This is becoming tiresome, because I dont think Red is sincere. He is trolling.

But I am not against acknowledging positive traits or actions of JRM.  If it is warranted. But while doing so, we should never forget the victims and the terrible crime he committed. To be cavalier and talk about him being a great guy is disrespectful to the victims.

For example, JRM does seem to have a way of charming people. He had no shortage of female admirers during his California days.
He had the support of his coworkers in Long Beach.
He has old Princeton friends who still stand by him.
He has nieces and nefews in Long Island who believe he has been heroic in his struggle to "clear his name".

There could be many reasons for this. He was athletic, and reasonably handsome.
He has abundant confidence, and people are drawn to that.
Most of those people know nothing about the evidence in the case, so they can make assumptions of his innocence.
There is also the old idea that only a monster could commit such a crime. They would look like a sasquatch, or the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Not a handsome and smooth talking young doctor. So people start out with the assumption that he couldn't have done it, and ignore evidence.
Or, like the author of the People Magazine article, she focused on motive, and decided he had no motive to commit the crime. Therefore, he didn't. Case closed.

Grandfather wrote:

This is becoming tiresome, because I dont think Red is sincere. He is trolling.

But I am not against acknowledging positive traits or actions of JRM.  If it is warranted. But while doing so, we should never forget the victims and the terrible crime he committed. To be cavalier and talk about him being a great guy is disrespectful to the victims.

For example, JRM does seem to have a way of charming people. He had no shortage of female admirers during his California days.
He had the support of his coworkers in Long Beach.
He has old Princeton friends who still stand by him.
He has nieces and nefews in Long Island who believe he has been heroic in his struggle to "clear his name".

There could be many reasons for this. He was athletic, and reasonably handsome.
He has abundant confidence, and people are drawn to that.
Most of those people know nothing about the evidence in the case, so they can make assumptions of his innocence.
There is also the old idea that only a monster could commit such a crime. They would look like a sasquatch, or the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Not a handsome and smooth talking young doctor. So people start out with the assumption that he couldn't have done it, and ignore evidence.
Or, like the author of the People Magazine article, she focused on motive, and decided he had no motive to commit the crime. Therefore, he didn't. Case closed.

 
Well said. A man, or a woman, is a sum total, not just one part. McDonald’s total is horrible.

red1975pacer wrote:

Irregardless he’s still married. Irregardless he has been not convicted of any crime since August 1979. Simply the facts.Now you and others can twist and turn and hate on JMac all you want for his behavior the last 40 years, but he hasn’t been guilty of anything since.   The Queen Mary is even being repaired.   You never know what may happen next in the case .   I do appreciate the candor Grandfather, about the possibility ( and only the possibility, that JMac does still have supporters. Personally I can’t call it.

 
The Queen Mary is not being repaired, but there has been some discussion about it. Perhaps you remember MacDonald planned to have his victory part on the Queen Mary. Oops! Never happened. No surprises. MacDonald dies in prison.

Drinking champagne and romance with a nurse makes you a terrible person?   Time away from home and stealing a few medical supplies? Cmon man

Last edited by red1975pacer (5/19/2022 3:09 pm)

Every forum has a troll. Red is ours......shaking my head