The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site is a compendium of information about the Jeffrey MacDonald case. MacDonald was convicted in 1979 of the murders of his pregnant wife and two small daughters. He is serving three life sentences for that brutal crime.


The Murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald
 

The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site

CHRISTINA'S CORNER

There have been cases of people wrongfully convicted. One of the saddest is Ron Williamson in Ada, Oklahoma. Williams spent eleven years in prison after being given the death penalty. For anyone interested in reading about this case, the book is The Innocent Man, by John Grisham.

However, Ms. MacDonald is in my opinion wrong in stating that her husband is wrongfully convicted. Her husband, Jeffrey MacDonald, was convicted of the murders of his pregnant wife, Colette and two little girls, Kimberley and Kristen. He was and is rightfully convicted.

It's not easy going through Ms. MacDonald's drivel that is in her interview with the Ed Opperman Podcast. She states that she has never had one scintilla of doubt of his innocence. Opperman tries to talk to her about the evidence that shows he did it, but she has never for one nanosecond considered that he did it nor concedes that something doesn't reflect well on his claim of innocence. She has her speech down pat – more of her adoring prattle that amounts to half-truths and outright lies to perpetuate the claim that her federal inmate husband is innocent.

I remember reading years ago Albert Einstein's reply when the issue was asked about our sense that we are not safe in our own home, Einstein simply replied "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of people who don't do anything about it.

With that statement in mind I will move on to more of Kathryn MacDonald's latest interview on the Ed Opperman Podcast.

Ms. MacDonald starts off by saying she has worked with animals and kids. Since I have never seen her perform in any situation other her responses about her wrongfully convicted husband, I will leave that for everyone to make their own decision. However, I do know that she has been fined several times for letting her animals run rampant. From what I have seen, the inside of where she lives does not match the outside. She also states she is still peripherally involved in teaching drama, but does not have a dedicated place where she does this. I find this a strange statement for her to make since she is involved in a hefty lawsuit because of injuries she allegedly sustained from gas coming into contact with her skin when the gas pump she was pumping gas into her car ran awry. One of her claims, she is unable to wear a bathing suit due to burn scars on her body.

Ms. MacDonald also claimed to have a witness, a former employee from the establishment who saw the accident occur and took pictures. Ah, but she dropped the phone in the toilet and they are lost forever. Guess she never heard of using rice to dry out the phone. Next question, what happened to the witness?

Recently Ms. MacDonald appeared on TV on People Investigates. Of course there were bright lights there, but the showing of Ms. MacDonald's face, neck and hands showed no evidence of scaring.

On January 26, of this year, I personally laid eyes on Ms. MacDonald. At one point I was standing directly in front of her, I could have reached out and touched her face without stretching my arm. She was wearing a short skirt or dress. I did not observe any scars on her lower arms, hands, neck or face and legs except the ankles appeared edematous. She was not wearing glasses, and appeared to see/recognize her friends there and attorney. I have no way of knowing if she was wearing contacts lenses.

Ms. MacDonald said, her husband worked all day moonlighting at Hamlet Hospital where he was to counsel those returning from Vietnam who were hooked on drugs. This is not true. He worked a 24 hours shift at Hamlet Hospital from 6 a.m. Sunday February 15th to 6 a.m. Monday February 16th, 1970. His job at Hamlet Hospital was as an emergency room doctor, and if there was an emergency in-house and the staff was unable to reach the patient's doctor, MacDonald would be called to treat the patient on an emergency basis.

He returned home Monday am, had breakfast and then went to his assigned duty at Fort Bragg where he worked all day, then went to play basketball and returned home where MacDonald claimed to have taken the children to feed their pony (Trooper) and they all four ate dinner together before Colette left for her night school class.

MacDonald may have seen people occasionally regarding drugs or for an overdose that required immediate treatment in the various emergency rooms where he moonlighted. As for his last worked shift at Hamlet Hospital, the records of the patients he saw shows their blood types and diagnoses, but none of them were listed as issues with drugs for their visit to emergency room.

Next she stated that he was awakened between 2-2:30 am by four intruders, described as two white men, one African man and a white female with wet long stringy hair holding a candle or a light of some kind. That the black gentleman began beating MacDonald with a baseball bat and stabbing him. That his pajama top was pulled over his head hockey style and then he was knocked out cold. Ms. MacDonald insisted that it has been proven he was knocked out. I want to know who and how she was able to do that? I cannot in my wildest imagination know how or why would she refer to the man she claimed was beating/stabbing her husband as a gentleman. Like when MacDonald called for help saying some people have been stabbed instead of my family. Very strange terminology for a husband to use referring to his family.

Next MacDonald's claims as to how his pajama top got twisted around his wrist and hands.

MacDonald told Dr. Sadoff, the psychiatrist Bernie Segal hired to examine MacDonald during the Article 32 hearing that - my pajama top was ripped over my head.

Also during the Article 32 hearing MacDonald told John Cummings for the article he was doing for Newsday - ...my shirt was either pulled over my head or it was ripped. I have a feeling it was ripped because I don't have any impression in my mind of something being pulled over my head. I think it was ripped around me in the struggle. In any case, it ended up wrapped around my forearm and partially on my hands...

During the April 6, 1970 interview the following exchange took place:

Investigator: Captain MacDonald, you told one of the other investigators earlier that you were wearing a pajama top that was pulled over your head or something like that.
MacDonald: Right. Well, all I know is that is that -- well, when I was struggling now -- after I had been hit the first time, I was struggling with these guys; and my -- somehow, my pajama top -- I don't know if it was ripped forward or pulled over my head. I don't remember actually -- like backing my head through it.
But all of a sudden, it was around my hands and it was in my way. And I remember that I was holding this thing in my hand -- the guy's hand -- that -- that I couldn't maneuver very well.
My hands were kind of wrapped up in the thing. And they were punching me, I was kind of using that a little bit, you know, holding it -- right, exactly -- 'cause this guy, I thought, was really punching me in the chest, you know, and in the stomach 'cause I -- I was getting hit across here (pointing to the mid-section of his body.)
So, in effect, I was blunting everything by, you know, holding this up; and I couldn't get my hands free out of the thing. And I remember I ended up, when I was laying on the floor -- I forgot to say that -- when I woke up on -- it was still around my hands and everything, and I took it off as I was going in the bedroom...

August 15, 1970: Article 32 hearing MacDonald testified as follows:

Okay, Captain MacDonald, would you describe what else took place between you and this group, if anything?
A  Right, so I started struggling with these people. Now sometime during this, my hands were sort of bound up in my pajama top, and I honestly don't know if it was ripped off or if it had been pulled over my head.
Q  I'm not sure the process involved is clear when you say my hands were bound in the pajama top.
A  I let go of the club and I was struggling with these two people and I realized that, you know, I couldn't really punch back and my hands were like bound up in my own pajama top. I couldn't get them out of the sleeves or something. It was just -- and I had the impression that it had been ripped from around me, or pulled over my head. I don't distinctly remember either.
Q  You don't recall doing that to yourself though?
A   No.
Q  Pulling the pajama top over your head?
A  No.

August 15, 1974: Grand Jury MacDonald testified as follows:

And really the next clear thing, despite all the testimony and -- you know -- the way you have to make it in order -- the next clear thing I remember is my hands were in front of me, and I was pushing at these guys.
And I couldn't use my hands well, because my pajama top was all around my hands. And I've been asked fifty million times, how did the pajama top get around your hands? I don't remember that. It could have been pulled over my head as I was struggling and let go of the guy's arm. It could have been ripped around my back. I don't know that.
I just had -- it was around my arms all of a sudden, and then now I'm trying to get my arms out, and these guys are punching me. I don't know, but what I really remember...

August 23, 1979: MacDonald testified at the trial as follows:

At some point in this struggle, my arms were bound up in my pajama top.
Q   Now, can you describe for us in any more detail perhaps how the pajama top and your arms became entwined?
A   I had a pain in my head. I was hit at least once in the head, possibly twice by now. I was holding onto someone's arm. Two other people were punching me. I was trying to think, "What the fuck is going on here?" I could hear Colette, and I couldn't make any sense out of what was happening. At some point, my hands were bound up in the pajama top. I do not know how it happened. I have tried to figure out how it happened. I did not hear a ripping sound. I thought that it was either -- it had to have either been pulled over my head or ripped from around my back. I do not know which. I have never known which, and I have never made any statements about which.
Q   As far as the logic of the situation, you have tried to figure it out, though? Now, in hindsight, you have tried to figure it out?
A   That is correct.
Q   But as far as having any precise memory, are you telling us you do or you don't have a memory as to how the pajama top got over your arms?
A   I do not recall how the pajama top got over my arms.

Next she states that when MacDonald came to he went to check on his family and covered his wife with his pajama top to ward off shock, and then checked on the children. Then he called the military operator and said "help we are dying". NO, this is not true. He first called the Fayetteville operator:

Now according to the April 6, 1970 interview  MacDonald provided the following information:

So I picked up the phone and I told this asshole operator that it was -- my name was Captain MacDonald and I was at 544 Castle Drive and I needed the MPs and a doctor and an ambulance. And she said, "Is this on post or off post?" -- something like that.
And I started yelling at her. I said -- finally, I told her it was on post, and she said, "Well, you'll have to call the MPs."
So, I dropped the phone; and I went back and I checked my wife again; and now I was -- I don't know. I assume I was hoping I hadn't seen what I had seen or I'd -- or I was starting to think more like a doctor. So, I went back and I checked for pulses. You know, carotid pulses and stuff; and I -- there was no pulse on my wife, and I was -- I felt I was getting sick to my stomach and I was short of breath, and I was dizzy and my teeth were chattering 'cause I was cold. And so I didn't know if I was going -- I assumed I was going into shock because I was cold. That's one of the symptoms of shock; you start getting chills.

So, I got down on all fours; and I was breathing for a while. Then I realized that I had talked to the operator and nothing really had happened with her. But in any case, when I went back to check my wife, I then went to check the kids. And a couple times I had to -- thinking that I was going into shock and not being able to breathe.

Now I -- you know, when I look back, of course, it's merely a symptom, that shortness of breath. It isn't -- you weren't really that bad, but that's what happens when you get a pneumothorax. You -- you think you can't breathe.
And I had to get down on my hands and knees and breathe for a while, and then I went in and checked the kids and checked their pulses and stuff. And -- I don't know if it was the first time I checked them or the second time I checked them, to tell you the truth; but I had all -- you know, blood on my hands and I had little cuts in here (pointing to his mid-section), and my head hurt.

So, when I reached up to feel my head, you know, my hands were bloody. And so I -- I think it was the second circuit 'cause it -- by that time, I was -- I was thinking better, I thought. And I went into that -- I went into the bathroom right there and looked in the mirror and didn't -- nothing looked wrong. I mean there wasn't really even a cut or anything.

So, I -- then I went out in the hall. I couldn't breathe, so I was on my hands and knees in the hall, and I -- and it kept hitting me that really nothing had been solved when I called the operator.

And so I went in and -- that was in the -- you know, in the middle of the hallway there. And I went the other way. I went into the kitchen, picked up that phone and the operator was on the line. My other phone had never been hung up.

And she was still on the line, and she said, "Is this Captain MacDonald?" I said "Yes it is."
And she said, "Just a minute." And there were some dial tones and stuff and then the sergeant came on. And he said, "Can I help you?" So I told him that I needed a doctor and an ambulance and that some people had been stabbed, and that I thought I was going to die

At the Article 32 hearing on August 15, 1970 MacDonald testified to the following:

MacDonald: …so I picked up the phone in the bedroom.
Q   Was the phone in its normal position at that time?
A   Yes, it was.
Q   Where was it?
A   It was on the end of Colette's bureau, on the, I guess the north wall. The bureau was along the north wall and it was on the -- at the east end of the bedroom towards the window. The phone is right on the end.
Q   What did you do? Did you actually make a call at that time?
A   I dialed O for the operator and she came on the phone, and she said, "Operator" or something like that and I said, "This is Captain MacDonald and -- and there's been stabbings." I really don't know my first words but it was something like that -- "There's been stabbings and we need police and MP's and doctors."
Q   What did the operator say, if anything?
A   She said, "What's your address?" and I said, "544 Castle Drive." And she said, "Is it on post or off post?" So I said -- I said, you know, I started shouting at her, "What the hell do you mean, is it on post or off post?" and she said, she repeated it, "Is it on post or off post?" and I said it was on post, and she said, "It's an MP matter." So I dropped the phone.
Q   You dropped the phone? When you dropped the phone do you know what happened to the hand piece?
A   No, I don't.

August 15, 1974 MacDonald's Grand Jury testimony:

…I couldn't figure out what to do. So I went back -- I went back in the bedroom and I called the police -- or I dialed the operator. And I told her something like, this is Dr. MacDonald or Captain MacDonald, and help. And there are people dying. We've been stabbed. We need the police. We need the MPs. Something like that.
She said -- she said, is this on-post or off-post?
I said, what the hell do you mean, is it on-post or off-post? She said, if it's on-post it's a military matter.
I don't know if I said anything or not, but I dropped the phone. I couldn't figure out what the hell she was talking about.

August 15, 1974 Jeffrey MacDonald's trial testimony

According to MacDonald he "picked up the phone in the master bedroom and I dialed 0 and the operator came on; and I told her I was Captain MacDonald at 544 Castle Drive and that we needed help. I said there had been some stabbings, people were dying, and we needed medics and MPs.

Q   What did she say, if anything?
A   She said, "Is this on-Post or off-Post?"
Q   You mean, whether this was actually Fort Bragg or the City of Fayetteville?
A   That's what I took her to have mean.
Q   Tell us about whatever else you said to the operator and whatever the operator said and did in response to your call?
A   I couldn't figure out why she would ask me that, and I thought that I said to her, "What do you mean, 'is this on-Post or off-Post?'" I don't know if she repeated it or not, and I dropped the phone.
Q   Do you recall what was going through your mind at that time when you let the phone go and let it fall?
A   Yeah; I recall what was going through my mind.
Q   Please tell us.
A   I thought she was an asshole.
Q   Why?
A   It seemed like a stupid question. I had given her my address, I told her we needed medics and MPs, and she wants to know if it's on-Post or off-Post; and I couldn't figure out the relevance. Now it's easy to figure out the relevance.
Q   Why did you not hang the phone up?
A   I didn't even think about it.

From the time MacDonald dropped the phone in the master bedroom and picked it up again two and one half minutes went by. When he picked up the phone in the kitchen, he testified the following exchange took place:

Q   What is the next thing you recall doing?
A   Being on the phone in the kitchen.
Q   This is the second of the house phones, at the other end of the house?
A   That's right.
Q   Do you have a specific recollection as to how you got there? Do you remember walking down the hall?
A   No. I remember being in the kitchen talking on the phone, and I remember the first voice was a female voice.
Q   Do you recall whether you dialed the phone at all?
A   I did not dial the phone. I picked up the phone and the female voice said, "Is this Captain MacDonald?"
I said, "Yes," and I said, "People have been stabbed. They're dying. Will you help?" -- something like that; and she said, "Just a minute; I'll connect you."
And I heard a series of clicking tones and a sergeant came on the phone. And he said, "This is sergeant so-and-so," I don't remember the name. He said, "Is this Captain MacDonald?" I said, "Yes, it is."
And he said, "What happened?" and then I said, "There are people dying." He said, "What happened?" and I said, "I don't know."
Then I heard him shout, "Make Womack ASAP". He shouted to someone else, "Make Womack ASAP."

MacDonald was not in ICU for nine days, this is your statement Ms. MacDonald, where is the proof of this?

A chest tube was inserted in ICU on February 17, 1970 to treat a pneumothorax. He remained in ICU for 24 hours and was then moved to the regular surgical ward.
After MacDonald was moved, it was noted that the chest tube was not functioning properly and a second chest tube was inserted at his bedside. The first chest tube was then removed.
A possible reason why the first tube did not function properly may have resulted from the fact that MacDonald had had pneumonia previously that caused adhesions which trapped the lower tube resulting in it malfunctioning.

On November 13, 1974, during the grand jury investigation, Dr. Frank Gemma testified: "He was never in critical condition." That he, Dr. Gemma was: "never apprehensive that he might die."

Victor Woerheide asked Dr. Gemma: "Was Captain MacDonald ever placed on the seriously ill list?" Dr. Gemma replied: "No."

So based on MacDonalds medical records and how the doctors testified, regardless of what Ms. MacDonald alleges about his injuries, stab wounds, ice pick wounds, a concussion and severe contusions of the head, MacDonald's condition was never assessed as serious at any time during his stay in the hospital.

Ms. MacDonald is wrong when she says its a total myth that he was barely injured. Also her statement that the army wore the doctors down so they would testify the way they wanted them to. She studiously ignores the fact even if he was more than barely injured, there remains the fact that there is a huge disparity between his and his family's injuries. He was able to walk into the chapel, they were carried in in caskets.

She states MacDonald had no scratch marks.

During the April 6, 1970 CID interview while discussing MacDonald's wounds, MacDonald asked:

  How was I supposed to have gotten these wounds?
Investigator:  You could get these wounds, at least the ones you had -- the puncture -- you could have done it yourself.
MacDonald:  A couple of blows on the head and a lot of little puncture wounds, and a little cut on the abdomen and a couple of stab marks in the arm and -- and a puncture wound in the lung.
Investigator:  That's one.
MacDonald:  That's reasonable, or I paid someone. That's the other one.
.. ... You men are making an awful lot out of this on circumstantial evidence. It can probably be explained, I can tell you that.

At the Article 32 hearing on August 8, 1970, MacDonald testified I had a scratch on my right arm.

During the grand jury hearing August 16, 1974: MacDonald testified:

I had -- there was a scratch somewhere on my right shoulder. I remember it as being my right shoulder. Other people have said it was the right arm, but I really think it was the right shoulder. Nothing, really.
Q   Well, that would be a fingernail-type scratch, I take it?
A   Actually that isn't how I remembered it. It was just a scratch, a linear scratch. It was like a linear scratch, you know, like a couple of inches in length.
Q   Well, now, yeah, but --
Like you scratch yourself on wood, a nail, glass, or -- you know -- superficial knife scratch that --
   Yeah.

During MacDonald's August 16, 1974 grand jury testimony while being questioned by Victor Woerheide MacDonald stated: Oh, there was a--one of my two hands had--I don't know which hand, I think my left hand had little--almost like paper cuts in the web space between the forefinger and the thumb. I don't remember if it was my left or right hand.
Woerheide:  What do you mean by paper cut?
MacDonald:  Well, like little nicks, little lacerations that just raises the skin, like when you run your finger over a piece of paper and you get a finger cut at the end of your finger. That's what they were like, you know--
Woerheide:  That is a wound that normally wouldn't--a little body fluid might flow out, but it wouldn't be a bloody wound?
MacDonald:  Right, exactly, right.
Woerheide:  And the next view shows a photograph of your left hand showing the area between the thumb and forefinger and that is to illustrate the fact that you had some fine cuts in that area is it not?
MacDonald: That's right.

Next, According to March 21, 1971, MacDonald's deposition with CID investigator Peter Kearns and Colonel Jack Pruett
Colonel Pruett asked MacDonald:  The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?
MacDonald:  Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple.

March 21, 1971, Peter Kearns asked MacDonald: How about your hand; there was discussion about your hands because you had fingernail scratches.
A  There was some cuts on my hands and he did look at those. He picked up both of my hands.
Q  Based upon your previous discussion, we have to then presume, if you are telling the truth, that these records are in error. Did you have any wounds on your hands?
A  Yes, I did.
Q  Would you tell me what they were?
A  They were blade wounds in both webbed spaces between the thumb and forefinger on both hands. They weren't big.

Next we move on to her statement about MacDonald's lawsuit against Joe McGinniss stating that the Judge in the lawsuit against McGinniss ordered that the bulk of the settlement, $280,000, go to Dorothy MacDonald. Again not true. McGinniss' insurance offered MacDonald the sum of $325,000.00. The court awarded MacDonald nothing. He had the choice of retrying the case, or as his attorney advised him to settle for the insurance company's offer of $325,000.00

First, the attorney fees and other legal cost totaled $115, 00.00 which was taken off the top. MacDonald was allowed to keep $50,000.00. The balance was split 5/9 to his mother and 4/9 to Mildred because Mildred couldn't show that Colette died after the girls, in which case Colette's estate would have gone 100% to Mildred. Of course the money that his mother got went to him as well. I have copies of all the canceled checks she wrote. Freddy and Mildred didn't need or want the money; they just didn't want MacDonald to have it. Sadly he did get all but what Mildred got. The money was put in the bank and never touched by Freddy or Mildred. Bob and Pep found it after Freddy passed away.

 

Ms. MacDonald states that key experts presented junk science and "false evidence" to the jury and they've been shown to be liars.

Her basis for this is the September 14, 2014 letter from Norman Wong, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice to Honorable Thomas Walker, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of North Carolina re: United States v. Jeffrey Robert MacDonald, Case No. 75-CR-26-3 on the "errors" committed by FBI scientists in this case, which reported that Michael Malone, Paul Stombaugh and Robert Fram each committed an error when they stated that a microscopic hair analysis result was consistent with a particular individual, when microscopic hair analysis can't definitively link a sample to an individual.

This information was reported to all parties involved to include the Defense, Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The primary reason for this was whether improper reports or testimony affected the conviction and, if so, to ensure appropriate remedial actions be taken. Information from their files, including copies of the FBI Lab examiners' reports and their assessment of the reports and testimony were provided to all involved.

You want to twist this by stating that "they've all been disgraced" and called them "liars." No one other than you is name calling and making statements that are not true. Remember the letter clearly stated "We take no position regarding the materiality of the error in this case." Their job was to report it to all parties in involved, which was done. You cannot dismiss the prosecution's scientific evidence; you do not have the power to do that. Even if those reports and testimonies were withdrawn it still would not affect the conviction. Other evidence was just too strong.
Later she again addresses this issue stating that the prosecution's physical evidence is junk science, the scientists are "liars and cheats" based on the Department of Justice memo. I think she enjoys hearing herself talk.

Talks a lot about the pajama top experiment " that Paul Stombaugh didn't look at directionality, didn't match the holes with Colette's pajama top, and didn't match them with Colette's wounds. The fact is that Shirley Green was able to match the holes with Colette's ice pick wounds by draping the top similar to how it was portrayed in the crime scene photos, and that it wasn't possible to establish the direction of the threads at that point. Regarding holes in the pajama top, she totally ignores the ridiculousness of MacDonald's claim that neat, round holes resulted from him warding off blows with his top like a "hockey player does."

Ms. MacDonald on how they met. In this last interview on Ed Opperman Podcast, yet another way. She stated several times that this happened when she was 14 while sometimes says "14, 15." Truth of matter is she turned 14 in January 10, 1975, at the time of her birthday, the grand jury hearing was taking place and they came down with the indictment January 25, 1975. Says that MacDonald was in town as he was the key speaker on child abuse at John Hopkins.

While it is possible that MacDonald attended some type of medical seminar at Johns Hopkins there is slim to none possibility that he would have been the keynote speaker on child abuse when the grand jury was in session to determine if the evidence against him was strong enough to indict him for the murder of his two small children and pregnant wife.

MacDonald testified the last time at the grand jury on January 21, 1975 and the indictment came down on January 25, 1975, within the hour MacDonald was arrested in California by the FBI.

Next, if we go to the October 24, 2003 Larry King Live show where King interviews MacDonald, MacDonald stated "I was taking a course at Johns Hopkins as a matter of fact..."

There is a scene in the Fatal Vision TV mini-series where he and his girlfriend, Joy were talking and he told her the following weekend he would be in San Diego, California giving a lecture on child abuse. Perhaps that is where Ms. MacDonald got that.

Ms. MacDonald in the same interview with Opperman claims that she never heard of MacDonald or knew him or who he was until she read the book Fatal Vision when she was 21 years of age. How is that possible? Her birthday is January 10, 1961. Fatal Vision was first published in August of 1983. How can she read the book before it was first published?

I do know she said in October 24, 2003 Larry King Live interview: "Well, Mr. King, I found out through reading the book Fatal Justice that Jeff was still in prison, and it never occurred to me that he'd still be in prison at that late time. I expected the case to be overturned way long before that. And so, when that didn't happen, I contacted him and asked how I could help, write letters or like that, and we sort of developed a friendship at that point that we became much closer. Her stories just don't match. How can one claim to have met someone earlier and later state that they never knew of him or heard about him until seven years later? She lied about when she first met him and started writing to him. She needs to takes notes so she can remember what and when she says things.

On People Investigates show, Ms. MacDonald stated she met MacDonald through a family friend. Now on the Ed Opperman Podcast she brings her father into the story stating that she was appearing in a show and after the show her father and MacDonald were talking and MacDonald said to her good job and she shook hands with him.

She earlier had stated her father was in real estate. If we go back to the first Podcast interview she did with Opperman on January 9, 2015, she says after show that both of her parents were into real estate but on the live feed she says that her father was a nightclub singer. She could be telling the truth about her parents being in real estate, they could have been investors in it. He could have been a Broker for commercial property, or building/developing property to sell. Her father could have been a nightclub singer. It makes it difficult to try and separate truth from fiction in what she says because of all the fabrications and misrepresentations she has put forth.

Her baffle continues about when he father dies and then about her mother's illness and that she first wrote to him in desperation when her mom was dying, and he wrote back a 50 page hand printed letter, that he had written with a short three inch pencil and how amazing that he took the time when he was in the middle of an appeal to respond to her so quickly. Saying he's a born healer, born to save people, "he saved me". She says that MacDonald called her the day her mother died and all she said was hello and he said "she's gone isn't she." He knew just from her voice.

Well. Ms. MacDonald, I wouldn't get too excited about that. That's nothing new, you are not the first one to receive his letters, and he has written hundreds of long letters to women to include happy faces and secretions from his person.

Opperman clearly asks her to describe the tragedy that occurred that resulted in him being arrested. Would you believe she needed clarification of what tragedy? Here she is scheduled for this interview; she knows why she's there. Why is she asking which tragedy? Maybe she wanted to tell about her tragedies as well.

She states that the most educated lawyers, forensic scientists and criminologists believe him innocent. Oh really? Then why didn't she name these people?

She states that people who think MacDonald is innocent don't go into chat rooms.
She says a group of about eight people talk about writing 100 fake e-mails under different names at whatever article someone has written about Inmate. Seriously, I have to ask, where is this coming from? My question to you Ms. MacDonald, why do you go onto these discussion boards and in chat rooms if you believes he is innocent? Unless you are throwing straws in the wind, there is no way you could know what goes on in these chat rooms unless you are there or have a spy, and you don't have enough friends for that.
Anything I have ever written, I sign my name to. If I feel that something is worthwhile saying/writing, then I am not ashamed to sign my name to it. On the other hand, just maybe it's because when a truthful article is written, people respond in a positive way and she cannot understand and thinks in her own mind that it's just a few people using different names.

I resent the fact Ms. MacDonald refers to people as trolls. Continuing on to say these people don't know our family. They didn't know Colette, Kimberley and Kristen. First off Ms. MacDonald, you didn't know them either, never met them. Have you ever put flowers on their graves? Have you or your husband ever paid to have their graves cared for? The answer to that is no. Colette, Kimberley and Kristen are not part of your family. You know nothing about them except what your husband has told you and now you are desperately attempting to make the public think he really loved and cared about his family.
I know more about them than you will ever know. I care far more about them than Jeffrey MacDonald ever did. The investigators, the prosecutors to this day still speak on their behalf. I am a part of that family and you will never be able to do anything about that.
When MacDonald was free, did he ever go to visit them? The answer is no. It always has been Colette's family that made sure the graves were cared for and flowers on the graves on special occasions. Get off of your high horse before you fall.

There were/are members of MacDonald's family that did love Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, his sister Judy and brother Jay did. Jay has on his graver marker when he passes, Beloved Godfather of Kimberley MacDonald. MacDonald's mother loved Colette and the girls as well, in her own way she was a kind and gentle woman who never thought that one of her sons would be convicted for murder. Did she ever have doubts about the murders? I sure she did, I base that on her reaction the night MacDonald announced his engagement to Randi and comments made to her friends who saw fit to share them with me.

Ms. MacDonald says Joe McGinniss pretended to be MacDonald's friend and portrayed him as "psychotic", yet no psychiatric testimony was allowed at trial. There is a difference between psychotic and a sociopath and McGinniss opined that he was a sociopath with an amazing mask, which is not the same as psychotic, and the prosecution never contended he was psychotic, which is the primary reason no psychiatric testimony was admitted. It is my opinion that MacDonald was a sociopath, he has no conscience, no intervening sense of obligation based on emotional attachments to others.

I think when MacDonald married Colette because in his mind he saw her who (because of her love for him) would thoroughly accept her role as a wife and mother, and be an asset to him on his arm to make people think he had it all. She was his wife after all and he was the head of the house, the boss and he was entitled to do as he pleased. In his mind, she had no right to question anything he did. MacDonald was totally devoid of any personal responsibility and regardless of how many random sexual encounters he had, she would remain on his arm smiling and keep her mouth shut.

The only method to protect one's self from a sociopath is to refuse any kind of contact or communication with them. Sociopaths live completely outside the social contact, and therefore to include them in relationships or other social arrangements is perilous. It is impossible to hurt a sociopath's feelings, they do not have any such feelings to hurt.

I believe from reading Colette's diaries and journals Colette was starting to understand that MacDonald was not the man she had thought or hoped he would be. She was preparing to be able to support her children and move on with her life. Colette was growing in many different ways, had she not been killed she would have outgrown MacDonald's lifestyle and moved on.

She says McGinniss had four failures after The Selling of the President, this was an opportunity to redeem himself. To redeem himself, what are you talking about? Joe wrote more best sellers than you know. When you make a statement, you should be able to back it. When one cannot backup what they are saying, it would behoove them to keep their mouth shut.

She states that Inmate has so many wonderful qualities, but he trusts people and believes people are good. Are you for real? MacDonald used people and when they got wise to him, he dumped them. He is a dictator, don't cross him, disagree with him and you are on his hate list. He simply can't fathom that people have the audacity to question or not believe what he says. I have his letter where he told his brother Jay if he continued to talk to me, he would sever all contact with him. Guess that meant sell his houses and take his money which he did as well.

She refers to Freddy Kassab as Colette's stepfather. What did being her stepfather have to do with it? Freddy loved Mildred, he loved Colette and Bobby. How dare she try to make stepfather a dirty word? It is no secret Colette's birth father committed suicide. MacDonald's great grandfather on his mother's side also committed suicide. The prosecution has never tried to make anything of that.

She is aghast that the beautiful Eve Marie Saint played Mildred another one of her digs at the family.

States that prosecutors want to win, and gain fame and prestige. The prosecutors in this case, have worked diligently to bring justice for the victims, to speak for the victims that can no longer speak for themselves. To bring whatever closure to the family they can.

It is my opinion that each and every one of the defense attorneys has entertained the idea and thought, if I can be the one to get him out of prison that would lead to them becoming one of the upper echelon in their field.

Says Colette was accosted at night school on Monday, February 16, 1970, a defense claim from long ago that has been debunked.

She claims that no one has ever reached this pinnacle under Federal 2255 (updated in early 90s to make it more difficult to get back into court by requiring that you must have new evidence not previously known and that not one fact finder would have found you guilty). How about United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Donnie Howard McPhail, Defendant-appellant, 112 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997)? His federal firearm conviction was vacated under 2255 because no reasonable juror would have found him guilty. That was found with just one precursory search. Again wrong Ms. MacDonald. Shame on you, make sure you know what you're talking about or you will continue making a fool of yourself.

On the People Investigates show, Ms. MacDonald made mention of a bloody syringe found on the floor. Now saying that a half filled bloody syringe was suppressed. The defense filed a motion in 1984 that included the claim of a bloody syringe evidence was suppressed. March 1, 1985 Judge Dupree ruled: The only evidence that a "half-filled bloody syringe" ever existed is contained in Hilyard Medlin's somewhat ambiguous statement to Agent Tool. As Medlin's affidavit indicates, when he made his statement to Agent Tool he was only summarizing the information provided to him by other members of the crime scene processing team. Measured against these statements by four witnesses having firsthand knowledge of the evidence gathered from the crime scene, MacDonald's argument, based as it is upon the statement of one witness summarizing information conveyed to him by others, that the government has suppressed evidence of a "half-filled bloody syringe" is simply not plausible. It is not necessary for the court to decide whether MacDonald or his attorneys knew of Medlin's statement prior to trial for there is insufficient evidence in the case from which the court could conclude that a "half-filled bloody syringe" ever existed."

Says Helena was a "very smart woman", clearly ignoring the documented record of her emotional and drug problems.

She states, Helena claimed she was on the street where Mica said he saw a woman with floppy hat and boots. Helena claimed a lot of things, but she never said she has been on foot in that area the night of the murders.

States Judge Dupree ruled that Helena was unreliable "because she said she didn't remember." Not true, Ms. MacDonald is ignoring other factors in his determination that she wasn't reliable.

She says Both Helen Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell died at the age of 32 because they could not live with the guilt.

Helena Stoeckley's date of birth was June 6, 1952, date of death January 9, 1983. Final Necropsy Diagnoses:

(1) Post-hepatic cirrhosis of liver
(2) Splenomegaly, marked
(3) Acute bronchopneumonia, left lower lobe
(4) Status post-operative remote cholecystectomy
(5) Extophytic bone lesions involving 5th and 6th thoracic vertebral bodies

Greg Mitchell date of birth July 7 1950, date of death June 3, 1982 Cause of death;

(1) cardiopulmonary arrest
(2) Gasterointestinal hemorrhage (2 hours prior to death)
(3) Alcoholic liver disease
(4) Portal hypertension

Simple math disproves Ms. MacDonald's claim, Greg was two years older than Helena. Greg died June 3, 1982. Helena died January 9, 1983. That does not calculate to be that they both died at 32 years-old.

She says MacDonald had to be resuscitated three times when the medics arrived. Not true. MacDonald was in no immediate medical distress when the medics arrived. They transported him to the Womack emergency room. During the ride there MacDonald was telling them what to do and about what happened. When he arrived at the emergency room, again no medical distress was noted and one medical staff member stated he could have walked in without any difficulty. His vital signs were all normal.

Ms. MacDonald talked about Helena admitting to saying "Acid is Groovy" said it was common to use that word during that time. Not true, hippies were flower children, they wanted to make love not war.

States Judge Dupree asked Leonard to baby-sit Helena. For your information Ms. MacDonald, Jerry Leonard was not asked to baby-sit Helena Stoeckley. According to Leonard, he received a call from Judge Dupree's office on August 19, 1970 with a request to represent Helena Stoeckley. His only connection to Judge Dupree was he spent one year as his law clerk.
Leonard did not testify in 2012 that Judge Dupree was bias against MacDonald. He has never testified to that.
On a memo from John Myers re: 1980 interview of Jerry Leonard, Myers wrote, "He did not state anything Judge Dupree might or might not have told him concerning the judge's feeling about the guilt or innocence of Jeff MacDonald. That Judge Dupree seemed to have expressed his mood and actions in the court room during the trial." Adding "Mr. Leonard stated that he did not know if MacDonald was guilty or innocent, however, he opined that he did feel that the prosecution did not prove their case. He stated that he thought MacDonald had been screwed." None of the above was quoted nor was it signed by Leonard.

Talk about Bryant Lane being one of their best witnesses. With this I have to laugh. I know Bryant and we have discussed this case. When Bryant changed his mind about believing MacDonald was innocent, Ms. MacDonald called him trying to get him back on the defense's side and wanted to talk to his ex-wife to try and bring her back aboard. Bryant refused to give her any information/phone number. Per Bryant, she was happy one minute and crying the next, he asked that she not call him again. I hope the defense does call him as a witness as that will open the door for the prosecution.

I would like to remind Ms. MacDonald that her husband conceded that the affidavit of Bryant Lane was simply "an amplification" of his statement submitted in connection with MacDonald's 1984 petition. According to the records, Defense found "Lane's previous affidavit to be vague." Continuing on to say in 2005 that Lane "has clarified his statements by giving a new affidavit that Greg Mitchell directly confessed to him that he committed the MacDonald murders, and that he did so confess within two weeks of death, and that he did so while aware of the fact that he was dying." Who refreshed his memory of what he had said previously? Who explained to him what was needed to be said for clarification in the new affidavit? In Mr. Lane's earlier affidavits he stated that Mitchell never directly said he killed the MacDonalds.

Question, Ms. MacDonald, did you know you husband wrote letters to the Lanes? He had one request, telling them to burn his letters after reading them. Now, Ms. MacDonald, you have to wonder if they obeyed or still have the letters.

Talks about the Eskatrol and how he was tested for drugs and none was found in his body. MacDonald himself is the one who brought up the Eskatrol and he wrote in his notes about taking it, so he opened up this can of worms. This business of him "might have taken one that night" does not ring true to me. Either he did or he didn't take it, and being a doctor he would know that the drug should be taken in the morning.

Back then in 1970, the lab testing was not as sophisticated as it is today. With the continued methods of testing evidence changing, labs are far better equipped to find things that were not possible in the 70's. Investigators have come a long way in being able to find and request testing of evidence that was not possible back then.

My question is, if druggie/hippies broke into his house, why not take syringes and drugs present in the house. MacDonald admitted to having one bottle marked Eskatrol that had 50 capsules in it. For example, 50 capsules of Eskatrol back then would have had a street value $3000.00. The street value for syringes would have netted them $5.00 each. Firearms were in the house. Nothing taken, makes no sense at all.

Says Jimmy Friar didn't testify at the trial because he was in jail. OMG Ms. MacDonald, how can you tell such a bold face lie? The defense did not want him to testify and if you have a problem with that, ask Wade Smith since it was his decision.

The defense files a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to enter Friar's testimony. Judge Dupree asked Wade Smith at a bench conference if the defense wanted the writ issued for Friar. The defense wanted more time to decide whether Friar would be needed.

Judge Dupree from the bench would later ask Smith again had the defense reached a decision on the Friar issue. Smith standing at the counsel's table gave a thumbs down gesture in response.

Therefore it was the defense's decision not to introduce this as evidence at the trial or call Friar to testify. However, the defense did give the story to the press and it was printed the following day. Stoeckley was in Raleigh the day the story appeared in the newspaper. Did Stoeckley read/hear about it? It is possible. A year or so later she would make it a part of one of her confessions to Ted Gunderson.

Friar admitted to the FBI SA Butch Madden and wrote a letter to him stating that he had been arrested 15 or 16 times one being for mail fraud when he pled insanity, but nevertheless was convicted. He had been admitted in multiple various mental facilities. That's a good reason not to want to him to testify.

Friar had been under the care Dr. Richard McDonald at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C.
He left the base that night without permission. He drank and played pool. When he was ready to go back, the last bus had left and he had no money for a taxi. He called the base asking for Dr. MaDonald. The rest, Ms. MacDonald read for yourself as per James Friar's July 25, 1983 declaration.

Talks about the fact Ted Gunderson was head of the FBI. That is true, Gunderson did a good job and was well respected during his service with the FBI. It was towards the very end and after he retires that he got into believing in conspiracy theories and the occult.

Says Charles Bronson was on the cover of the Esquire Magazine. Not true. Lee Marvin was on the cover.

Continuing on to say that Jeff's fingerprints were not even on that article, just on the ads in the magazine, but that Colette's were in the magazine. They had a subscription to the magazine, why would their fingerprints not be on the magazine? The purpose of one having a subscription to a magazine is because they enjoying reading it.

Talks about the dinner with Jim Blackburn and says that he said he did not care if he were innocent or not it was all about winning. If there is a God, and I believe there is, you will be punished for all your lies, just as your husband will be punished for taking the lives of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen and the baby boy Colette was pregnant with.
Truth of the matter Wade Smith called Blackburn asking him to come to his office and meet Ms. MacDonald as a favor to him. Blackburn obliged and went to meet her and Tim Junkin who was also there. That meeting led a day or two later to the dinner Ms. MacDonald referred to. They met in a restaurant; sat at a table while she tried hard to convince Blackburn her husband was innocent.

As Blackburn told me, "I can tell you most strongly that I never met Helena Stoeckley with Jimmy Britt present in a room discussing her proposed testimony. I know he signed an affidavit saying he was present for a discussion where I spoke with her about her proposed testimony and that I in essence threatened her with a possible murder prosecution if she testified in court that she was present at the MacDonald house when the murders took place on February 17, 1970.

"I have been interviewed about this situation and I said to one of the persons speaking with me that the Fourth Circuit has great power...the power to reverse Judge Fox's decision and perhaps granting MacDonald a new trial, and they have the power to make findings of fact from the record of the case about this entire situation.

"But they do not have the power, nor does anyone, other than God, myself and Brian Murtagh who was present in the room with me when I spoke the one time to Helena Stoeckley to know the absolute truth of what was said or not said. And the truth then and the truth now and the truth in the future is that I at no time ever threatened Helen Stoeckley as Jimmy Britt alleged and further Helena Stoeckley never admitted to me in any way or any time that she was involved in these tragic deaths. She only said to me she was not there that night in the MacDonald house, had never been to that house and did not participate in any way in the murder of the MacDonald family."

This very issue was brought up at the hearing January 26, 2017 by the defense attorney and the panel of Judges were of the opinion and voiced, even if Blackburn had told Stoeckley she would be prosecuted for murder if she testified in court that she was present at the MacDonald house when the murders took place, there was nothing wrong with that, since he was stating the truth to her. Give it rest, Ms. MacDonald.

There also seems to be some concern about the Judges being somewhat aggressive to the lawyers on both sides. I was there, and yes, the judges did question more this time than at any other Fourth Circuit Court hearing I have attended. If it had only been only the MacDonald case that was aggressively questioned, I might have been somewhat upset. However, I was there for the first hearing January 26, and the hearing after the MacDonald case. All three cases that day the judges were aggressive in their questioning of the attorneys on both sides. After each hearing ended, the judges came down and shook hands with attorneys from both sides, telling them they did a good job.

Ms. MacDonald stated that Joe McGinniss offered Kassab a percentage of his profits not to write a book. That is not true, Mildred Kassab was paid the sum of $1.00 by check from McGinniss to use her words, journals, thoughts, etc. in Fatal Vision.

Ms. MacDonald stated in People Investigates show....the Kassabs were planning to release a book that would compete with Fatal Vision and an arrangement was therefore made to compensate them if they didn't write their own book. How many different times and ways are you going to address this issue?
Stop insulting the memory these men who are not here to counter your lies. Just remember there is still family from the Kassabs and the McGinniss' who could and may well hang you out to dry. Stop shaking the tree, you won't like what falls out.

I addressed this issue prior, while it is true Freddy did inquire about writing a book that thought was put aside when McGinniss contacted the Kassabs asking for their help in knowing true facts about their family.

She says that John Bruce, (US Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina) admitted at the last hearing that there was not a chain of custody for the evidence. Ms. MacDonald I would urge you to have your hearing checked. I was at that hearing. That never happened.

Says the government case is weak and all involved in the prosecution were liars and chalets. Careful, your mouth can get you in trouble. You are not helping your husband, you are hurting him. Lashing out at the prosecutors and anyone who disagrees with you only shows how desperate you are.

She asks the question, what other case do you know of where none of the murder weapons had the defendant's fingerprints on them? There are cases where no fingerprints are found on the murder weapons. Do your homework.
The real concern here is where MacDonald's fingerprints were NOT found. He lived there, yet no fingerprints on the light switches and the phones. These are items that are used multiple times throughout each day. Makes no sense that not one of the family's fingerprints would not be found on those two items.

There is a another reason why no fingerprints were found on two of the murder weapons, FBI SA Paul Stombaugh was able to compare the shapes of the Old Hickory knife and the ice pick to the bloody impressions on the bath mat. From his comparison, Stombaugh concluded that the two weapons were placed on the bath mat and wiped on the bath mat. The opposite side of the bath mat had bloody smudges that resembled hand prints.

MacDonald himself admitted to pulling the Geneva Forge knife out of Colette's chest that was found in front of the dresser in the master bedroom. It is unbelievable that as a doctor, he would he pull an impaled object from the chest. The real question, what happened to his fingerprints on the knife? I know, do you?

Next is the business of covering Colette to treat shock and keep her warm.

During the April 6, 1970 interview with CID investigators Joe Grebner, Robert Shaw and Bill Ivory MacDonald stated he may have placed the bath mat on Colette's abdomen in order to treat her for shock. He gave a similar explanation for why he placed his blue pajama top across Colette's chest.

During MacDonald's testimony during the 1979 trial, the following exchange took place between Prosecutor Blackburn and MacDonald:

Q  Dr. MacDonald, with respect to the Hilton bath mat that you have seen in the courtroom, do you recognize that?
A  Yeah. Yes, I do.
Q  You all had a Hilton bath mat I take it?
A  Apparently so.
Q  Well, do you recall where it was the night of the murders?
A  I do not.
Q  Did you place it on Colette?
A  I don't recall doing that.
Q  Could you have done that?
A  I could have done that.
Q    Perhaps got it from things that were in the green chair?
A  That is correct.

Says Ms. MacDonald: In 38 years he has never had a disciplinary action. Not true. His BOP records reflect that he has been the subject of disciplinary action. I might also add that the last time was for stealing a bagel from the commissary. One just might be able to understand if a person was hungry and had no food, but he gets three meals a day. So the stealing of a bagel was because he wanted it, not that he needed it. Got thrown in hole for that and that is not first time he has been in the hole.
Evidently your husband is not being truthful with you.

She says there were SIX prosecutors who were disbarred and disgraced, one was dead and another one dropped out. (1) George Anderson passed away. I was blessed to have known the man and I had a lot of respect for him. (2) Jay Stroud I only met once. (3) Jack Crawley, I met in 2012 at the hearing, (4) Warren Coolidge I never met. (5) Jim Blackburn: Eleven years after the MacDonald trial, Blackburn committed a crime, he took responsibility and admitted to what he had did and stood up like a man and took his punishment. He paid back every cent he owed and served his time. On April 3, 1994 he was released. Within four hours of his release, he returned to prison on his own free will when he was notified he had been released by mistake. At the end of April 1994 he was released back into society where he lives a productive life and is an asset in the community. He walks straight and carries his head high. He is a good man and I am proud to call him my friend.

I think the one Ms. MacDonald, like her husband hates the most is (6) Brian Murtagh. She says he dropped out for some reason. It apparently is driving her crazy because she keeps mentioning it. Why are you so concerned with what Murtagh does or where he is? Murtagh has been with the case for years, and what he is doing is none of your business. Stop making innuendoes about which you do not know. One of the former defense supporters told me and a friend if Judge Fox and Murtagh were to go, they were sure a different judge especially if he was not a friend of Judge Dupree, the way would be clear with no obstacles in the way for MacDonald's release. Don't count your chickens until they hatch, you don't know what can jump up when least expected. I am proud to call Brian my friend.

Talks about unidentified candle wax found in the MacDonald house. During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal put forth the argument that three wax drippings found at the crime scene that did not matched any other candles there, and that was evidence of intruders. There is no truth in that. Colette was especially fond of candles. Anyone knows that candles eventually burn down to nothing. Putting candles in a wine bottle etc. will result in multiple drippings forming on the bottle, and if the candles are different colors, it will result in a rainbow of color drippings.

According to Dillard Browning two wax drippings were found in Kimberley's room. Exhibit D-123 on her purple bedspread (bedspread was submitted with the wax still on it. Mr. Laber was the one who removed it and gave it to Browning) and exhibit G-131 on the chair in her room (piece of upholstery removed from the chair to include its stain) and G-201 was found on the coffee table and apparently it had been scrapped off as it was submitted in a vial. This wax from the coffee table was found to be old and mixed with dirt and household debris.

Murtagh ask Browning during his testimony in 1979 at the trial if he had an opinion that was satisfactory to himself whether this was new wax or old wax or what?

Browning stated that as he continued to work with the wax submitted that wax melted fresh remained soft and pliable for several weeks. The wax submitted for testing was brittle and dry which indicated to him that it was several weeks old when it was received.

Browning compared 14 different waxes, candles, and or similar paraffin materials known to have come from the MacDonald house, with three unidentified waxes found in the MacDonald house, they did not match. I see no problem with that, as those three sources of wax could have been used up or a small one like a birthday candle.

Ms. MacDonald claims she has researched this case and knows every detail of it. My, My, now that's a laugh. If she had studied the case, read the reports, then something is wrong with her comprehension, because what the records show and what she says doesn't match.

MacDonald for years has been saying much of the same things you are. You have just become his mouthpiece. Don't you understand that in all these years of multiple motions, he has never been able to come up will one solid piece of evidence to prove his innocence? However, Ms. MacDonald is asked a question, if she doesn't know the answer, she just makes it up as she goes along. Many of her statements don't even match what MacDonald said.

And then she come up with this nonsense that he has never wavered from his story. Give me a break. MacDonald told a story before he knew what the evidence was. That caused him to have to change his story. I have given many examples here of how he has changed his story. He has made many allegations, calling them alleged intruders, the intruders were hippies to attempting to confuse a bloodstain, to fingerprints which if they have observable ridge lines would be patent and not latent. And now MacDonald says he will not dishonor Colette, Kimberley and Kristen by admitting that he killed them. He himself made the statement shortly after they were murdered, that he had a sense of relief they were gone. Is that showing love and respect for your pregnant wife and two little girls? He has no dignity; he is a manipulative convicted murderer He has not served sufficient time for the horrendous triple murders which he committed.

I have heard that man is (1) Who he thinks he is (2) what others think he is (3) what he really is.

Your husband is not what he thinks he is, he is not innocent.
MPs who found the victims, the investigators who saw first-hand the carnage at the crime scene. This had been a living family a few hours previously.
The prosecutors who tried the case have never forgotten the victims and who to this day still fight to keep their murderer in prison.
MacDonald is a coward who has committed upon his own pregnant wife and two defensive little girls unimaginable acts. He turned their home, what was supposed to be their safe haven into an execution chamber. He took their lives and got away with his because the death penalty was not in effect at that time. He deserves no mercy, he deserves no parole. He deserves never to be free again.

She says there was only six pieces of evidence that government had against him and that all had been dismantled. But she only remembered one. Then she got that nervous laugh of hers trying to make excuses for not remembering. I have to say, that a good lawyer would tear her apart on the witness stand. What she was referring to is the 2005 Motion written by Tim Junkin before he jumped ship.

There has also been much to do about the icepick and that the MacDonald's didn't have or own one.
Pamela Kalin, a former baby-sitter of the MacDonald children first testified she did not remember a ice pick in the residence. when she was recalled in the afternoon session of the grand jury Pamela testified as following exchange took place:

Mildred
Kassab testified August 1, 1979 that she used an icepick when they were there for Christmas. The following is what Mildred testified to regarding the icepick:

Q  During the time that you were in the kitchen area this Christmas occasion, did you ever have occasion to go in the refrigerator or the ice part?
A  Definitely; I made some puff pastry, hors-d'oevres and I brought them down and, finding no place that was cold enough, I had to use an ice pick to jimmy some ice trays out.
Q  Now, where did you get the ice pick?
A  Out of the kitchen drawer.

Pamela Kalin Cochran, former baby-sitter of the MacDonald children testified on August 2, 1979 regarding the icepick:

Q  When you were keeping the children, did you ever have an occasion to fix them a little snack or anything like that?
A  Yes
Q  You would get something out of the kitchen?
A  Yes.
Q  What would be something you normally might get them, if you recall?
A  Spoons and forks and knives.
Q  Did you ever have an occasion to get them a Popsicle, or anything like that?
A  Yes.
Q  In doing so, where were they kept in general -- the Popsicles?
A  The freezer.
Q  What, if anything, did you have to do to get the Popsicles out?
A  They used to keep a lot of food in the freezer. It would always be packed, and because of it, the frost would get over the food. And I would have to, once in a while, get the icepick to chop away the ice to get my Popsicles for the kids or food for me to eat -- the ice cream.
Q  Where was this ice pick kept?
A  I don't know where it was always kept. I remember reaching for it on top of the refrigerator.
Q  Can you describe it?
A  It was a smooth-handled icepick in a light color.
Q  Did your own parents have an icepick?
A  Yes, they did.
Q  Could you describe that one?
A  It had eight sides cut in the wood. It was a light purple color, and the paint was chipped.
Q  In other words, the icepick your parents had was different from the one the MacDonalds had,is that right?

A  Right.

Now, Ms. MacDonald comes up with something that since the murders inception has never been mentioned. In all the motions filed, I have never found any reference to the fact that MacDonald had purchased and presented a state of the art ice crusher to Colette at Christmas in 1969, therefore there was no need for them to have an icepick.
Now, the persons she referred to as giving a statement about this ice crusher were Rick and Judy Thoesen. Where is the statement to that effect Ms. MacDonald? Why was that ice crusher not on the property list? The Kassabs were there for Christmas and never mentioned any present of an ice crusher to Colette. Besides, almost everybody had an icepick back then. So having an ice crusher would not eliminate the need for an icepick.
An ice pick was found at the scene of the crime. Some years later another ice pick was found buried a few feet from the back steps of the crime scene. That in itself mean little other than to show that ice picks were found outside the residence.

Now as to Patrick Edward Opperman, he knows nothing about this case. I read on the internet that a person reached out to Ed Opperman on Face Book and his response was "I don't care. I have my reasons for believing Stoeckley and Mitchell were there that night." Yes, I bet you do. You want people to think you are so smart, unbelievable that you referred to Stoeckley as the Blakely woman. You sir are an egotistical pompous bombastic ass and not by accident.

By the way Mr. Opperman, shouldn't a "private investigator" have a valid license?

I could never have been able to put together this reply to Ms. MacDonald claims on Ed Opperman Podcast without the help of some special ladies. Thank you.


Post script: Ms. MacDonald, you are a mean and vindictive woman. You seem to have a large capacity to hate and hurt people. Why? Just because they don't agree with you. Just because they ask questions? For years there was never any pictures of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen on his website. Then when I started my site to present the records/pictures and other information be it good or bad for either side that angered both of you. You and your husband tried to sue me, your claim was that I was in possession of his stolen personal property and that I was using it without his permission. I had to hire an attorney to answer your allegations and guess what? Did you prove your case against me? You were not able to prove anything. The case was dropped and not by me.
What did you gain Ms. MacDonald? Outside of your attorney sending my web host a list of allegations scaring the hell of them, which they saw fit to believe and share with other, nothing was gained.

Then the same attorney tried to sue me personally, again my attorney answered and the case went nowhere and that was dropped also, and not by me.

You called several TV productions companies and told them I had taken copies of pictures and records from their productions about the MacDonald case, and that I was using them on my website. My attorney responded and that was dropped as well. You also called my first web host filling their head with your allegations and lies, which in return they saw fit to spread around. So, outside of ruining a friendship that was weak to begin with, you gained nothing.

How many people have you tried to get fired when they sent you an e-mail and you would contact the company it came from and tell the owner or their supervisor that they were contacting you during their working hours? Other than that, out of all of this, what did you gain? Did you feel proud of yourself? The answer is nothing, it was just a waste of time, energy and money.

Ms. MacDonald, you made your choice, if you love the murderer, that's your business. People expect you to speak out on his behalf. However, people will not stand by and allow you to constantly twist the evidence to suite you and lie. Do you know what the truth is? I can only hope you have a friend who will step in and help you before you are completely destitute on the street with no where to go. In the end, you have to decide if the albatross was
worth all you lost.
 

 

Home  -  Contact  -  Scholarship Fund  -  New Uploads  -  Christina's Corner  -  Resource Page
Chronology  -  Claims vs. Facts  - 
Various Documents  -  CID Records  -  FBI Records
April 6, 1970 Interview  -  Article 32 Hearing  -  Psychiatric/Psychological Data  -  DNA Results
July 23-24, 1970: John Cummings' exclusive interview with MacDonald  - 
Polygraphs
Affidavits  -  Grand Jury Transcripts  -  1979 Trial Transcripts  -  MD License Revoked
1987: MacDonald v. McGinniss  -  Mildred Kassab sues MacDonald  -  Court Records

 Parole Hearing  -  Kassab's Work  -  Bob Stevenson Answers Your Questions
Photograph Pages 

 


Go to top