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.


Scanned Documents


Scholarship Fund

Rotating Ad Banner


AUGUST 29, 2009

WARNING: Autopsy photos appearing on this page are graphic and contain nudity. Must be 18 to view.

August 29 marks the 30 year anniversary of the conviction of Jeffrey Robert MacDonald for the murders of his pregnant wife Colette, and his two little girls, Kimberley and Kristen. I say to MacDonald and his supporters, he is not the victim here as he tries so hard to get people to believe. The victims are the ones he so brutally murdered. Was justice served? I can only say a measure of justice was served, since he is still alive and being housed and taken care of by our tax payer's money. He may have been done with Colette, Kimberley and Kristen, the family was not, the friends were not. We still love them, and mourn our loss.

I am so tired of hearing/reading that Jeffrey MacDonald is a factually innocent man. As the late Peter Kearns said, he killed them, he knows it and I know it. I am also tried of reading things put out there by the defense that is incorrect.

A recent example:
(1) MacDonald was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences on August 27, 1979. That is incorrect. On that day witnesses were still testifying. On August 28, 1979, the prosecutors and the defense gave their closing arguments. Judge Dupree gave his instructions to the jurors and they began their task of deliberating. On August 29, 1979, the jury found him guilty of two counts of second degree murder and one count of first degree murder. Judge Dupree sentenced him to three consecutive life sentences.

From the beginning he bitched about his rights being violated. He should have been thrown into the stockade, but because he was an officer, he was restricted to his BOQ. He was able to go to and from the BOQ for his meals, play golf, etc. He drew his full pay while under restriction without having to work.

But rules were something that MacDonald had no conception of, and furthermore he was not one to follow them. This is evidenced by the fact that he managed to have female companionship in his BOQ for the purpose of a sexual nature. I guess the guards just looked the other way. He even went off base without permission with his friend Captain Williams to see the movie M*A*S*H.

MacDonald has lied, and changed his story about what occurred from the start. His so-called injuries grew from minor to life threatening. The statements listed below are MacDonald's own words.

(1) When asked to describe what occurred when we woke up on the floor with his pajama top wrapped around his hands, he said; "When I woke up, the first thing I thought of was -- you know, I'm ashamed to say -- myself."

(2) When he called for help, speaking to the sergeant on the phone; "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."
These were not "some people", they were his family.

(3) According to MacDonald, "I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also."
Later he said " I think I heard Kristy -- Kimmie, the older girl, said, "Daddy" -- saying "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy."

(4) As to the female he claims was present, he said; "And, really, all I saw of her was some long, stringy blonde hair and -- and a big hat."

(5) He stated, "And I remember starting -- you know, I started to go down the hall and really, the next thing that's clear is that this MP was -- MP or medic, I don't know -- was giving me respiration -- artificial respiration, which I apparently didn't need."
So, here he is actually admitting that he did not need to receive artificial respiration.

(6) When he was asked if his injuries were inflicted by the intruders, he replied: "Well, I assume so."

(7) As to anything being missing from the residence, Investigator: ... There's nothing missing from your house, not even -- not even vandalism --

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator:  -- Captain MacDonald, you have a lot of things in your home that people would like to steal.

MacDonald: They were nice, I know.

Investigator: Nice to take, no matter what their reason was, if there was. Do you know what I mean?

MacDonald: Well, yeah. They could have come in for -- for that reason and then realizing what they'd done, just left. But it's -- I know, I agree with you. It's very likely. I don't know.

(8) As to the drugs found in the residence; Investigator: Captain, you have a lot of -- a lot of drugs in your house.

MacDonald: I know.

Investigator: Why? Why do you have a lot of drugs there?

MacDonald: Oh, I just got something or everything in case anyone ever asks me and -- Johnny-on-the-spot. You know, very often I'd suture people; and I took care of half the neighborhood, you know, and -- nothing there was controlled.
I was careful about that, you know. I didn't have any controlled drugs or anything like that. Everything was stuff there wouldn't be any problem with and no one should be after for any reason.
And I just had -- like, for instance, if we were going on a camping trip, I was all ready to make up a nice little M3A kit with that -- you know, all the possibilities involved; but that was the only reason.
All this came about when the third disbanded, and they had boxes and boxes of stuff they were just going to burn. And I thought that was stupid, so I just took a couple bottles of everything and was going to make up my own aid kit, you know, for my car and camping and stuff.
But I know, it looked a little -- a little excessive, I'm sure.

Investigator: It looked more than a little excessive. It looked real excessive, frankly. I'm being more than frank with you as you're being frank with me, I hope.

MacDonald: Yeah, well --

As to MacDonald being asked if he would take a polygraph examination, he agreed to take it. However, he left no stone unturned as to the possibilities of what and how it worked and the effect it could possibly have. Below is some of the questions he asked:

MacDonald: Absolutely -- sure, let me ask you a few questions here, man. ah -- you guys have been posing all the questions.

Investigator: Well, that's our job.

MacDonald: What's the -- what's the fallibility of this thing? You know you guys with your circumstantial evidence here, you know -- ah -- what happens with normal emotions?

Investigator: That's taken into consideration, of course. When people are challenged there is some nervous tension.

MacDonald: And in a case like this, ah, there's a little more nervous tension than usual.

Investigator: Absolutely. Murder is much more serious than stealing an M-16 or something.

MacDonald: I'm just trying to -- ah -- prevent -- ah -- any more things like this, that's all. I can see what's going if there is a little jig in the line. You and the Colonel are going to jump and say ah-hah, we found our man.

Investigator: The Colonel won't be reading the charts. The man will probably come out of Washington, and is very competent and is a disinterested party. He will be disinterested and won't care how it comes out. (Inaudible)

MacDonald: What does the polygraph tell you?

Investigator: It tells basically what a person believes to be true.

MacDonald: How infallible is it?

Investigator: Well, the instrument itself just measures physiological changes.

MacDonald: I know that, I understand that, that's what I mean.

Investigator: The operator -- you see it's just one man now. He runs the test and he reads his charts, then he makes the determination. There are three possibilities; no deception indicated, deception indicated or inconclusive, or sometimes a person may not be a good subject, that day he might be over tired or something like that.

MacDonald: um-hum.

Investigator: So the operator, rather than -- when he reads his tracings he may come-up with an inconclusive, for some reason or another, and maybe something else is bothering the individual more than what you are talking about. So he may come-up with inconclusive. The percentage figures they have had on it is that it is less than one percent that they have ever made a mistake on. I mean these are verified cases.

MacDonald: A mistake which way?

Investigator: Surprisingly, these were all saying a person had no deception indicated. This is on thousands and thousands of cases. These are the statistics that I have. The greatest percentage of people, by far, probably up in the 75 to 80 percent, there's no deception indicated.

MacDonald: 75% of the 1% who --  ah --

Investigator: 75% -- say it's about four-tenths of a percent there may be deception indicated.

MacDonald: uh-hah --

Investigator: And perhaps 20% would be deception indicated.

MacDonald: You mean proves deception indicated.

Investigator: These are on the verified cases, in other words, where confessions or admissions are obtained later. You've got 80 people who didn't, and it is later verified by --

MacDonald: That they didn't do it.

Investigator:  -- confessions or something, or someone else is sought later.

MacDonald: But you aren't answering my question. Out of those 100 people, how many are wrong on the machine?

Investigator: How many are wrong?

MacDonald: Yeah?

Investigator: I would say that the human error involved is about four-tenths of one percent.

MacDonald: Oh, that's all?

Investigator: Yes.

MacDonald: Sounds pretty good.

Investigator: And these people, in those four-tenths, which would be four, in one thousand were called no deception indicated, and it was later found out that they were deceiving.

MacDonald: Oh, I see. Okay.

Investigator: You might call them inconclusive, where a person wouldn't take the test at a later date, and then later confessed.

MacDonald: Now what happens if this test -- what is your strongest evidence? What if the polygraph backed up everything I've said and you still have all the bull shit lying around, and then what happens?

Investigator: I will be the first guy to shake you by the hand and say I'm sorry.

MacDonald: And if it comes up wrong I immediately go to Leavenworth without a trial.

Investigator: No, in the first place, a polygraph can't be used against you.

MacDonald: It can't?

Investigator: No. It is an investigative tool, Captain. We believe it.

MacDonald: You mean it is not admitted in court? Why not?

Investigator: Because of that four-tenths of one percent. Here's the real problem. There are several reasons --

MacDonald: It is not admitted in court for that? Jesus, the alcohol, the alcohol --

Investigator: We have other reasons too. We have judges in the court, sitting on the court with a jury, and it shouldn't be admitted because they wouldn't know how to evaluate this type of evidence as compared to other evidence. If you went into juries and said, well, there was deception indicated during the polygraph examination, they would overweigh that evidence, so that's why primarily it can't be used in court.

MacDonald: So if I take this polygraph test and it comes out okay, then I can -- ah -- you people will feel real nice towards me then? Right?

Investigator: As I said, if it comes out no deception indicated, I'll say I'm sorry I bothered you.

MacDonald: Sounds pretty good to me. What's measured on this? Heart beat, perspiration, blood pressure?

Investigator: Perspiration -- all that goes into it. Blood volume.

MacDonald: Blood volume?

Investigator: Blood volume.

MacDonald: Really? Wonder how that works.

Investigator: This is the terminology used.

MacDonald: Do you have to put an arterial needle in?

Investigator: No, it is just the volume of blood and pulse rate as it goes through your --

MacDonald: Arteries.

Investigator: And then what they call galvanic skin resistance. This is basically what causes the machine to resist.

MacDonald: Jesus!

Investigator: Changes caused by the galvanic skin resistance.

MacDonald: So if a person sweats a little bit, he's had it, huh?

Investigator: Oh, no.

MacDonald: You see I've done a little medical research, you know, and I know how these things -- ah -- come out 92% and for the sake of the paper it is 95%, and when you go into the meeting and present the paper it is 98%, and reality the 92% was never really honest to begin with. I'm not saying this is the case with this. I've just seen a lot of medical research, and most of this stuff that is taken as gospel is not gospel at all.

Investigator: Well, there's been a great deal of thought --

MacDonald: I'm sure there has on this. Does the FBI use this?

Investigator: Yes.

MacDonald: The FBI feels the way you people do about this?

Investigator: It is not just this one operator, you know. When he finishes and gives his determination, this is checked.

MacDonald: Subject to review.

Investigator: Subject to review, right.

MacDonald: You mean I have to go through this procedure many times?

Investigator: No, you don't have to.

MacDonald: Oh, you mean the results of the readings?

Investigator: In other words he sits down and makes a determination of his charts --

MacDonald: What do they do? Have a recording of the questions and answers at the same time they have the tape running along, and that's how they check it later?
How long does it takes?

Investigator: It will take, the actual running of the paper, the chart itself on each test, approximately five minutes, basically, they will try to hold it down to a short time. So, if you are willing to take it I will call and make arrangements.

MacDonald: Why not? When is this going to be done?

Investigator: You realize you don't have to.

MacDonald: Yes, no problem, bring it on; I'm ready.

Investigator: Okay, we will set it up, we have to get our people here.

MacDonald: You mean you don't have them here all ready?

Investigator: No, Captain MacDonald, it has to be arranged. I'll have to call them -- within the next day or two.

MacDonald: You mean someone is going to fly down here to do this?

Investigator: Probably tonight.

MacDonald: I thought I'd walk in here today and you'd slap some electrodes on my forehead and it would be done.

MacDonald: Oh. I suppose I'll be reading tomorrow that Captain MacDonald is taking the polygraph test sent out by the U.S. Army Post Information Agency.
You've got some real great people walking around this office.

Investigator: What?

MacDonald: You've got some real great people working over in this office.

Investigator: What? The Information Office?

MacDonald: Yep.

Investigator: We don't have much contact with them.

MacDonald: Everything I've told you guys is in the paper. You have to come in some kind of contact with them. You know what I mean?
Confidential interrogation and all that.

Investigator: This polygraph we are talking about, it will only help you, it can't hurt, because it can't be presented in court, and like we said --

MacDonald: No mention of the polygraph can be made in court?

Investigator: The element to mention that can be made is --

MacDonald: I wasn't aware of this. I had no idea that was true.

Investigator: The element that can be discussed, if it is discussed, is if the direct question is asked -- did you -- well, not you -- but was a polygraph examination conducted. It can be answered yes or no, it was conducted, or no, it wasn't conducted.
In fact, they -- don't -- the court system now days don't discuss this.

MacDonald: They don't what?

Investigator: They don't discuss it at all.
It is an investigative tool.

Investigator: As he was saying, if it comes back conclusive no deception indicated then we trust it enough to say to ourselves, all right, let's forget this thing, and stop pursuing this line of investigation.

MacDonald: You mean to tell me that -- that's never wrong? I find that's hard to believe, just from any instrument.

Investigator: Not never wrong. The machine itself is probably never wrong.
It is as good as any machine can be. It is simple.

MacDonald: No, I understand that, but I mean don't -- you mean to tell me there aren't some people that resist and it is wrong -- you follow me?
Their blood pressure changes, or their respiration changes, and it doesn't prove me guilty of a crime. I just find that hard to believe.

Investigator: There are people. I've known people who've had the test and said I beat the machine, but these tests are something that isn't important to a man, and they don't just put you on a machine -- they don't hook you up to this thing and say (Inaudible)

MacDonald: No. It is an interrogation technique --

Investigator: Right.

MacDonald: Probably is the skill of the guy that's doing it, right?

Investigator: Sure, it's got to be. That's why, if he runs a test here for us, it is immediately sent up to Washington, or it goes to Third Army, where it it isn't (Inaudible) -- it is reviewed and you know, between these people they come up with a pretty good answer.

MacDonald: I just -- ah -- I don't lie the -- ah -- so much emphasis placed on what looks to me pretty superficial things -- that's the only thing I'm scared of, to be perfectly honest with you.
I mean it seems to (Inaudible) that you guys have some pretty mild stuff and calling me a family murderer.
What happens if I am one of the some who has a little -- ah -- a little more seating on these answers? Then what happens? Then you guys gotta put the thumbscrews on me for the rest of my life.

Investigator: That is why I made the comment to you awhile ago; there's been a lot of thought go into this machine.

MacDonald: Uh-huh.

Investigator: There's been a lot of though go into the techniques of using the machine, and before he gives you the test -- I shouldn't explain this to you because I'm not a qualified operator --

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: But I've watched the test many times. He will know how you will react in a give situation.

MacDonald: Uh-huh -- I see.

Investigator: There are some questions and control questions and you'll know exactly what he is going to ask you, before the actual test is taken -- and if there is any doubt in his mind to his findings here, as he looks at them --

MacDonald: Does he know right away?

Investigator:  -- he'll try it again.

MacDonald: Does he know right away?

Investigator: They never make a judgment right away, no.

MacDonald: So after I take this thing -- there'll be another six weeks of ah -- lying around in the BOQ, and then I'll get a call saying every thing's okay

Investigator: It won't take six weeks.

MacDonald: Is this going to be released to the newspapers? Christ, I'll have my mother down here again any my in-laws, and --

Investigator: What do you mean -- is this going to be released to the newspapers?
We don't release these things to the newspapers.

MacDonald: Then it's always the Colonel.
Am I waiting for something else?

Investigator: Yes, we are waiting for Mr. Grebner to come back and tell us about this test.

MacDonald: Oh, he's calling?

Investigator: I assume he's calling.

Note from Christina Masewicz: Later on, the subject of the polygraph came up again

Investigator: Have you been taking any medication in the last few days or few weeks?

MacDonald: A couple Tetracycline, cold tablets, stuff like that.

Investigator: Nothing for your emotions, nerves, tranquilizers?

MacDonald: Sleeping pills.
My mother kept trying to get me on tranquilizers. She gave me a couple, but I'm afraid of them.
Sleeping pills mostly

Investigator: What kind of sleeping pills?

MacDonald: Seconal.

Investigator: The polygraph examiner will need to know that.

MacDonald: Why is that?

Investigator: Well, because this causes changes in your pulse rate, and if you have -- ah -- saying you have been taking tranquilizers --

MacDonald: Keeping everything in check.

Investigator: Yeah, then you wouldn't have the same reading as otherwise.
Especially if the operator didn't know it. The operator has to know if you've been taking tranquilizers, barbiturates or other drugs so they can take this into consideration

(Long Pause)

MacDonald: Taking a long time. I think Mr. Grebner needs some tranquilizers the way his hands shakes. Is it e-b? Is that right? Greb?

Investigator: Yes.

MacDonald: I thought it was a-u-b.

Investigator: It might have been at one time. He is an American (Inaudible)
In fact I think he told us at one time that it was change from (Inaudible), which would make it German.
You ever been to Europe?

MacDonald: No.
Now, what effect does questions like, you know -- I told them I didn't recognize that wood, and they tell me that wood is definitely from my house?
Now, if they ask me on that lie-detector test -- do you recognize that wood -- what am I supposed to say? Yes, I do, but I've been told I'm supposed to, or no --
Do you know what I mean?

Investigator: Yeah, I know what you mean.

MacDonald: You see -- ah -- Jesus, this scares me.
I tell you what -- I don't like that.

Investigator: You'll find that you'll have -- this operator, whoever he is, he'll tell you -- Captain, I don't know anything about this case, accept what I've told.

MacDonald: Yea, but that's what I'm trying to tell you.

Investigator: (Inaudible) ...interview he'll formulate his questions, that he's going to ask you, and probably -- probably it won't be more than five or ten at the most. They will be very specific -- very specific questions, and he'll tell you what those questions are, before he ask them.
There's no surprise -- no surprise.

MacDonald: I thought they went along and talked, asked you about your name and age, and all this and did you kill your wife -- you know.
You mean he gives you a list of the questions ahead of time?

Investigator: Oh, verbally.

MacDonald: Verbally.

Investigator: He'll say, I'm to ask you -- ah -- for an example, again, I'm not a qualified operator.

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: He'll say -- ah I'm going to ask you if you are in the United States Army; and I'm going to ask you -- ah -- if you are wearing a tee sheet. I'm going to ask you if you were actually asleep, or if you were lying on the couch and saw a number of intruders --

MacDonald: Uh-huh.

Investigator: And I'm going to ask you if you are presently sitting down in the chair.

MacDonald: Uh-huh.

Investigator: And then I'm going to ask you another specific question, and they'll be (Inaudible) here. So you'll will know the questions he will ask you, and he will tell you -- ah -- he'll probably give you a pre-test, if you like, and he'll tell you to write a number on a piece of paper. And you'll write on the piece of paper a number one to ten, and he'll say I'm going to ask you if the number you've written on the piece of paper, which you know -- -

MacDonald: Right.

Investigator: I think, personally, I think it's more to that, than it is this business about weighing the evidence. You know what I mean -- that's my feelings.

MacDonald: I miss -- I missed your point there.

Moving on to the Article 32 hearing, which in my opinion was premature: Colonel Warren V. Rock was the hearing officer in charge at the Article 32 hearing. He was not an attorney. Now all Article 32 hearing officers must be an attorney.

An Article 32 hearing is not a trial. It is the army's version of a grand jury investigation.

Captain Beale was his legal advisor. Furthermore, I think it was a conflict of interest for Captain Beale to have been Colonel Rock's advisor. He was a friend of MacDonald's, and visited him in the BOQ during the Article 32 hearing, bringing his wife for MacDonald to examine.

Colonel Rock's job was not to exonerate MacDonald or find him to be guilty. His sole responsibility was to determine if a crime was committed, and, if so, could the suspect be involved, and to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a courts-martial.

MacDonald's mother hired Bernie Segal to represent him along with the attorneys assigned from JAG. There was no stone left unturned. Segal acted as if he trying a case as opposed to it just being a hearing. He wanted his client examined by a psychiatrist and hired Dr. Robert Sadoff to perform a psychiatric evaluation.

I do not believe that Dr Sadoff's opinion of MacDonald was a correct one. Furthermore, based solely on the things he said, for whatever the reason, it would appear that he was more on a friendly, personal level rather than a physician hired to do a job. His job was not to like or dislike MacDonald, but to report his finding regardless whether they were for or against MacDonald.

Psychologists and psychiatrist are at the mercy of what the person tells them. This is called 'self-reporting'. Unless they have studied the case, how do they base their opinions of what a total stranger is telling them with whom they have only spent approximately 4 - 6 hours? If one reads the report of Dr. Sadoff, it is clear from the record that MacDonald lied to him. MacDonald told Dr. Sadoff that Colette was attending a class in literature, it was actually a class in child psychology. He also says that the female may have been a male, contrary to what he had said previously. It is of public record, that MacDonald told Dr. Sadoff he had sixteen stab wounds to the chest. He would later tell the public, via the Dick Cavett Show, that he suffered 23 stab wounds, some of which was potentially life threatening.

Colonel Rock was an interesting man, yet he refused to talk about his recommendations or the reasons he came to his conclusion, other than he was impressed with the psychiatric reports/testimony. It is apparent that he put a lot trust in Dr. Sadoff, who clearly stated "In my opinion I don't believe that this man committed these crimes."

Colonel Rock did say in 1971, as the hearing officer at the time, that he thought attorneys for both side were perhaps a bit childish in some of their tactics. However, in the remainder of the his statement, it was evident that he was not impressed with the investigation done by the CID and in many areas sided with the story MacDonald told. From that time on he remained closed mouth. If there was other reasons, they remained with him until his death. As to Colonel Rock, he was not objective in many of his ruling. It is hard to understand how a 30-year army man would/could criticize the army investigation the way he did.

During the trial in 1979, Judge Dupree was faced with the same issue of whether to allow psychiatric testimony. The court assumed that Dr. Sadoff could qualify as an expert in forensic psychiatry, but proof that his proffered testimony would conform to a generally accepted explanatory was lacking. The defense, in their brief cited several articles in psychiatric journals which were said to deal with this subject, but the articles were not made available to the court.

The government, on the other hand, cited an article by an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA entitled "A Critique of Psychiatrist's Role as Expert Witness," 12 Journal for Science 172 (1962), which stated: "It is not possible, nor is it likely in the near future, for a psychiatrist who first sees the patient some time, often months, after the offense, to give specific information about the mental state of the defendant at the time of the offense. However, the moment that the psychiatrist is pressed to give opinion, which is no more than his personal guess or moral conviction, there suddenly appears something interpreted as tangible and scientific. Under the guise of science, part or all of the responsibility for the difficult issue of criminal responsibility is thus handed over to the psychiatrist."

The government was granted the right to have MacDonald examined by their own psychiatrist, Dr. Brussel, and psychologist Dr. Silverman. Their conclusions were diametrically opposed to those of Dr. Sadoff. The report of Drs. Brussel and Silverman were furnished to the defense and to the court for its in camera review indicated that the MacDonald did indeed possess traits of character which were consistent with his commission of the crimes with which he was charged and that he possesses other traits which tend to cast serious doubt on the credibility of his explanation of how the crimes were committed.

Like Colonel Rock, Judge Dupree was an amateur in the field of psychiatry, but he was smart and knew that allowing the defense and government to enter psychiatric/psychologist testimony would lead to them only arguing and Judge Dupree was not going to allow a battle of experts in his courtroom.

I remember reading what Daniel Robinson, a professor of psychology at Georgetown said. He, speaking in general and not about the MacDonald case said, "Clinical psychologists and psychiatrist have expertise only in the textbook sense of knowing the history of that somber speculation that gave form to their disciplines. Their predictions of future violence are in error at a rate of about 90 percent. Their internal agreement on diagnostic categories is no greater than than we would find among professors of economics. Their theories are wanton and their opinions are self-congratulatory. Their methods are no more scientific than is pastoral counseling or, for that matter, the late night TV sermonette. Since there is no settled body of fact, no settled and reliable methods of measurement and not a single theoretical term that has ever been vindicated by accepted modes of scientific verification, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists can't really be said to occupy a space within which expertise can flourish. And where there cannot be expertise, there cannot be expert testimony."

While I agree with a good portion of the above statement, I do believe there are cases when psychologists and psychiatrists are needed to testify in court. However, I am of the opinion that what they say should not be taken as gospel. They are human, no human being is perfect, and we all make mistakes.

Now as to Helena Stoeckley - she was located, and the court ordered her to be taken into custody and brought back to Raleigh to testify on behalf of MacDonald.

The following day she was put on the stand by MacDonald's attorney, Bernie Segal and questioned at considerable length about her knowledge of the MacDonald murders. Her testimony under oath was that she not involved in the murders, but because of her drug-crazed condition she had at least come to wonder whether or not she was in fact involved. She also admitted to wearing a floppy hat, a blond wig and boots at times. The court gained the unmistakable impression which it believed was shared by the jurors that this pathetic woman was suffering from drug-induced mental distortion and she could be of no help to either side in the case.

For years after, Stoeckley continued to go back and forth, her stories changing each time she told them. She would confess and recant, then confess again. None of these confessions ever matched the story MacDonald told.

Throughout the years, MacDonald has filed many appeals claiming the discovery of new evidence. Outside of Jimmy Britt's accusations, which clearly have been proven false, and Helena's mother's statements that no way coincide with what she said during the many interviews with the investigators, there is no new evidence. It is like the each new attorney just copies the appeals from previous ones filed and puts their name to it.

The fibers/threads/hairs that have never been identified mean nothing, and certainly do not mean that they came from intruders. Every household has hairs, fibers, even blood that would not match any of the people living there. Wherever we go, we pick up things and take them into our home. Wherever we go, we leave traces of our presence.

Kimberley and Kristen were active children. Kimberley was in preschool. They had friends over and went to friends houses to play. Any hairs/fibers found on them could have come from anywhere they had been. The night of the murders, the kids had not been bathed before they were put to bed.

However, there is one man who has firsthand personal insight into the personality of Jeffrey MacDonald. That man is Joe McGinniss. He was there every step of the way. He heard what everyone said in and out of the court room from the defense. He experienced the rage and I would say the hatred MacDonald felt for anyone who did not agree with him. But the one person MacDonald should have rage at was Helena Stoeckley. Yet when he was first confronted in the courtroom by the very woman, according to his own story, participated in the murders of his pregnant wife Colette, and two little girls, Kimberley and Kristen, there was no response, no emotions, there was total unconcern. Where was his anger then?

McGinniss said the first time he met MacDonald, that "the first thing MacDonald did was make a joke to me, saying; 'I understand you're an expert on triple homicides,' and he laughed, making reference to a news paper column I had written fifteen years earlier."

"But it struck me as most peculiar that this man would be making jokes about about this kind of situation. It struck me most peculiar that he would be allowing his friends to give him a disco party to send him off to North Carolina on an 'emotional high', as he put it."

McGinniss, like many others were faced with things that just didn't seem right, but were willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. However, McGinniss said, "I'd say that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence first caused me to recognize that there was a very, very real chance that, despite outward appearances, he must have done it..." He goes on to say, "Then in living with him during the trial and seeing his emotional reactions and lack of emotional reactions to different situations, you could say in an amateurish way...I had an intuitive psychological insight that the man was not responding appropriately...

"Throughout the summer in private he would rage against the judge, against the prosecuting attorney, against witnesses called by the prosecution, against the military from 1970 -- rage against everybody in the privacy of the fraternity house."

At the end of trial in 1979, Brian Murtagh stated, "Our duty was to take you through a tour of a slaughterhouse -- not a slaughterhouse for the Defendant, certainly, but a slaughterhouse for Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. It was our duty to show you many pieces of physical evidence -- much of it grotesque -- and to put these bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together.

"Obviously, we couldn't bring in the eyewitnesses to testify because, we submit, the eyewitnesses were murdered; but as Mr. Blackburn has told you in his opening statement, things, objects, blood stains, et cetera, don't lie. They tell the story."

In my opinion the physical evidence was so overwhelming against MacDonald that the only defense he had was a character defense which he took full advantage of by calling witness after witness to testify and portrayed him as the all-American boy, who could not have committed these monstrous crime.

In the end, Jeffrey MacDonald was demoted from the all-American boy to the all-American killer when he was convicted by a jury of three counts of murder, second degree for the murders of Colette and Kimberley, and first degree for the murder of Kristen. The verdict was fully supported by the evidence. He was sentenced by the court to three consecutive life sentences. According to Judge Dupree, the government did not seek the death penalty in the case, the stature under which it was prosecuted still provided for such a penalty.

I think it is time to take the readers back on a tour of the murder scene. It is emotional, it is sad, and it is graphic; but it is the only way to show from the actual investigation records what was found at 544 Castle Drive in early morning hours of February 17, 1970. Some of the pictures you may have seen before, others are new, regardless, they tell a story of violence, rage and murder.

As you view the photographs, keep in mind that these were living, breathing human being before MacDonald killed them. In my opinion, the photographs shows that the one who committed these murders were close to the victims. They had a lot of rage and their goal was to kill. I hope for the rest of his life every time he closes his eyes, he sees the way he left Colette, Kimberley and Kristen.

Hold you mouse on the picture for its description


Colette with MacDonld's pajama top with sleeve trailing off and the Hilton bath mat on her mid and upper body

Collette, note the pajama pocket  at her left foot

Kimberley found tucked in as if she was sleeping

Kristen found with her bottle positioned near her mouth


Utility room leading into the master bedroom

Colette's blood on the floor in the master bedroom  Note the hair brush, bedspread and sheet on the floor and the suitcase

Master bedroom showing the throw rug edge turned up and the

Telephone receive in the master bedroom found off the hook

Pig written in Colette's blood type on her side of the bed

Master bedroom showing the spot Colette's remains were removed from

Bloody sheet and bedspread found in the master bedroom by the closet

Kristen's bed after her remains were removed

Kimberley's bed after her remains were remove

Kimberley's bed after her remains were remove showing her security blanket she slept with

Blood spot found in the hallway looking into the master bedroom

MacDonald's bloody footprint


Bloody footprint at the entrance to north bedroom

Left footprint of Jeffrey MacDonald taken February 25, 1970

Bloody footprint exiting the doorway of Kristen's bedroom

The bootom sheet from the master bedroom showing the urine stain circled

bloody bed sheet

bloody bed sheet

Matching of the wood grain

A human trachea, displayed for forensic purposes with safety pins to show incised wounds.

Weapons used in the murders

Wooden murder club used in the murders of Colette and Kimberley

Old Hickory knife used in the murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen

The Geneva Forge knife with bent blade. This is the knife MacDonald claims to have removed from Colette chest

Ice pick used in the murders of Colette and Kristen




Colette's arm

Colette's face

Colette's head

Colette's chin, neck and chest

Colette's lower arm and hand


Kristen's back



Kristen's hand

Kimberley's face and neck


I beg all of you, PLEASE do not forget the true victims here and
what this monster did to them



 Transcripts  -  Scanned Documents  -  Contact   -  Scholarship Fund  -  Christina's Corner
New Upload  -  Photo Pages  -  Bob Stevenson Answers Your Questions  -  Claims vs. Facts
CID Records  -  FBI Records  -  April 6, 1970 Interview   -  Article 32 Hearing  -  Affidavits
Psychiatric/Psychological Data  -  Grand Jury Transcripts  -  1979 Trial Transcripts
MD License Revoked  -  Parole Hearing  -  DNA Results  -  Court Records 1970-1999
Court Records 2004  -  Current  -  Mildred Kassab sues MacDonald  -  Resource Page
 Chronology  -  July 23-24, 1970: John Cummings' exclusive interview with MacDonald
Kassab's Work  -  1987: MacDonald v. McGinniss

No copying or reproduction of any of the contents of this website without prior permission from the owner in writing
Site contents researched and maintained by Christina Masewicz