March 5, 2009
To those who have asked when the government will respond to the latest Defense motion.
The government only responds if the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals request they do which rarely happens in a Court of Appeals situations. Thus far, they have not done so. The government is willing and able if they are requested to.
I have been receiving e-mails asking if I believe Colette was abused by Jeffrey MacDonald.
In my opinion, the answer is yes. There are many kinds of abuse.
Colette, in my opinion, suffered from economic abuse to a point. She most definitely suffered from brow-beating, intimidation, isolation, neglect, and threats. Did MacDonald use physical abuse? That is something we will never know for sure, but we know he slapped her once in the presence of others.
He was the boss, period.
Did he have a violent side? Yes, I believe he did. He evidenced that when he killed them in such a brutal manner.
When he did not get his way, he was quick to strikeout in anger that exacerbated into rage. This type of behavior was exhibited by him on several occasions that we know of. One such occurrence was when he dangled the boy over the side of the boat. That boy was the son of the man who went the extra mile to try and help him in every way. MacDonald repaid him by sleeping with his wife and traumatizing his son.
I feel he exhibited that behavior once more in a medical setting. Working in the medical profession is not easy. You come in contact with many types of people in various situations that you must treat.
Nurses and Doctors are put in harms way at times. Being a nurse, I can tell you firsthand, I've been bitten, spit on, and kicked. I had my wrist broken by an elder man who suffered from senile dementia. It was very painful waiting for help to get his hands loose. Of course in a situation like that, your first thought is to strike back in retaliation for your own protection.
My training told me that I could not do that, the man was not in his right mind and did not know what he was doing.
However, MacDonald was also placed in a similar situation when a patient in the emergency room became unruly and disorderly, taking a swing at him breaking his eye glasses.
MacDonald, without batting an eye, retaliated by taking a swing at the guy and "putting him in his place."
While some may think what MacDonald did was right, I, however, do not.
In recent days another door of information and inquiry was opened...But not for Jeffrey MacDonald.
From his lofty cell at the Federal Mount Olympus, MacDonald and his spouse can't find the time to respond to legitimate and intelligent questions.
Let me introduce you to what occurred.
An individual recently wrote to MacDonald's website asking questions. Their questions were ignored. However, the good little wife, standing by her man, did make time to phone the company she thought the individual was employed by. Her intentions were to report them for pursuing personal interest during working hours, ending her call by saying she is married to a wrongfully convicted man.
Little did Ms. MacDonald know that the individual is one of the owners of a National CPA Firm, and that most of their work deals in forensic accounting.
Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman I greatly admire, once said, "No one can make a fool of you without your consent." Ms. MacDonald, because of what you did, in my opinion, you made a fool of yourself.
Anyway, back to the inquiry -
The following questions were sent to the MacDonald website.
From your February update letter: can you tell me where the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the successive habeas petition?
All court proceedings relating to the Britt matter dealt only with the court granting a PFA, not the actual habeas motion. I don't understand why you would say that.
Why do you consider Helena Stoeckley a key witness? Particularly in light of the court's denial of your motion wherein the court clearly and emphatically stated that it doesn't matter how many credible hearsay witnesses you stack behind Helena Stoeckley, SHE is not credible and never will be. Seems to me you just keep pursuing a line of poor evidence that the courts will never accept.
In other words, Jimmy Britt is irrelevant (the Court told the Government the same thing), your "key witness" has been unreliable since 1970. Isn't it time to pursue another avenue if there is one?
A slight correction to your case facts. You didn't "win" a settlement from Joe McGinniss for a third of a million. I read the case: they stopped the case by paying you not to try the it again. That is done in 99% of civil cases. Joe McGinniss was not required to admit one thing. You proved absolutely nothing. You got bought off.
Your Q&A: why didn't the government pursue other suspects? This is getting silly. They interviewed over 700 people in looking for other suspects, they pursued Helena Stoeckley and investigated her for years. You could not, and never did identify her in interviews or under oath as the woman in the floppy hat…very curious, I'd just like to know why you think it's her now?
You know, I think you should put items of absolute truth on this website rather than shaving about 50% of it away from factual. You gain very little credibility with your presentations here.
Example: not one word in your update letter about the fact the court discredits Stoeckley as an unreliable witness. You just go on about Jimmy Britt, do you think that's laying out before your readers what's really going on?
Again, Jimmy Britt is irrelevant, just read the Court's opinion, again.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with the above questions. Of course it was Ms. MacDonald's decision, whether to answer them or not.
However, normal people don't sneak around like a thief in night trying to cause trouble because someone does not agree with their way of believing, by viciously striking out trying to hurt them just because they ask questions you don't like.
That's a pretty low thing to do.
This is not the first time this has been done, this apparently is a pattern that Ms. MacDonald follows. Disagree with me, and I'll seek revenge.
Permission to use received in writing from the author of the e-mail sent to the MacDonald website.