red1975pacer wrote:

Now who got disbarred. Enough said

No that is not enough said. First off, James Blackburn prosecuted Jeffrey MacDonald and won

a conviction in August of 1979. The "crime" Blackburn was convicted of had nothing to do with

the MacDonald case and Blackburn took full responsibility for it. He did his time, paid back the money

and now is a very useful a respected member of society.

Backburn's "crime" was well over a decade AFTER the baby killer was convicted.

It has NOTHING to do with MacDonald's guilt.


Secondly, MacDonald has NEVER taken responsibility for his vicious murder of his family and is 

not a respected or admired member of society.

"He subsequently served a brief time in prison, suffered from depression, spent several years in therapy and a brief stay in Duke Hospital,
and then waited tables at the restaurant where he formerly entertained many clients and paid back his “victims”.

Blackburn documented these experiences in his book, FlameOut. He now has another successful career, through speaking engagements to many varied groups
in a number of states and teaching Bar approved CLE courses on Ethics and Professionalism and Mental Health issues."

Blackburn's case happened many years after he won against MacDonald and has NOTHING

to do with Jeffrey MacDonald. 

That should clear up any confusion on your part.

Red - you are implying that the jury did not consider the evidence and make a fair determination based on that evidence.  That is a baseless claim.
All indications are the jury did an excellent job in considering the evidence and making a logical determination. There is zero evidence they were affected by any pressures from external. The only pressure was from themselves and their conscience telling them to do the right thing.
How about we do a little thought experiment Red?
If you were on the jury, how would you evaluate the evidence. Let's take two pieces as an example.

1. The footprint in Colette's blood made by a person exiting Kristen's room, carrying something heavy. JRM admitted it was his footprint either during the grand jury or the trial.

2. The breast pocket of JRM's pajama top found on the floor of the master bedroom. It had been ripped clean off.
It was stained with Colette's blood PRIOR to being ripped off. When it was put back in place, the blood stain fit together like puzzle pieces.

Can you tell me Red, what you think each of those two pieces of evidence indicate?

Red - here is an example of someone analyzing the footprint and drawing a logical conclusion:

https://criminalmisconduct.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-macdonald-case-footprint.html?m=1

For the torn pocket, I can do that myself.
The pocket was torn in a fight. We know it was a fight between JRM and Colette, because he was wearing the top, and her blood was on the pocket.
That is significant evidence, because he claimed he never fought with her that night. And he claimed the fight that did occur, took place in the living room. But there was no torn pocket or profusion of threads there.
And we know her blood was deposited on his pajama top BEFORE the pocket was torn off.  Because of the blood stain fitting together like a puzzle piece.
So we can conclude he struck her hard enough to draw blood, she fell into his chest area, then grabbed at his shirt and ripped the pocket off.

There were many pieces of evidence that pointed strongly towards JRM. These are just two of them. The jury evaluated the evidence and made the right decision.

Last edited by Grandfather (1/16/2022 6:42 pm)

The part of McGinnis guessing Macdonalds motivation ( drug use flipping out).      Strictly a ploy to tie up the story against the doctor

I’m not going to debate the case.       All the mitigating  factors  helped contribute to Macs incarnation.    He ain’t getting out so there’s nothing to dissect

Last edited by red1975pacer (1/17/2022 7:30 am)