Feb. 1970.

True.

So to say someone tried to match the
> fibers in 79 and 90 is really silly IMO.

In 1970 the army tested the fibers from the club and said they were "pajama
fibers". In 1979 shortly before trial Brain Murtaugh had some of the evidence
re-reexamined and the "pajama fibers" on the club were among this evidence.
The FBI concluded that these "pajama fibers" were in fact black wool and had
nothing to do with the pajama top. Murtaugh and the FBI then twice tried to
find anything they could, clothing, rugs,and i suppose SOCKS,etc. from the
apartment but could not match the fibers to anything. In 1990 when MacDonald
filed an appeal based on the blond wig hair and black wool fibers, Michael
Malone (FBI agent) tested these fibers once again and said they were black
wool and he said the fibers could not be matched to anything in the home.

Was the apartment sealed with
> contents inside

Up until, i believe, 1984.


(including all MacDonald's dark wool socks)?

I do not know if MacDonald owned any of these "dark wool socks". If he did i
am absolutely sure the fibers were tested against these socks and ofcourse no
match was made.

Logan

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to

mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/18/99 9:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7fe1hk$53q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> >
> >In article
>
> It does not exclude the possibility that at some point in the
> > attack MacDonald covered his hands with a pair of his socks from the pile of
> > laundry on the chair in the bedroom.
> > ImNot911
>
> LOL! It is unbelievable what you people come up with.
>
> Logan
>
> *********
> Logan: My, my.

Mirse, look at what he said. Even you never thought of that one.


And you are the one who
> believes without question that a self-admitted drug abuser named Helena
> Stoeckley who had all kinds of mental problems is telling the truth when she
> says that she was at the MacDonald murder scene?

I do because evidence backs her story, MacDonald's eye-witness account backs
her story, a lie detector backs her story, witnesses back her story, she backs
her story.

You for some reason believe everything that Linda Kasabian said at the Manson
trial but yet you don't believe anything Helena says.

> If anything is unbelievable around here, it is Helena Stoeckley's story
> about being at the murder scene. She was one sad and pathetic
> person, who one day says she cannot remember what happened the night of the
> murders, because she had taken so many drugs. Then on another day, she
> remembers such details as seeing a book on MacDonald's chest when he was
lying
> on the couch in a room described as "dark" by MacDonald. What a sad, lying
> person.
> Mi...@aol.com

A lie detector said she was telling the truth. Evidence shows she was telling
the truth. Witnesses show she was telling the truth. Not the whole truth
ofcourse with all of the details. She always said she would not tell the whole
truth and she would not clear up any contradictions or discrpencies until she
was granted immunity which never happend.

chowa...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
I am new to this news group and to this forum, however, I am not new to the
MacDonald case. You have been having a lot of discussions with my friend
Logan regarding this case. I have not read further to see how he replied to
this message, so if I repeat anything he said, please excuse that.

I will paste my comments into your message to make it easy to follow.

In article <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,


mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com

> >Date: 4/15/99 9:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7f4oh6$dt6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> >
>
> Do you have names?
> > Mi...@aol.com
>
> Yes, Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, Cathy Perry, Don Harris?, Ray Cazeras?,
> Pam Kriwanek?, "Smitty"? (the black man).
>
> I know for sure Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, and Cathy Perry were there.
> The other ones are just speculation.
>
> Logan
> ********
> Logan:
> 1. How do you know that Greg Mitchell was at the murder scene? Did anyone
else
> besides Stoeckley say that he saw Mitchell at the murder scene? It is one
> thing for Mitchell to say he was there, but it is another thing for someone to
> say he actually saw Mitchell there.

We have no proof (as yet) that Mitchell was at the scene other than the fact
that both he and Stoeckley said he was there. However, the brown hair in
Colette's hand has been described as being the color of Mitchell's hair. It
certainly was not the color of hair from any part of Jeffrey MacDonald's body.
(The CID wanted so much to compare it to his hair that they forced him to
submit to having hairs plucked from all over his body.) Do you think for one
moment that if they had been able to match the samples to his hair they would
not have used that evidence against him at the trial? You can't possibly
believe that they wouldn't have.

> 2. In Fatal Justice, Stoeckley said that she saw
> Mitchell attack the wife in the wife's bedroom by himself. Do you have an
> opinion as to the weapon(s) Mitchell might have used, or do you think he went
> into the bedroom with no weapon at all?

I don't know what Logan said here, but I will give you my opinion. I believe
that it was Greg Mitchell who picked up the rough stick of wood that MacDonald
believes was outside in the back yard, and brought it into the house with him.
I believe that he had a knife and that he used both the knife and the stick of
wood to murder Colette. I think that the icepick wounds were probably added
later, perhaps by another gang member, but I can't imagine what their purpose
might have been. If you may recall, Potter and Bost showed that the medical
reports indicated that none of her icepick wounds were deep enough to do any
major damage. If they had been the only wounds she had, she would probably
have survived.

> 3. Cathy Perry: That is an interesting person for you to name as positively
> being at the murder scene. Didn't she also have a history of drug abuse like
> Steockley had? How can you be so positive she was there?

Earlier on the evening of the murders, three young women in floppy hats were
seen intimidating Colette MacDonald in the hall of the building where she
took college classes. I cannot "prove" that Perry was one of the three or
that she was with Stoeckley in the house. However, a lot of us believe that
she was the killer because she said that she was involved in the crimes. The
fact that she later withdrew her confession does not mean that the confession
was not true. It more likely means that she became frightened about what was
going to happen to her. She might also have been threatened by some of the
other people who had been at the crime scene.

Please remember that Stoeckley told Fred Bost that she was afraid of
retribution by some of those people. Cathy Perry has a history of violent
reactions to taking drugs. When Potter and Bost talked to her while they were
interviewing people involved in the case, she refused to talk about the case.
If she has nothing to hide, what is she so afraid of?

> If she was at the murder scene as you claim, what did she do there

We believe that she and one other person killed the children. The other
person may have been Pam Kriwanek, but we obviously have no proof of that.
The proof, however, may have been there and is still waiting to be revealed.

,and what
> evidence did she leave behind that leads you to believe that she was there?
> What do you think Perry did at the murder scene? Do you believe that
she
> was an innocent bystander as Stoeckley described herself, or do you believe
> that she was an active participant, that is, she used a knife or an icepick
to
> murder the family?

I partly answered this above. As for what she used, I think it was probably
a knife. She would later use one on her boyfriend and her on dog. I am not
sure if it was she who used the stick on the child.

> 4. Ray Cazeras: Do you think Cazeras could sue you for slander, because you
> accuse him of being at the murder scene and he says he wasn't there? He could
> sue you for damages along the same line as MacDonald sued McGinniss, the
author
> of Fatal Vision.

I don't know much about Cazeras, but I think that he has been in a lot of
trouble with the law. I don't think he is in much of a position to be going
around suing anyone. Besides Logan is only saying what he believes happened.
I can say that I believe that the Statue of Liberty is an ice sculpture.
People can tell me that I am wrong, but unless I absolutely state that the
statue is made of ice and state that I can back up my claim with evidence from
a book (the way McGinniss did), then no one would have a basis for suing me.

> You or Cazeras could have brought to court to testify as to what
> happened the night of the murders MacDonald testify at the trial. This time,
> the trial could be shown on Courttv, where the world could watch MacDonald
> tell us what happened the night of murders, and then MacDonald could be
> cross-examined by either your lawyer or Cezeras' lawyer. The tv ratings would
> be very high indeed.

It would have been kind of strange for Logan to be put on the stand in
MacDonald's trial. He would only have been a toddler at that time. I can't
think how he would have been able to testify. He was not yet born when the
murders occurred so he could not possibly have been at the crime scene.
However, like a lot of other people, he has learned the facts about this case
from reading "Fatal Justice" and Fred Bost's "Short Study." He has also read
the other three books that were written about the case and many of the
newspaper and magazine articles that were published over the years.

> Today, if Cazeras is still alive, Cazeras could be a grandfather.

I feel sorry for any children or grandchildren who might have been born to any
of the members of Stoeckley's gang. If it is ever proven (by the DNA testing
or other means) that any of them were the killers, or even that they were just
present in the house, they are connected to the crime and can still be sent to
prison.

I
> doubt if he or any of his friends or relatives read this newsgroup, but if
> anyone out there knows anything about Cazeras, I wish you could tell us what
> Cazeras thinks about being named---by a poster in this newsgroup---as one of
> the murderers of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen
> MacDonald back in 1970.
> 5. "Smitty", the black man: "Smitty" where are you? Are you still alive?
> Could you somehow come out and tell us your real name and what you were doing
> the night of the MacDonald murders?

As for "Smitty" or whatever his name was, if he was the man who was arrested
as a result of the arrest of the two men who brought the patient in to the
Cape Fear Hospital, he was a drug dealer. That means he was probably
involved in the deaths of a number of people who bought and used his drugs.
I wonder how likely it would be that he has "gone straight" since then.
Again, I feel sorry for any child or grandchild that he might have had. This
"Smitty" was known to carry a baseball bat around with him, at least he was
observed with one by a lady who delivered newspapers in the area. If the
"Smitty" is still alive, at the very least he is a coward. If he were not,
he would come forward and tell what he knows about the case.

> Again, if you are still alive, you too may be a grandfather. How would
> you like your grandkids to grow up thinking that their grandfather once tried
> to do serious physical harm to MacDonald with a baseball bat ,while MacDonald
> was lying on a couch in his apartment back in 1970?
> And how would you like the same grandkids to grow up believing that
> their grandfather also may have taken part in the butchering of Colette, the
> wife; Kimberly, age 5; and Kristen, age 2?

And what if both Perry and Cazeras did help commit those crimes. Shouldn't
they pay for them, even though it has been years since the people died? Does
the time that has elapsed make Colette, Kristen, Kimberly and the unborn baby
any less dead? No, it doesn't. There is a good reason that there is no
statute of limitations on murder.

Now, I have a really good question to ask you, sir, and I hope that you have
a good answer. Jeffrey MacDonald is an intelligent man with years of medical
training and a great knowledge of science. He has studied about DNA. If he
had ANY REASON AT ALL to think that there might be anything in that DNA
evidence that would point to him as being the killer, why on earth would be
want to have the testing done?!?!? He would be far better off to try for a
parole and just get out. Therefore, does not the possibility occur to you
that the man is sure there will be nothing to implicate him because he is
innocent?

Brian Murtagh spoke at the hearing in Wilmington about the possibility of
hair evidence being found on the bedsheet that would implicate Jeffrey. I
don't know exactly what he hopes to find, but I believe that Jeffrey
MacDonald normally slept in the bed from which that sheet had been removed.
People normally shed a few hairs every day. Wouldn't it seem highly possible
that one or two hairs from him might have been on that sheet before it was
taken off the bed?

> Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
>From: chowa...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: 4/25/99 2:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7fucp6$hdi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

I don't know what Logan said here, but I will give you my opinion. I believe
that it was Greg Mitchell who picked up the rough stick of wood that MacDonald
believes was outside in the back yard, and brought it into the house with him.
I believe that he had a knife and that he used both the knife and the stick of
wood to murder Colette.

********
Problem: You say Mitchell is in the parents' bedroom attacking the wife
Colette with the stick of wood. But at the same time, we know that the black
man is attacking MacDonald with a club/bat in the living room on the couch.
1. Are you saying that the killers used a wood stick AND a baseball bat in
the attack on
the family? I find that hard to believe.
2. The large blood stain on the little girl's Kristen's bed, which was
across the hall from the parents'
room: The large blood stain on the bed is the wife Colette's blood. So how
was Colette able to get from her room to Kristen's room and back to her room,
if she had already been attacked by
in her room by Mitchell, who used a wood stick and a knife as you claim?
Mi...@aol.com

MIRSE

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
From: chowa...@my-dejanews.com
Date: 4/25/99 2:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <7fucp6$hdi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

I am new to this news group and to this forum, however, I am not new to the
MacDonald case. You have been having a lot of discussions with my friend
Logan regarding this case. I have not read further to see how he replied to
this message, so if I repeat anything he said, please excuse that.

I will paste my comments into your message to make it easy to follow.

In article <19990417021322...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald case: Black wool fibers
> >From: lbu...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/15/99 9:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7f4oh6$dt6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> >
>
> Do you have names?
> > Mi...@aol.com
>
> Yes, Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, Cathy Perry, Don Harris?, Ray Cazeras?,
> Pam Kriwanek?, "Smitty"? (the black man).
>
> I know for sure Helena Stoekley, Greg Mitchell, and Cathy Perry were there.
> The other ones are just speculation.
>
> Logan
> ********

Chowangrad: You say you are a friend of Logan. What do you think of Logan's
list of intruders above? Do you agree or disagree?
"Pam Kriwanek" who is listed above: Is she related to the Col. Kirwanek
who was the Provost Marshal---according to Fatal Justice, the Provost Marshal
is
equal to the local police chief---at Fort Bragg?
Talk about someone who should sue someone. I believe Pam Kriwanek would
have every right to sue Logan for slander: Logan says Kriwanek may have been at
the murder scene.
Pam Kriwanek would be around 50 years old today, and probably is a
grandmother.
I believe it is reckless for Logan to throw around Kriwanek's name so
recklessly and say that she might have been in MacDonald's apartment the night
of the murders in 1970.
If I were Kriwanek, I would demand an apologize from Logan, or I would
sue Logan for slander, because with his statement above, Logan is doing serious
damage to Kriwanek's reputation in front of millions on the Internet.
Logan just about called Pam Kriwanek a murderer without any proof
whatsoever! Doesn't Logan realize the terrible damage he has done with
such an accusation? You claim you are Logan's friend.
Do you also believe that Pam Kirwanek was involved in the butchery of
MacDonald's wife and the 2 year old Kristen and the 5 year Kimberly 30 years
ago?
Again, who is Pam Kriwanek?
Mi...@aol.com

lbu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99