Jeffrey R. MacDonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Jeffrey MacDonald)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Jeffrey MacDonald" redirects here. For other uses, see Jeffrey MacDonald (disambiguation).

Jeffrey Robert MacDonald (born October 12, 1943) is an American convicted in 1979 for the murders of his pregnant wife and two daughters in February 1970. At the time of the murders, MacDonald was a U.S. Army officer (Special Forces Green Beret), medical doctor, and practicing physician. MacDonald maintains that a group of Charles Manson-type hippies committed the crimes and has filed several unsuccessful appeals attempting to overturn his convictions.

Early life[edit]

Jeffrey Robert MacDonald was born in Jamaica, Queens, New York City, New York. At Patchogue High School, he was voted both "most popular" and "most likely to succeed," and won a scholarship to Princeton University. While at Princeton, MacDonald resumed a romantic relationship with Colette Stevenson, whom he had dated while in high school. On September 14, 1963, upon learning Colette was pregnant with his child, the couple married. Their daughter Kimberley was born on April 18, 1964.

After attending Princeton for three years, he and his family moved to Chicago in 1964, where he was accepted to Northwestern University Medical School. Their second child, Kristen, was born on May 8, 1967. The following year, upon his graduation from medical school, MacDonald completed an internship at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City. He joined the Army on July 1, 1969 and the entire family moved to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he held the rank of Captain. MacDonald was assigned to the Green Berets as a Group Surgeon to the 3rd Special Forces Group in September 1969.[1][2]

The murders[edit]

At 3:42 a.m. on February 17, 1970, dispatchers at Fort Bragg received an emergency phone call from MacDonald, who reported a "stabbing." Four responding military police officers arrived at MacDonald's house located at 544 Castle Drive, initially believing that they were being called to settle a domestic disturbance. They found the front door closed and locked and the house dark with no lights on. When no one answered their knock on the front door, the four MP's circled to the back of the house, where they found the back screen door closed and unlocked but the back door itself wide open. Upon entering, they found Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen all dead in their respective bedrooms.

Colette, who had been pregnant with her third child, was lying on the floor of her bedroom. She had been repeatedly clubbed (both her arms were broken) and stabbed 37 times (21 times with an ice pick and 16 times with a knife). Her husband's torn pajama top was draped upon her chest. On the headboard of the bed, the word "pig" was written in blood.

Five-year-old Kimberley was found in her bed, having been clubbed in the head and stabbed in the neck with a knife between eight and ten times. Two-year-old Kristen was found in her own bed; she had been stabbed with a knife 33 times and stabbed with an ice pick 15 times.[3][4][5]

MacDonald was found next to his wife alive but wounded. His wounds were not as severe nor as numerous as those his family had suffered. He was immediately taken to nearby Womack Hospital. MacDonald suffered cuts and bruises on his face and chest along with a mild concussion. He also had a stab wound on his left torso in what a staff surgeon referred to as a "clean, small, sharp" incision that caused his left lung to partially collapse. He was treated at Womack Hospital and released after one week.[6]

MacDonald's account[edit]

MacDonald told investigators that on the evening of February 16, he had fallen asleep on the living room couch. He told investigators that he was sleeping on the couch because his youngest daughter, Kristen, had been in bed with his wife and had wet his side of the bed. He was later awakened by the sounds of Colette and Kimberley's screams. As he rose from the living room couch to go to their aid, he was attacked by three male intruders. A fourth intruder, described as a white female with long blonde hair and wearing a white floppy hat partially covering her face, stood nearby with a lighted candle and chanted: "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." The three males attacked him with a club and ice pick. During the struggle, MacDonald claimed that his pajama top was pulled over his head to his wrists and he then used it to ward off thrusts from the ice pick. Eventually, MacDonald stated that he was overcome by his assailants and was knocked unconscious in the living room end of the hallway leading to the bedrooms.[7]

Investigation[edit]

The army's Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) did not believe MacDonald's version of events. As they studied the physical evidence, they found it did not seem to support the story told by MacDonald. The living room, where MacDonald had supposedly fought for his life against three armed assailants, showed little signs of a struggle apart from an overturned coffee table and knocked over flower plant.[8] Fibers from MacDonald's torn pajama top were not found in the living room, where he claimed it was torn. Instead, fibers from the pajama top were found under Colette's body and in Kimberley and Kristen's bedrooms. One fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail.[9] The murder weapons were found outside the back door. They were a kitchen knife, an ice pick, and a 3-foot long piece of lumber; all three were determined to have come from the MacDonald house. The tips of surgical gloves were found beneath the headboard where "pig" was written in blood; they were identical in composition to a supply MacDonald kept in the kitchen.

The MacDonald family all had different blood types — a statistical anomaly that was used to track what had happened in the apartment. Investigators theorized that a fight began in the master bedroom between MacDonald and his wife, Colette, who possibly argued over Kristen's wetting MacDonald's side of the bed while sleeping there. Investigators speculated that Colette probably hit her husband on the forehead with a hairbrush, which resulted in his head wound. As MacDonald retaliated by beating her with a piece of lumber, Kimberley — whose brain serum was found in the doorway — may have walked in after hearing the commotion and was struck at least once on the head, possibly by accident. Believing Colette dead, MacDonald carried the mortally wounded Kimberley back to her bedroom. After stabbing Kimberley (whose blood was discovered on the pajama top MacDonald said he had not been wearing while in her room), he went to Kristen's room, intent on disposing of the last remaining potential witness. Before he could do so, Colette — whose blood was found on Kristen's bed covers and on one wall of the room — apparently regained consciousness, stumbled in, and threw herself over her daughter. After killing both of them, MacDonald wrapped his wife's body in a sheet and carried it back to the master bedroom, leaving a smudged footprint of Colette's blood on his way out of Kristen's bedroom.[10]

C.I.D. investigators then theorized that MacDonald attempted to cover up the murders, using articles on the Manson Family murders that he'd found in an issue of Esquire in the living room. He then took a scalpel blade from a supply in the hallway closet, went to the adjacent bathroom, and stabbed himself once. Putting on surgical gloves from his supply, he went to the master bedroom, where he used Colette's blood to write "pig" on the headboard. Finally, he laid his torn pajama top over the dead Colette and repeatedly stabbed her in the chest with an ice pick. MacDonald used the telephone to summon an ambulance, discarded the weapons out the back door, and lay by the body of his wife while he waited for the military police to arrive.

On April 6, 1970, Army investigators interrogated MacDonald. Less than a month later, on May 1, the Army formally charged MacDonald with the murder of his family.[11]

Article 32 hearing[edit]

An initial Army Article 32 hearing into MacDonald's possible guilt, overseen by Colonel Warren Rock, convened on July 5, 1970 and ran through September. MacDonald was represented by Bernard L. Segal, a civilian defense attorney from Philadelphia. Segal's defense concentrated on the poor quality of the C.I.D. investigation and the existence of other suspects, specifically a woman named Helena Stoeckley.

Segal presented evidence that the C.I.D. had not properly managed the crime scene and lost critical evidence, including skin found under Colette's fingernails. In addition, he claimed to have located Helena Stoeckley, the woman whom MacDonald claimed to have seen in his apartment during the murders. Stoeckley was a well-known drug user in the area. Witnesses claimed that Stoeckley had admitted involvement in the crimes, and several remembered her wearing clothing similar to what MacDonald had described.

On October 13, 1970, after one of the longest Article 32 hearings in U.S. Army history, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald because they were "not true," and he recommended that civilian authorities investigate Stoeckley. In December, MacDonald received an honorable discharge from the Army and returned to his home state, New York.[12]

Justice Department[edit]

After the Article 32 hearing MacDonald returned to work as a doctor, briefly in New York and then in Long Beach, California in July 1971, where he was an emergency room physician at the St. Mary Medical Center.[12] He also made media appearances, most notably on the December 15, 1970 episode of The Dick Cavett Show, during which he made jokes and complained about the investigation and its focus on him as a suspect.

During this time Freddie Kassab, MacDonald's stepfather-in-law, turned against MacDonald. Initially, he was one of MacDonald's supporters and testified in support of his innocence during the Article 32 hearing; however, his support lessened after MacDonald's appearance on The Dick Cavett Show. His support continued to erode after MacDonald refused to provide him with a transcript of the Article 32 hearing. MacDonald also made contradictory and at times outlandish claims; in one instance he told Kassab that he and some Army friends had actually tracked down, tortured, and eventually murdered one of the alleged killers of Colette and the children, but refused to provide details about who the person was or what he might have told MacDonald. MacDonald later claimed that it was a lie to try to put to rest Kassab's persistence about finding his stepdaughter's killers.

Once Kassab finally received a copy of the Article 32 hearing transcript (after lengthy evasions by MacDonald), he noted numerous inconsistencies in MacDonald's testimony. One example was MacDonald's assertion that he had sustained near-life-threatening injuries during the alleged assault on him; Kassab saw MacDonald in the hospital less than 18 hours after the attack and found him sitting up in bed, eating a meal, and with very little in the way of bandages or dressing.

In March 1971, in company with U.S. Army investigators, Kassab visited the crime scene for several hours in order to test the physical evidence against MacDonald's testimony. His work convinced him that MacDonald himself had committed the crimes. Since the Army's investigation was completed, the only way that Kassab could bring MacDonald to trial was via a citizen's complaint through the Justice Department. He filed the citizen's complaint in early 1972, but it was held in limbo because the three murders happened while MacDonald was serving in the U.S. Army, and since MacDonald was no longer with the Army, the citizen's complaint was declared moot.

Between 1972 and 1974, the case remained trapped within the files of the Justice Department as they struggled over whether or not to prosecute.[13] On April 30, 1974, after much persistence in pursuing the prosecution of MacDonald,[14][15] Alfred and Mildred Kassab, aided by Peter Kearns, and the Kassabs' attorney Richard C. Cahn of Huntington, New York, presented a citizen's criminal complaint against Jeffrey MacDonald to U.S. Chief District Court Judge Algernon Butler, requesting the convening of a grand jury to indict MacDonald for the three murders.[16] As a result of the complaint, a grand jury was convened on August 12, 1974. Justice Department attorney Victor Worheide presented the case to the grand jury, and U.S. District Judge Franklin Dupree was assigned to oversee the hearing.

Trial and conviction[edit]

A grand jury in North Carolina indicted MacDonald on January 24, 1975, and within the hour MacDonald was arrested in California. On January 31, 1975, he was freed on $100,000 bail pending disposition of the charges. On May 23, 1975, MacDonald was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the murders. On July 29, 1975, District Judge Franklin T. Dupree, Jr. denied MacDonald's double jeopardy and speedy trial arguments and allowed the trial date of August 18, 1975 to stand. On August 15, 1975, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial and on January 23, 1976, a panel of that court, in a 2–1 split, ordered the indictment dismissed on speedy trial grounds.[17] An appeal on behalf of the Government led to an 8–0 reinstatement of the indictment by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 1, 1978.[18] On October 22, 1978, the Fourth Circuit rejected MacDonald's double jeopardy arguments and, on March 19, 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review that decision.

The murder trial began on July 16, 1979 in the Federal courthouse in Raleigh, North Carolina. Although MacDonald’s lawyers, Bernard Segal and Wade Smith, were confident of an acquittal from the first day, one thing after another went badly for the defense. It began when Dupree refused a defense request to admit into evidence a psychiatric evaluation of MacDonald, which suggested that someone of his personality type was unable to kill his wife and children. Dupree explained that since no insanity plea had been entered for MacDonald, he did not want the trial bogged down by contradictory psychiatric testimony from prosecution and defense witnesses.

Prosecution[edit]

During the first day of the trial, Dupree allowed the prosecution to admit into evidence the 1970 copy of Esquire magazine, found in the MacDonald household, part of which contained the lengthy article of the Manson Family murders in August 1969. The government attorneys, James Blackburn and Brian Murtaugh, wanted to introduce the magazine and suggest that this is where MacDonald got the idea of blaming a hippie gang for the murders.

Government lab technicians testified that MacDonald’s blue, button-down pajama top had 48 small, smooth and cylindrical ice pick holes through it. In order for this to have happened, the pajama top would need to remain stationary, an unlikely occurrence if MacDonald had wrapped it around his hands to defend himself from the blows from an attacker wielding an ice pick. Also, by folding the pajama top one particular way, the government demonstrated how all 48 tears could have been made by 21 thrusts of the ice pick, the same number of times that Colette MacDonald had been stabbed with the ice pick and in an identical pattern, implying that she had been repeatedly stabbed through the pajama top while it was lying on her.[19] Prosecuting attorneys Murtagh and Blackburn staged an impromptu re-enactment of the alleged attack on MacDonald. Murtagh wrapped a pajama top around his hands and tried to fend off a series of blows that Blackburn was inflicting on him with a similar ice pick. The prosecution made two points with the demonstration. First, the ice pick holes in the pajama top were jagged and torn, not smoothly cylindrical like the holes in MacDonald’s pajama jacket. Also, Murtagh received a small wound on his left hand. When MacDonald had been examined at Womack Hospital, he had no wounds on his arms or hands consistent with a struggle. The inference was obvious and highly damaging to the defense.

Another piece of damaging evidence against MacDonald was an audio tape made of the April 6, 1970 interview by military investigators. Listening to this tape, the jury heard MacDonald's matter-of-fact, indifferent recitation of the murders. They heard him become angry, defensive, and emotional in response to suggestions by the investigators that he had committed the murders. He asked the investigators why would they think he, who had a beautiful family and everything going for him, could have murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters in cold blood for no reason. The jury also heard the investigators confront MacDonald with their knowledge of his extramarital affairs, to which MacDonald calmly responded, “Oh... you guys are more thorough than I thought.”

Despite the evidence, the prosecution was hampered by the lack of motive for MacDonald to have committed the murders, since he had no history of violence or domestic abuse with his wife or children. Since Dupree refused both the defense and prosecution requests for any psychiatric evaluation to be done for MacDonald, he also refused the prosecution's request to allow into evidence any part of the Article 32 transcripts from MacDonald's 1970 U.S. Army hearing. Dupree ruled that since the current trial was a civilian trial and the Article 32 military hearing had several reports from the military investigators, which claimed that MacDonald may have murdered his wife and two daughters in a drug-induced rage, it was considered biased and hearsay.

Defense[edit]

During the defense stage of the trial, Segal called Helena Stoeckley to the witness stand, intent on extracting a confession from her that she had been one of the intruders MacDonald claimed had entered his family's apartment, murdered his family, and attacked him. During the nine years after the murders had been committed, Stoeckley had made several contradictory statements regarding the murders, sometimes saying she was involved, other times stating she had no recollection of her whereabouts the evening of the murders. Just prior to her testimony, separate interviews had been conducted by the defense and the prosecution, during which she denied ever being in the MacDonald apartment or ever seeing MacDonald before that very day in court. Afterwards, Segal argued for the introduction of testimony from other witnesses to whom Stoeckley had confessed. Dupree refused, in the absence of any evidence to connect Stoeckley to the scene, citing her history of long-term drug abuse.

MacDonald's defense called forensic expert James Thornton to the stand. He unsuccessfully tried to rebut the government's contention that the pajama top was stationary on Colette's chest, rather than wrapped around MacDonald's wrists as he warded off blows, by conducting an experiment wherein a similar pajama top was placed over a ham, moved back and forth on a sled, and stabbed at with an ice pick.[20] The defense also called several character witnesses. MacDonald took the witness stand as the last defense witness. Under Segal’s direct examination, MacDonald tearfully denied committing the murders.[21] When Blackburn cross-examined him, however, MacDonald could offer no explanation against the evidence, and was often hostile and combative with the prosecutor.[22]

Outcome[edit]

On August 29, 1979, MacDonald was convicted of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Kristen and two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of Colette and Kimberley after the jury deliberated for just over six hours. Dupree immediately gave MacDonald a life sentence for each of the three murders, to be served consecutively. He also revoked MacDonald's bail. Soon after the verdict, MacDonald appealed Dupree's bail revocation ruling, asking that bail be granted pending the outcome of his appeal. On September 7, 1979, this application was rejected, and an appeal on bail was further rejected by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 20, 1979.

Fatal Vision[edit]

In June 1979, MacDonald hired author Joe McGinniss to write a book about the case.[23] McGinniss was given full access to MacDonald and the defense during the trial.[24] MacDonald expected that the book would be about his innocence in the murders of his family.[25] However, McGinniss' book, Fatal Vision, first published in the spring of 1983, portrayed MacDonald as "a narcissistic sociopath" who was indeed guilty of killing his family. The book contains excerpts from court transcripts and sections entitled "The Voice of Jeffrey MacDonald," which were based on tape recordings MacDonald made following his conviction.

MacDonald subsequently sued McGinniss in 1987 for fraud, claiming that McGinniss pretended to believe MacDonald innocent after he came to the conclusion that MacDonald was guilty, in order that MacDonald continue cooperating with him.[26] After a trial, which resulted in a mistrial on August 21, 1987, McGinniss and MacDonald settled out of court for $325,000[27] on November 23, 1987.

The Journalist and the Murderer, written by Janet Malcolm and published in 1990, is about the relationship between journalists and their subjects and explores the relationship between McGinniss and MacDonald as the subject of the author's thesis that "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."[28]

Malcolm maintained that McGinniss tricked MacDonald[29]—a claim that McGinniss subsequently responded to in the epilogue of a later edition of Fatal Vision. In a 2012 book, A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald, filmmaker and writer Errol Morris argued that many of McGinniss's claims about MacDonald are untrue and irresponsible.

McGinniss' book was adapted into a made-for-TV film of the same title starring Karl Malden, Eva Marie Saint, Andy Griffith and Gary Cole as MacDonald. The film aired on NBC in 1984.

Post-conviction[edit]

Appeals[edit]

On July 29, 1980, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed MacDonald's conviction in a 2–1 split on the grounds that the nine-year delay in bringing him to trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial.[30] On August 22, 1980, MacDonald was freed on $100,000 bail. He subsequently returned to work at St. Mary's Medical Center in Long Beach, California as the Director of Emergency Medicine.

On December 18, 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court split 5–5 to hear the case en banc[31] and thus the earlier decision stood. On May 26, 1981, the United States Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration and on December 7, 1981, heard oral arguments. On March 31, 1982, they ruled 6–3 that MacDonald's rights to a speedy trial had not been violated.[32] MacDonald was rearrested and returned to Federal prison and his original sentence of three consecutive life terms was reinstated with time already served since his 1979 conviction. Defense lawyers filed a new motion for MacDonald to be freed on bail pending appeal, but the Fourth Circuit refused. MacDonald's remaining points of appeal were heard on June 9, 1982 and his conviction was unanimously affirmed on August 16, 1982.[33] A further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was refused on January 10, 1983.[34] It was shortly after this that MacDonald's licenses to practice medicine in both North Carolina and California were revoked.

On January 14, 1983, Helena Stoeckley, aged 32, was found dead in her small apartment. She had apparently been dead for several days, and an autopsy revealed that she died of pneumonia and cirrhosis of the liver.

On March 1, 1985, Dupree rejected all defense motions for a new trial.[35] Lawyers for MacDonald appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Dupree's ruling on December 17, 1985 and refused to reopen the case.[36] On October 6, 1986 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision.

On March 27, 1991, MacDonald became eligible for parole, but he did not apply, continuing to vehemently maintain his innocence.

On July 8, 1991, Dupree, after hearing arguments that MacDonald should be granted a new murder trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, denied the petition.[37] On October 3, 1991, MacDonald's defense counsel appealed Dupree's ruling on the grounds of judicial bias due to his rulings in favor of the prosecution during the trial, and of the harshness of MacDonald's prison sentence that Dupree imposed. The appeal was denied.

On June 2, 1992, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a new trial for MacDonald.[38] They stated that the materials now introduced should have been presented by MacDonald's then-lawyer, Brian O'Neill, in the 1984-85 appeal. Therefore, all rights to further appeals were forfeited. The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on November 30 of that same year.

Dupree passed away after a short illness on December 17, 1995. MacDonald's former in-laws, his wife Colette's mother Mildred, and stepfather Alfred Kassab, who brought the MacDonald case to the Justice Department, both died in 1994; she on January 19, and he on October 24.

The courts ruled that Dupree had acted correctly when he refused to let the jury see a transcript of the 1970 Article 32 military hearing, and, because this was not an insanity trial, Dupree had also acted properly in not allowing the jurors to hear any of the psychiatric testimony. Had he done so, the jurors would have learned that none of the doctors hired by the defense, or who worked for the Army or government at Walter Reed Hospital, had concluded that MacDonald was psychologically incapable of committing the murders. The courts have also ruled that Helena Stoeckley's confessions of committing the murders were unreliable and at odds with the established facts of the case, and that her treatment at 1979 trial was correct. During trial, she was arrested under a material witness warrant and testified before the jury that she could not remember her activities on the evening of the murders due to substantial drug use; witnesses to whom she had confessed were not allowed to testify.

MacDonald was granted leave to file his fourth appeal on January 12, 2006. This latest appeal is based on the 2005 affidavit of Jimmy Britt, a decorated retired United States Marshal who worked as such during the trial. Britt states that he heard the material witness in the case, Helena Stoeckley, admit to the prosecutor of the case, James Blackburn, that she was present at the MacDonald residence at the time of the murders and that Blackburn threatened her with prosecution if she testified. Stoeckley, however, met with counsel for the defense prior to this alleged meeting with Blackburn, and she told them that she had no memory of her whereabouts the night of the murders. Defense Attorney Wade Smith advised Dupree that Stoeckley had testified on the stand essentially the same as she had stated in the defense interviews. Also, she contacted Dupree during her retention as a material witness to claim she was terrified, not of the prosecutors, but of Bernie Segal, the lead defense attorney. Britt died on October 19, 2008.

On April 16, 2007, MacDonald's attorneys filed an affidavit of Stoeckley's mother, in which she states that her daughter confessed to her twice that she was at the MacDonald residence on the evening of the murders and that she was afraid of the prosecutors. Her past statements concerning her daughter are at odds with the details contained in her affidavit.[39] MacDonald has requested to expand the appeal to include all the evidence amassed at trial, evidence which he claims was discovered subsequent to the trial (for example, statements of individuals to whom Stoeckely had made confessions) and the DNA results completed in 2006. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted MacDonald's motion for a successive habeas petition and remanded the matter back to the District Court Eastern Division for a decision. In November 2008, Judge Fox denied MacDonald's motion regarding the statement of Britt. This denial was based on the merits of the claim, generally that Stoeckley was unreliable, as she had made many varying statements regarding the murders. Also, that MacDonald's claim that she was expected to testify in a manner favorable to him until threatened by Blackburn is contradicted by the trial records. MacDonald's motions regarding the DNA results and the statement of Helena Stoeckley's mother were also denied. The denial of these two motions was based on jurisdiction issues, specifically that MacDonald had not obtained the required pre-filing authorization from the Circuit Court for these motions to the District Court.[40]

Subsequent to the November 2008 decision, a government motion to modify the decision to reflect that Britt's claims were not factual was denied. Included with the motion was jail documentation establishing that Stoeckley was originally confined to the jail in Pickens, South Carolina, not Greenville, South Carolina, as Britt had claimed. Also included were custody commitment and release forms indicating that agents other than Britt transported Stoeckley to the trial.[41] MacDonald appealed the district court's denial of his claim to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, remanding MacDonald's claims back to the District Court with instructions for consideration.[42] An evidentiary hearing on the Britt claim and the unknown hairs has been scheduled by Judge Fox, having been rescheduled several times as of July 2012 at MacDonald's request.[citation needed]

Allegations of evidence suppression[edit]

MacDonald's supporters claim that the prosecution suppressed evidence.[according to whom?] In the years since the trial, defense lawyers have used the Freedom of Information Act to find evidence that the government did not present at trial.[citation needed] However, all of MacDonald's claims regarding suppressed evidence have been rejected by the courts, citing evidence that many of the items had indeed been available to the defense and, even if they had not, the items did not establish his innocence and would not have changed the verdict of the jury.[43][self-published source?][44]

MacDonald claims that unidentified fingerprints and fibers found in the apartment were never matched to anyone known to have been in the house prior to or after the murders and that these prints are evidence of intruders.[this quote needs a citation] However, the prints do not match anyone named by MacDonald as the intruders, and fingerprint exemplars of the children were not obtained and Colette's fingerprint exemplars were of poor quality, as they were taken subsequent to embalming.[original research?]

Other claims of withheld evidence involve two unidentified 22 inch (56 cm) long synthetic hairs found in a hairbrush, but not pointed out specifically to the defense, and a minute spot of blood that was either type O or type B (MacDonald's blood type) that was found in the hallway. MacDonald's supporters continue to insist that this was not disclosed to the defense, despite the existence of the trial transcripts which clearly show this spot was indeed disclosed and discussed.[improper synthesis?] Supporters of MacDonald also point to unsourced black wool fibers found on Colette MacDonald's mouth and shoulder as evidence of intruders that the government deliberately did not report to the defense.[citation needed]

In 1995, two of MacDonald's supporters, Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost, wrote Fatal Justice, a book meant to both refute McGinniss' Fatal Vision and present the evidence they claimed had been hidden by government prosecutors.[citation needed]

DNA testing[edit]

On September 2, 1997, the district court granted MacDonald's motion to file a supplemental affadavit with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.[45] Lawyers representing MacDonald were given the right to pursue DNA tests on limited hair and blood evidence on October 17, 1997 by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.[46] Testing began in December 2000. Defense lawyers hoped that the results would tie Stoeckley and her associate Greg Mitchell to the scene.

DNA test results released by the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory on March 10, 2006, showed that neither Stoeckley's nor Mitchell's DNA matched any of the tested exhibits. A limb hair found stuck to the left palm of Colette MacDonald matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. MacDonald's DNA profile also matched body hairs found on the multi-colored bedspread from the master bed and on the top sheet of Kristen MacDonald's bed. A hair found in Colette's right palm was sourced as her own. Three hairs, one from the bedsheet, one found in Colette's body outline in the area of her legs, and one found beneath the fingernail of Kristen, did not match the DNA profile of any MacDonald family member or known suspect.[47]

MacDonald was unsuccessful at incorporating a motion regarding the DNA results into his motion regarding the claims of Britt, with the court stating that MacDonald must obtain a pre-authorization for what should be a separate motion regarding the DNA results. On April 19, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted prefiling authorization for MacDonald's DNA claim. The court reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.[42]

In September 2012, the District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, including MacDonald's claims of new DNA "evidence," on remand from the Fourth Circuit's April 2011 ruling. On July 24, 2014, the District Court rejected MacDonald's claims in their entirety and re-affirmed MacDonald's conviction on all counts. [3] He remains imprisoned.

Parole[edit]

At the urging of his second wife (whom he married in 2002) and his attorneys, he applied for a parole hearing, which was held on May 10, 2005. During the hearing, he did not admit guilt and argued that he is "factually innocent". His parole request was immediately denied. His next scheduled parole hearing will be in May 2020.[48]

MacDonald was serving his sentence at a federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland; however, in 2011 he was transferred to the New Hanover County jail in Wilmington, North Carolina, to await upcoming evidentiary hearings in his appeal.[49][50] He continues to maintain his innocence. His projected "release date" after serving his three consecutive life terms from the date of his August 29, 1979 conviction is April 5, 2071, by which time MacDonald would be 128 years old.[51]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Trial testimony of Colette's mother, Mildred Kassab.
  2. ^ Transcript of Jeffrey McDonald’s Article 32 Investigation Hearing, 1970, Vol. 12., CPT Richard Thoesen, MSC: "I came to know Captain McDonald when he reported to the 3rd Special Forces Group. I was his sponsor… In the latter part of August… 1969…"
  3. ^ Police report of crime scene and victims
  4. ^ Trial testimony of physician who conducted autopsies of Kimberley and Kristen.
  5. ^ Trial testimony of physician who conducted autopsy of Colette
  6. ^ Hospital narrative summary of Jeffrey MacDonald's injuries
  7. ^ Investigators' interview with Jeffrey MacDonald, 6 April 1970
  8. ^ Army C.I.D. report
  9. ^ CID Record 3 - 16, The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site
  10. ^ "The Devil and Jeffrey MacDonald", Vanity Fair
  11. ^ Article 32 Report
  12. ^ a b Trial testimony of Jeffrey MacDonald
  13. ^ Transcript of Dept. of Justice Memorandum regarding MacDonald case
  14. ^ Kassab Letter to Judiciary Committee
  15. ^ Kassab Letter to U.S. Attorney General
  16. ^ Complaint Filed Against MacDonald by Alfred and Mildred Kassab
  17. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 531 F. 2d 196 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit January 23, 1976) (“In sum, applying the principles of United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 320--21, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), we conclude that for the purposes of determining whether MacDonald was denied his right to a speedy trial, the Army's formal accusation and detention on May 1, 1970, entitled him to invoke the protection of the sixth amendment.”).
  18. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 863 (U.S. Supreme Court May 1, 1978) (“Unlike a double jeopardy claim, which requires at least a colorable showing that the defendant once before has been in jeopardy of federal conviction on the same or a related offense, in every case, there will be some period between arrest or indictment and trial during which time "every defendant will either be incarcerated ... or on bail subject to substantial restrictions on his liberty." Id. at 407 U. S. 537 (WHITE, J., concurring). Thus, any defendant can make a pretrial motion for dismissal on speedy trial grounds and, if § 1291 is not honored, could immediately appeal its denial.”).
  19. ^ Trial testimony of government technician who conducted analysis of pajama top holes
  20. ^ Trial Testimony of James Thornton
  21. ^ Trial Direct Examination of Jeffrey MacDonald
  22. ^ Trial Cross-Examination of Jeffrey MacDonald
  23. ^ [1]
  24. ^ Hughes, Evan (September 5, 2012). "The Murders And The Journalists". The Awl. Retrieved February 1, 2014. 
  25. ^ [2]
  26. ^ MacDonald's filing of his lawsuit against McGinniss
  27. ^ After 35 years, 'Fatal Vision' author, killer meet again
  28. ^ Malcolm, Janet. The Journalist and the Murderer. Vintage Books. 1990. Pg. 3.
  29. ^ http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-05/lifestyle/35638455_1_inmate-new-hanover-county-murderer-doctor
  30. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 632 F. 2d 258 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit July 29, 1980) (“The sensitive process of balancing is a task highly individualized by the circumstances of each prosecution. The amount of demonstrable trial prejudice which would be violative of MacDonald's right to a speedy trial is affected by his persevering five-year insistence that his case be resolved and by his open and aggressive participation in the investigatory process. Weighing heavily in the equation is the government's calloused and lackadaisical attitude which was solely responsible for at least the last two years of delay. To require a showing approximating actual prejudice would have the adverse effect of encouraging such irresponsible administration of criminal justice.”).
  31. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 635 F. 2d 1115 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit December 18, 1980) (“Barker identified the three circumstances which could represent prejudice to the defendant in this context: they are (a) oppressive pretrial incarceration; (b) anxiety of the defendant; and (c) impaired defense. The first two can be quickly disposed of. The defendant suffered no oppressive incarceration, and "anxiety" is present in every prosecution. For that reason, "anxiety" standing alone, will not ordinarily support a claim of prejudice in an accused's defense, since, "(s) omething more than the normal anxiety that accompanies a trial is necessary to show a degree of prejudice." United States v. Shepherd, supra, p. 8; United States v. Hill, 622 F.2d 900, 910 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Vanella, 619 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1980). That leaves as the only basis for prejudice in this case a showing of impaired defense. And this does not mean vague claims of prejudice or an assertion of speculative prejudice; it means a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant's defense. [...] Without any real prejudice, the defendant had neither a Fifth Amendment due process violation nor a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation.”).
  32. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court March 31, 1982) (“Plainly the indictment of an accused -- perhaps even more so the indictment of a physician -- for the heinous and brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two small children is not a matter to be hastily arrived at either by the prosecution authorities or by a grand jury. The devastating consequences to an accused person from the very fact of such an indictment is a matter which responsible prosecutors must weigh carefully. The care obviously given the matter by the Justice Department is certainly not any indication of bad faith or deliberate delay.”).
  33. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 688 F. 2d 224 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit August 16, 1982) (“The declaration offered to exculpate the accused must be supported by corroborating circumstances that "clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement." (emphasis added). Cf. Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5) (residual exception only requires "equivalent circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness"). As the Advisory Committee's Notes on this provision instruct, the risk of fabrication in this setting is significant. Consequently, rather than permitting only the jury to decide what weight to give the evidence, the initial responsibility is vested in the District Court.”).
  34. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 459 U.S. 1103 (U.S. Supreme Court January 10, 1983).
  35. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 640 F.Supp 286 (US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina March 1, 1985) (“The court has cautiously reviewed the hundreds of pages supporting the contentions of the parties to determine whether there has been any suppression of evidence which could have been of exculpatory value to the defense. Over nine years passed between the murders and the trial of the case and, as is typical of cases of this magnitude, it generated an incredible amount of evidence and documents.[13] The court has not found, however, that the government suppressed any evidence or acted in bad faith in responding to the defense's requests for exculpatory material. Because there has been no suppression of evidence and the items which MacDonald claims were suppressed would, in all probability, have been of no exculpatory value to him, the motion to vacate sentence must be denied.”).
  36. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 779 F. 2d 962 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit December 17, 1985) (“The district judge concluded that the government had not deliberately suppressed anything and had acted in complete good faith. More important, however, the district judge found that this evidence did not meet the materiality requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). We agree, and our view is not altered by the more recent case of United States v. Bagley, --- U. S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).”).
  37. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 778 F.Supp 1342, 1352 (US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina July 8, 1991) (“MacDonald was permitted to argue to the jury that the large amount of unmatched evidence in the apartment supported a conclusion that intruders had committed the murders. Nevertheless, the jury apparently rejected MacDonald's argument that the unexplained household debris undermined the showing made by the government's presentation of physical evidence pointing toward MacDonald's guilt.”).
  38. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 966 F. 2d 854 (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit June 2, 1992) (“We have carefully reviewed the voluminous record of evidence in this case, beginning with the original military Article 32 proceedings through the present habeas petition, which contains over 4,000 pages. Yet we do not find anything to convince us that the evidence introduced here, considered with that previously amassed, probably would have raised reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors. [...] Here, over twenty years after the event of the crime, MacDonald reopens his case with specious evidence. While we are keenly aware of MacDonald's insistence as to his innocence, at some point we must accept this case as final. Every habeas appeal MacDonald brings consumes untold government and judicial resources. Furthermore, successive appeals of little merit must cruelly raise and then disappoint the hopes of one, like MacDonald, faced with a long term of incarceration. We feel that our review of MacDonald's case through the mechanism of the abuse of the writ doctrine has been thorough and fair.”).
  39. ^ CID Summary Re: Contact with Helena Stoeckley's Parents
  40. ^ Judge Fox's November 4, 2008, decision
  41. ^ Government Motion, 24 November 2008
  42. ^ a b United States v. MacDonald, 641 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. April 19, 2011) (“Under Winestock, the lack of additional prefiling authorization was no obstacle to MacDonald's pursuit of the DNA claim in the district court; rather, the real potential barrier was Rule 15(a). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's denial of the DNA claim and remand for further proceedings.”).
  43. ^ 1998 Court of Appeals decision regarding withheld evidence claims
  44. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 1998 U.S. Ap. LEXIS 22073 (4th Cir. September 8, 1998) (“As the district court noted, the only statement from either Schizas or Philips which directly contradicts Malone's affadavits is Philips' statement to the defense team that she recalls telling Government investigators that saran could be manufactured in tow form. To conclude that this statement establishes fraud requires an enormous leap.”).
  45. ^ United States v. MacDonald, 979 F.Supp 1057, 1069 (E.D.N.C. September 2, 1997) (“In conclusion, MacDonald has not convinced the court that Michael Malone's testimony was material to the disposition of MacDonald's 1990 habeas petition, or that Malone or any other agent of the Government committed any wrongdoing in defending against the 1990 petition. Thus, MacDonald's Motion to Reopen28 U.S.C. § 2255 Proceedings and for Discovery is DENIED. His claim that newly gathered evidence that saran fibers were in fact used in the manufacture of human wigs prior to 1970, added to the weight of previously amassed exculpatory evidence, demonstrates his factual innocence and that he is entitled to a new trial, is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.”).
  46. ^ In re MacDonald, No. 97—713 (4th Cir. Oct. 17, 1997)
  47. ^ Government Chart regarding DNA results
  48. ^ "Former Green Beret denied parole". The Associated Press. May 11, 2005. 
  49. ^ Julian March; Gareth McGrath (October 20, 2011). "Jeffrey MacDonald is incarcerated in New Hanover County jail". Wilmington Star News. Retrieved October 26, 2011. 
  50. ^ "Jeffrey MacDonald held in Wilmington for hearing". Raleigh News and Observer. Associated Press. October 21, 2011. Retrieved October 26, 2011. 
  51. ^ "JEFFREY R MACDONALD". Inmate Locator. Federal Bureau of Prisons, US Department of Justice. Retrieved 17 September 2012. 

External links[edit]