AUGUST 28, 2008
It seems impossible that a year has gone by since Peter Kearns passed away, I miss him so much. In that room at Cape Fear Hospital, everyone was praying that he would pull through and stay with us for a while longer. He had been resuscitated once, but his heart gave out again. It was sad time for all, but his wife Gladys, surrounded by the children knew it was what Peter would have wanted and so they decided to let him go.
He told me in January that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer and had 6 months to a year. He never wanted to talk about it after that and when I started to cry, he told me, stop it, or I hang up. We spoke often and exchanged e-mails after that, but never spoke of it again. We said our goodbyes, without a word ever being spoken.
Peter loved helping people. He intensely disliked cheats and liars. He was truly a cops' cop, a superior CID agent, and an innovator in his own way. He was not afraid to speak his mind and he stood for everything that was good. Pete put the "Special" in Special Agent
His professionalism was fully in the eyes of the country when, with Colonel Jack Pruett, they toured New York State, and let everyone they met know that the US Army CID was a most formidable agency. Without his determination, knowledge, and good humor, I doubt that MacDonald would have been brought to trial and convicted.
Peter had many interesting cases in his career, but the MacDonald case was the one to remain with him long after he retired. He shared many things with me, one he would always cry when he spoke of it. He told me of how he spent the weekend with the Kassabs and how he had slept in Colette's room in her bed. Of how when he first went to bed, he could not sleep and was somewhat restless. He got up and sat on the side of the bed and promised Colette he would find and bring to justice the one(s) who killed her and her babies. Peter told me after that "I got a sense of peace and feeling of well being, and got the best night's sleep I had had in a long time." As he told me so many times, "I will do whatever I can to keep that SOB in prison for what he did. I will not forget Colette, Kimmy and Kristy."
In our life time we meet many people, make many acquaintances, but few are true friends that we can count on. At times you can just sense a kind of comfort when you meet some people. They put you at ease. They want nothing from you, but will always be there for you no matter what. Peter was that kind of a person. We laughed together and cried together. He was not afraid to be too gentle and not afraid to be too strong. He had that special something that people are always looking for and rarely find and never get enough off. He was one of the gentlest soul I have ever met.
I remember my mother told me - grief is God's way of helping you explore the love you feel for those who have passed. In my adult life I have gained a new perspective on things. Life and death are part of the same unending circle, and our loved ones are never really lost to us. They are still with us, just in a different way.
Peter was a man who lived life to its fullest. A man who was not afraid to fight for what he believed in. He made this world a brighter and better place.
A life well-lived is a legacy of joy, pride and pleasure, a loving, lasting memory our grateful hearts will treasure. That was Peter. My life is so much richer for having known him. Rest in peace my friend, we will never forget you.
Ich liebe und vermisse Sie mein Freund.
Jeffrey MacDonald is a cold-blooded murderer. It is also my opinion that he is a sociopath. Sociopaths can be a person that is admired, a trusted neighbor, the affable family, the high-acheiving professional and the sexy charismatic lover. But when someone gets in the way of their deluded dreams, they are capable of deadly acts of violence with no remorse.
Perhaps most frightening of all is that they are heroes in their own mind, and I truly believe that two of their two biggest emotions are anger and boredom.
"Sociopath is usually a person with an abundance of charm and wit. They may appear friendly and considerate, but these attributes are usually superficial. They are used as a way of blinding the other person to the personal agenda behind the sociopath's behavior.
"Most people who show sociopathic behavior aren't just sociopathic. They often also have narcissistic tendencies, sometimes intensely angered by anything that seems to suggest that they might have a flaw. In this mode, they will do anything, including brutalizing their own family, to maintain their own feeling that others see them as without any flaws." Can you for one moment think of the terrible, painful way of life Colette lived?
It would appear that there are some who have forgotten about the true victims in case. These people are masquerading as a human beings crawl out from beneath their rocks in their condescending ways, bombarding me with dozens of e-mails and then run like a thefts in the night. They try to take over the discussion boards where people enjoy discussing the case and exchanging information. Their sole purpose is carry out their online dramas and make ridiculous claims that they cannot back up. They need to return to the cesspool from where they came. I have no problem with how anyone believes, and if talking about me and putting me down gives them a feeling of self importance, have at it. It does not change the fact that MacDonald is a triple convicted murderer.
These morons who in the past have succeeded in driving away good true crime mature members, who go to boards to discuss/debate/exchange theories regarding the case. They are like spoiled children who are hell-bent on causing trouble, and when they get cornered, they simply gets a new Yahoo or Excite ID before coming back to pee in the pool and end up posting with more than one name and often times, posting to themselves. And don't kid yourselves, some of these people you would be shocked to know who they really are.
I could care less about MacDonald. I do care about Colette, Kimberley, Kristen and the unborn son he murdered showing no mercy. Regardless of how many years he spends in prison, the scales of justice is never balanced and he could never live long enough to pay for he did. I never started this website to get even with him as many of you insinuate. I did it to show the true side of the case by providing the documents/records of the case to counter the lies he has spewed like projectile vomit since day one.
In response to those who contacted me asking if the Sergeant Escobales I wrote about living in the apartment made from the bedrooms of the original MacDonald's apartment was a convicted child molester, I can assure you he was not. His name was Sergeant Juan Escobales, and he was at that time a helicopter crew chief.
Ironically, the small, neat apartment was decorated with angels, framed prints and three-dimensional cherubs cover the walls. Winged ceramic figurines sit on table tops throughout.
I apologize for being so far behind in answering e-mails. I will answer as time allows.
February 22, 2008
Great website, very informative. I corresponded with Jerry Potter several times and he told me that Joe McGinniss is the one who came up with the idea about the suitcase and the idea that Jeff MacDonald may have thought of running at one point directly after the murders. He also seems somewhat reluctant to say very much about the suitcase, but did say he had never seen a picture of it.
My question is, Do you think that Jeff MacDonald thought of running after he realized what he had done?
I seem to remember reading a letter that the late Jerry Potter wrote about the suitcase where it stated some of the things you mentioned in your e-mail. I do find it difficult to understand how he and Bost did so much research and he missed seeing that picture. Potter was not the first choice Bost had to write the book with. It was Dr. Jeff Elliot, but he backed out saying he had a prior commitment.
However, I do not believe for one second that MacDonald thought of running. In my opinion that would have defeated his purpose. MacDonald was a sympathy seeker, and wanted to make himself the victim in the eyes of his peers. He thought he was smart, and that no one would have the audacity to question him. He considered himself above reproach.
I have said it before and I will say it again, MacDonald ran his mouth off before he knew what the evidence was against him. When he found out, it was too late, and he was stuck with the story he first told and tried to adjust as much as he could.
As to the suitcase, I believe, based on what I have been told by Colette's family, that the suitcase was packed because Colette wanted to take the children and go home. I also know that two other suitcases were found packed with children's cloths. She had tried that Sunday prior to the murders, but things did not work out. Colette even knew the what plane to take, the time of the takeoff and landing. It is my belief MacDonald discovered the one suitcase packed and emptied it, forgetting to put it back where it was. He did not know about the others.
March 4, 2008
EXCELLENT WEBSITE. I never knew anyone could put together anything like this. For those of us who have followed this case, it is a GOD send to be able to see the actual documents relating to this case.
Do you think it is possible that Jeff MacDonald could have had amnesia after the murders? Meaning that he just blocked out the fact that he killed his family?
What are your thoughts about his claims of being knocked unconscious?
Many people have had dissociative amnesia after a painful experience. It is sort of a coping mechanism that keeps the individual from from being able to recall the experience.
I do not believe MacDonald was ever unconscious that night. Therefore, no amnesia. MacDonald tries to make it sound like he could not remember, but he used that to try and benefit himself. The time was convenient, funny how his memory was perfect right up until the so-call attack on his person, and it returned as clear as ever after he supposedly regained consciousness.
I do not believe he had a concussion. I base that on his hospital record indicating that he had scheduled neuro checks in the beginning and they were all normal with no deficits noted at any time.
July 23, 2008
I'm Jeffrey MacDonald's cousin. He is my mother's mother (my grandmother Claire Hughes) sister's(Perry MacDonald) son. Check the family tree. I believe he is innocent. I've read both books. Contact me please. On my e-mail. Thanks
Well now, this e-mail brings some questions to mind. What was Perry's mother's first name and maiden name?
Who (if anyone) currently tracks the genealogy in Jeffrey's family?
There is an authentic family trace done years ago. I will be happy to check that. However, that does not change anything relevant to this homicide case.
I appreciate that you personally choose to believe that Jeffrey Robert MacDonald is not guilty. However, the fact that you read two books and may be a relative gives no weight to the proof of innocence (or guilt, for that matter). So, if there is something you wish to add to this case, you may submit it.
Speaking of cousins, I met Brian Franklin in Chicago sometime back.
July 25, 2008
You have done a great job of putting this website together and remembering Colette, Kimberley and Kristen. I applaud you for speaking for the victims and starting a scholarship fund in their memory. I have sent a generous donation and hope others do as well.
I am curious about the candles found at the crime scene. Do you know how many were found?
I cannot say for sure how many candles were found at the crime scene. However, I did recently come across the document about candles that I am enclosing below. Hopes it helps.
July 27, 2008
In Fatal Vision it states the Jeff had an older brother, and a younger sister. Do they favor one another?
Have you ever discussed with them what their feeling are?
Do you know where they are today and what they are doing?
I have heard about a motorcycle trip that Jeff went on. Do you know if that is true?
MacDonald has a brother, Jay, and a sister, Judy. Both are alive and trying to live their lives the best they can. Jay is in California and Judy is in New York.
They are entitled to their privacy, and I do not intrude on people when they they make it clear they do not want to discuss any family issues.
Jay and Jeff looked quite a bit alike when they were younger, the eyes, mouth, smile. Today Jay looks younger than MacDonald. As Jay got older he started to look more like his father and has his father's skin type. MacDonald on the other hand tends to look more like his mother and has her skin type. His skin has a yellowish tinge to it and he has had several bouts of skin cancer.
Judy was beautiful girl and young woman. Like her mother, the years has not been kind to her.
Their lives have been affected by what their brother did and something that they will always be reminded of regardless.
I know about the motorcycle trip MacDonald went on. He was living in California and the trip was to Mexico. I know who the people were on the trip, but will not mention their names. If one studies the pictures carefully, one can see that MacDonald always has to be different.
Pictures provided by the individual who took them. They requested that their name not be mentioned.
July 29, 2008
I am amazed at all the records and documents you have about this case. I am one who likes to see and read for myself instead of reading someone else's interpretation of the facts.
I know the time, effort and money this has cost you. Do you except donations to help with that expense as I would like to help in anyway I can.
Based on your knowledge of the case, do you think Jeff MacDonald will ever admit he murdered his family? Maybe a death bed confession?
Thank you, but I do not except donations to defray the expenses of maintaining my website or obtaining documents. However, I started a Scholarship Fund in memory of Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. Colette's family and I would would appreciate any donation you are able to make. You can find the information regarding the Scholarship Fund at:
I do not believe MacDonald will ever admit that he brutally killed his pregnant wife, Colette, and his two little girls, Kimberley and Kristen. MacDonald does not have the personality to do this. People for whom lying is as easy as breathing and whom feel no guilt or remorse about what they have done are very good at being whoever they choose to be at any given time. MacDonald has decided he is the victim here. He would rather die than admit to having committed the murders. My opinion is his few supporters that are left are very important to him.
Deathbed confessions can be legal and binding, but the confession must be obtained the correct way. In order to obtain a "deathbed" statement which is similar to an "excited utterance" or a "resgestae" statement in legal lingo that would hold up in court in any trial, MacDonald would have to be in the dying process, then he would have to be told he is in imminent danger of dying. Would MacDonald confess? At this point my gut feeling says no way.
July 30, 2008
I truly hope that you put this website up before the lastest testimony, and the DNA analysis. If not, you are a very, very sad person indeed, along with the others responsible for this miscarriage of justice. Explain how the MP was told not to talk about who he saw on the corner. Explain the confessions. Explain the DNA!!!!!! Enough said on that. You are so close minded, it is not even funny. It is because of people like you that an innocent man's life is thrown out the window. I hope you feel good about yourself, because you disgust me! Feel free to contact me...I would very much love to hear what you have to say for yourself. Lastly, if he was so guilty, why was it found to be not true by the Army to begin with, and then told they should focus on Helena and Co? Explain that!
Well, I must say, this is one sad e-mail. It is hard to understand what you are trying to say since there appears to be some missing words and spelling errors.
You are a pontificating mooncalf who knows nothing about the facts of this case. If you want to remain ignorant, then that is your problem, but don't you ever attack me again and say I have a closed mind. Get your fact straight, gather your so-called evidence of his innocence, and challenge me. I promise you I will blow you out of the water anytime.
As to the MP you referred to as as being told not to talk about what he had seen. In case you don't know his name, it is Ken Mica. Mica was not told any such thing. Captain Clifford Somers, Government chief counsel at the Article 32, stated when/if he was asked for advice on testimony by any of the government's witnesses, the government informed those witnesses that the best technique was not to volunteer any information, but to be questioned on any subject which the defense chose to question them on, and further instructed these witnesses to answer all questions truthfully and to the best of their knowledge. This is not unusual, in any case, the prosecutor or defense counsel will instruct witnesses to answer questions they are asked truthfully, but in as few words as possible and to not volunteer any additional information.
What confessions are you referring to? Since you did not specify which confessions you are referring to, I will take the three that MacDonald has claimed. However, you must remember that others confessed to this crime or of being involved as well.
Helena Stoeckley confessed and recanted several times. She could not keep her story straight. Her stories did not match what MacDonald said. Helena said she had sex with MacDonald, that she had broken in the MacDonald home a few weeks prior to the murders and stole a bracelet. NO such report was ever filed and MacDonald never said anything about a robbery. She said the word "PIG" was written horizontally on the headboard of a bed, when in fact it was written vertically. I could go on and on, but why bother. The fact of the matter is that all Helena's statements were inconsistent with MacDonald's account of what occurred, inconsistent with each other, inconsistent with physical evidence found at the crime scene, and were obtained by people who were less that ethical in the manner they obtained them.
Short, sweet and to the point - Helena Stoeckley was a pathetic figure who was suffering from drug-induced mental distortion and could be of no help to either side in this case.
As to Greg Mitchell, he was investigated. He was questioned by CID agent Bill Ivory May 25, 1971 where he gave a witnessed signed statement denying any involvement in the MacDonald murders.
May 26, 1971 Colonel Jack Pruett requested Mitchell be given a polygraph examination. On the same day, Henry Tufts, Colonel, MPC, Commanding Officer, US Army CID Agency, gave authorization for the examination to be done.
May 27, 1971 Robert Brisentine, Jr., administered the polygraph to Mitchell. After the examination Brisentine wrote in his report "Based on the polygraph examination conducted on 27 May 1971, it is concluded that Mr. Mitchell was truthful when he denied involvement in the murder of Collette [sic], Kimberly [sic] and Christine [sic] MacDonald. It is further concluded that Mr. Mitchell was truthful when he denied knowing the identity of the perpetrator(s) of these murders."
May 24, 1981 Mitchell voluntarily appeared at the Charlotte FBI office to be interviewed about the murders and gave a signed/witnessed statement to that effect.
As to Cathy Perry Williams, I will not address this as it so ridiculous. Stoeckley never said Cathy Perry was with the group the night of the murders. In fact Stoeckley repeatedly stated that she was the only female there.
DNA test results publicly released March 10, 2006 proved that it excluded Mitchell and Stoeckley from any of the exhibits. It also proved that the hair in Colette's hand came from Jeffrey MacDonald.
No one brought this on MacDonald. He did it to himself. He was admired and respected by some, which he liked, highly educated, and worked in field that help people. But he was not what he seemed. Inside of him was an smoldering anger. It is asinine to think that a group from the government were in cahoots to frame an innocent man. I am so tired of hearing how the MPs and CID agent destroyed the crime by not properly securing it. By no means was the investigation perfect. No investigation ever is. But neither is it the disaster that MacDonald and his flock claim it was.
The MPs and CID were not prepared for what they encountered in 544 Castle Drive. Nor would any big-city police department be prepared; it was just too far from what most of us like to think of as normal. But I will tell you that it was because of doggedly painstaking job they did that constructed a case that thirty-eight years later still stands strong in our courts.
I had nothing to do with the conviction of Jeffrey MacDonald. A jury of his peers, approved by his counsel and the government did that. They listened to both sides, viewed the evidence. They saw dozens of graphic photographs entered into the record so they would have some concept of the abattoir the MacDonald's apartment was when MPs and CID agents arrived. They visited the crime scene. It was not easy for any of them, and when they emerged from the jury room into court to present the verdict, they looked totally drained. Many of them were openly crying.
The defense was under no obligation to put their client on the stand. That was another one of their mistakes. Defense attorneys appear to be unanimous in their hesitancy to allow their clients on the witness stand. They know that the defendant immediately opens himself up to cross-examination by the prosecution. And anything can happen especially when you have a client like MacDonald who you can never be sure of what he say or do at any given time, and thinks he knows more than anyone else. Few murder defendants are adroit enough to joust with trained prosecutors, and they are likely to blurt out answers they never meant to give, or as in MacDonald's case, he clearly showed the jury he was prone to anger very quickly. Both Blackburn and Murtagh was adept at pulling out statements that would make normal defense attorneys cringe. But then again, was Segal normal?
MacDonald had a choice, he could have stopped at any time, but he continued his rampage. There need only be sufficient time to formulate the intent to kill, no matter how short, even seconds. I believe his intent was to kill them all. I base that on the fact that he attacked Colette three times in different areas and Kimberley two different times and in different areas of the apartment. Kimberley and Colette suffered their first traumatic injuries in the master bedroom. No way Kimberley could have gotten back in her bed, she was carry there and then attacked again. Colette was first attacked in the master bedroom, attacked a second time in Kristen's room on her bed, and a third time when he carried her from Kristen's room back into the master bedroom. The passions and/or bizarre mental processes that triggered the homicidal rage were known only to the MacDonald, and possibly not even him.
MacDonald is an animal, devoid of any human feeling. He is capable of killing at the snap of a finger, cold-blooded and heartless. He is not fit to walk the streets of any city.
Try to project yourselves into the minds of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen. Feel the helpless terror they must have felt. Their agony as the life was draining from them while at the same time knowing who it was that was hurting them.
The Army did not say the charges were not true. Colonel Rock said that. Colonel Rock's only duty was to ascertain - was a crime committed; was it possible that MacDonald was involved and then Rock was to give a recommendation to MacDonald's Commanding General whether courts-martial charges should be preferred. Note the operative words: could have been involved, recommendation for charges. He did neither, and said in effect go look for Helena Stoeckley. That was not his job. There were indeed some poignant things that happened with that Article 32 and Rock's handling of it that Peter Kearns told me about.
General Flanagan's report clearly stated that there were insufficient evidence to warrant a charge at that time. The government was free to continue to investigate and investigate they did.
In one sense, it is fortunate that Colonel Rock found as he did, otherwise MacDonald might be free today and there would be no recourse to retry him due to the double jeopardy law. However, it is important to remember that there is one case in history where a man by the name of Harry Aleman was found not guilty of a murder charge in a federal court and was tried again fifteen years later in federal court for the same murder charge and was convicted. So there is a possibility that if MacDonald had been court-martialed and found not guilty, he may very well been charged with the crime again, which could have led to a conviction. This I have no doubt of.
It is said that you can get ham sandwich indicted by a grand jury, simply because you don't have to put on your whole case. The complete evidence of this case has never been entered into evidence, not even at the trial in 1979. If I was MacDonald, I would be careful.
And for your information, I feel very good about myself and it pleasures me no end that I have gotten under your skin.
Tomorrow is August 29, 2008. It is the 29th anniversary of MacDonald's conviction. Remember to give a good hurrah for justice.