red1975pacer wrote:

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

Red,

I’ve seen and read so many of your posts. You pop in unexpectedly, play semantics, and stir things up. You ignore facts and evidence, and have never shown any sympathy for Collette, the baby, Kimberly and Kristin. They were viciously beaten and murdered, by their husband and father; MacDonald! Kristin’s savage murder was premeditated and she knew who was killing her. Her murder was done to eliminate all witnesses and bolster Mac’s Esquire inspired b.s. story.

How about this; list all the reasons you support MacMurderer with facts and evidence. Just like everyone here gives you facts and evidence. No games. And express some sympathy for the victims.

Red - can you explain why the outcome was not what you hoped for?
For example, what would be your ideal outcome?
For JRM to be released on appeal? Should that have happened in the 80s or 90s, or during the recent appeal around 2014?
Or Paroled in 2005? Or perhaps parole this year or next year?
What about past aspects of the case.
Do you think the Grand Jury should have declined to indict him in 1975?
Do you think SCOTUS should have let him off due to his right to a speedy trial around 1977?
Should the 1979 jury have found reasonable doubt?

Red - you describe yourself as a fan / groupie of JRM.

What is it about him that you like?
Do think he is good looking?  Charming?
Or just an all around fun guy?
The type of guy you would like to have a beer with, or perhaps take a road trip with?

I recognize that he had that effect on people. His many supporters in the Long Beach area attest to this.

I am not making fun if you. I am truly interested in your response.

When did you first hear about the case? For me it was watching the TV movie in 1985.

Did you first decide he couldn't have done it, and then later on become a fan?

Or did you become a fan first, and later decide that he couldn't have done it.

What convinced you that he didn't do it?

Or are you neutral on whether he did it?

Maybe he did  and maybe he didn't, but for you it doesn't matter much any more?

You seem to be reluctant to look at any evidence in the case. You declare it tainted or irrelevant. 
But there is a mountain of evidence in this case.

I find it remarkable that you are not interested in the evidence.

If I was a fan of someone, I would be all over that evidence, trying to figure out what really happened that night.

There was someone else who was a fan of JRM. His name was Freddy. He was  huge fan. At the Article 32 hearing he waxed poetic about JRM being an ideal son in law. And that if he had another daughter he would still want JRM to be his son in law! 

And his level of emotional investment was much higher than yours. He had lost so much.

But as soon as he got his hands on the transcript of the article 32 hearing, he began to realize what really happened.

That info and more is available to all of us on Christina's website:  http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/claims-facts.html

Or have a look at this statement analysis:
https://www.statementanalysis.com/cases/jeffrey-macdonald/

Let Freddy be your inspiration Red. Take  look at the evidence.

How do I feel about other cases?     One example is Charlie Manson. While a certified wacko, I don’t believe he influenced anybody to commit murder

Freddy lost his family.   Everyone including his son in law.   Obviously he was the most devestatd then anyone.     How would anybody like to have to acknowledge that their son in law may have been involved?   Have a heart