Comments on: Errol Morris tackles the Jeffrey MacDonald case

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:22:36 +0000

everyone that has made a comment on this blog does so not from personal experiance, but on responding to published material about the case.

I was fourteen years old when it happened and lived in Fayetteville. The word was on the street that Stoeckley and others did it. I knew a family that also was more involved in activity coming from the street. They too, also confirmed this, that is until their CID husband-father came home from a tour in VN. After that the arguments were sensless.

In addition, I was showed a canvas bag, after these events, that was sitting on a back porch by a fellow younger than myself. In that bag was an ice pick and butcher knife with dense dried blood caked on them. This house belonged to a detective. The murder weapons were never seen in court. BTW; Helena was known to have carried a canvas bag with an ice pick in it.

So, go ahead and discuss your press dominated arguments based on news media spin.

By: Walter

Walter — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:27:04 +0000

I can’t believe that this case still drags on in the courts. People that think he’s innocent don’t take the time to know why he was convicted in 6 hours. The blood, hair and fiber evidence proved that who ever wore the blue top that night slaughtered a pregnant women and two little girls. That’s what the case comes down to. 3 sliced and battered bodies of 3 helpless people. And all the evidence points toward that blue pajama top. Did one of the so called hippies come in the house in the middle of the night, find weapons that were in the house, stab and club everyone, find surgical gloves and put them on, move bodies, take it back off and give it back to MacDoanld? Please…for the people that think he’s innocent take the time to read and learn the evidence. If you do you’ll see that his entire story is a lie.

By: Philip Benincasa

Philip Benincasa — Mon, 28 May 2012 23:12:26 +0000

L. I am the furthest thing from a supporter of this sociopath. My reference to Mrs. Kassab is her theory as to why he committed the crime. Do a little research and you’ll find what she felt his motivation was.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 04 May 2012 20:51:23 +0000

I don’t know how anyone who has read Fatal Vision in detail can doubt Mr MacDonald’s guilt. But regardless of the merits of that book, criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. Under the law, circumstantial eveidence is just as good as direct evidence. In arson trials , for example, most prosecutions rely entirely on circumstantial proof.

By: L.bestley

L.bestley — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:37:32 +0000

As long as somebody proclaims their innocence for long enough and they were not filmed commiting the crime then there will always be people willing to believe anything!Forget overwhelming blood and fiber evidence and numerous other peices of evidence that point the finger to the correct person.Who cares when they say they didn,t do it!!We can,t always know everything about a crime but we should not discount all the piles of evidence just because it is deemed cercumstantial.Jeffrey Macdonald was guilty in 1970 and he is guilty now!He was lucky he had ten years of freedom before justice prevailed.His crimes were monstrous but his denials and posturing over forty some years is almost on a par with the original crime!He needs to die in prison which is the only place he belongs along with all the other innocents like O.J.Darlie routier and Scott peterson to name just a few!!

By: Thomson Scarlett

Thomson Scarlett — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 01:08:07 +0000

MacDonald may very well be guilty of the 1970 murders but the conviction was based on circumstancial evidence. MacDonald may be conceided and narcissistic and may have been a unfaithful husband and an uncaring father. However, this does not mean he is a murderer. Wrongly convicted people are not necessarily saints ! The fact that he describes four people and there are three documented confessions (Helena Stockley, Greg Mitchell and Cathy Perry) makes MacDonald very lucky if he is indeed guilty !

By: Lucia Bartoli

Lucia Bartoli — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:49:34 +0000

I just saw this site and thought I would chime in. Unless Errol’s obsession with Macdonald includes experiments with mind control by some segments of the gov’t.,
then his project is doomed.
Rather than state the MacD. is guilty of murder one, I’d say he is not innocent due to having been unwittingly involved in a project far greater than one can imagine. The cold war at the time, along with the Vietnam conflict, saw great experimentation with “mind control.” The old movie “Jacob’s Ladder” touches on this topic.
Having been involved in this case until about 1999, I continued my research well after leaving that “encampment of tired souls” as I have come to call it. The outcome of it all raises more questions than it answers. All involve:
Jerry Hughes (past and present)
Dr. James Brussel
MacD’s forthcoming assignment as m.d. for Army Boxing team in Russa trip
Why his mother allowed him to live with another family (Jeff and the son of that family) for one year in Texas at the age of 13? (The mother of MacD’s friend introduced him to “intimacy”)
Why does the gentleman, who was the little boy MacD. held over the water from the boat, not want to have anything whatsoever to do with MacD.’s search for vindication?
and a few more topics.
In my view, MacD. is pretty much a done turkey. He has become institutionalized, shallow, an even more narcissistic. He has defrauded his own brother. He is nothing more than a convict who cries “innocent” at every turn. The guy who would NEVER EVER seek parole, is desperate to get out. He will reach for anything and everything. But then, what if he does get out either on parole, or whatever…what then? He is no longer a doctor and how long can 15 minutes of fame actually last? Maybe he should get himself a ball and write “Wilson” on it!
Note to Errol: This will never be a “thin blue line,” Errol…but rather a smear of innocent blood. MacDonald is to be pitied, not vindicated or liberated. He played most dangerous games with those closest to him–all about ego.

By: Cao

Cao — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:02:05 +0000

I don’t think so, L. There is no other explanation other than Helena Stoeckley’s. I sure wish the government would have given her immunity, she would have spilled all the beans! But they had a particular interest in keeping it all hushed up and were happy with what they got away with! There is no explanation for MacDonald’s injuries and collapsed lung other than he was assaulted by the people Helena described and said were in the house.

By: L. Sieminski

L. Sieminski — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:09:24 +0000

Philip, you are obviously a lunatic MacDonald supporter. You think Colette’s 56-58 year old mother drove from Long Island to North Carolina to stab her baby granddaughters to death?? Sorry, the forensic evidence is overwheming. Jeffrey MacDonald is exactly where he belongs.

By: Philip Benincasa

Philip Benincasa — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:21:16 +0000

Oh please…survey those who grew up with MacDonald and ask if they are convinced that he was capable and committed this horrific crime. In my opinion Mrs Kasab was the only one correct as to motivation