You are not logged in. Would you like to login?
Offline
Then show a little respect
Offline
red1975pacer wrote:
Then show a little respect
I do, and you should too. Making peace.
Offline
TexasPoet wrote:
red1975pacer wrote:
Then show a little respect
I do, and you should too. Making peace.
Red,
Have you read;
Since 1979, Brian Murtagh has fought to keep convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald in prison
The Jeffrey MacDonald case
View Photos Some believe the Green Beret was not guilty of killing
By By Gene Weingarten in Washington Post Magazine
December 5, 2012
Or
The Devil and Jeffery MacDonald
By ROBERT SAM ANSON in Vanity Fair Magazine
JANUARY 1, 2007
Both are well written, illuminating, and convincing. Gene Weingarren was particularly praised for his article.
Last edited by TexasPoet (5/04/2022 3:57 pm)
Offline
Thank you TexasPoet, I especially love the Vanity Fair article which states
"Though still in jail, MacDonald was not lacking for female companionship. He had at least three would-be paramours: a radio talk-show host from Tucson, a law student from Michigan, and, strangest of all, an Ohio woman who claimed that she'd witnessed her lover killing Colette and the girls during a fight over her. MacDonald admits that he knew all three women, and that he had sent them stripped-to-the-waist beefcake pictures of himself, tucked inside sexually graphic billets-doux studded with "happy faces." In the case of the talk-show lady, the letters alternated between reminiscences about her intimate odors and suggestions about how she might try to catch William Ivory and Peter Kearns in a lie while interviewing them. Predicting a Pulitzer Prize if she could spring him, MacDonald recalled "the hot stuff" of their last get-together in the attorney-client room. "You almost got a handful," he later wrote. "Believe me, it would have been such a wonderful release."
Offline
OneWhoCares wrote:
Thank you TexasPoet, I especially love the Vanity Fair article which states
"Though still in jail, MacDonald was not lacking for female companionship. He had at least three would-be paramours: a radio talk-show host from Tucson, a law student from Michigan, and, strangest of all, an Ohio woman who claimed that she'd witnessed her lover killing Colette and the girls during a fight over her. MacDonald admits that he knew all three women, and that he had sent them stripped-to-the-waist beefcake pictures of himself, tucked inside sexually graphic billets-doux studded with "happy faces." In the case of the talk-show lady, the letters alternated between reminiscences about her intimate odors and suggestions about how she might try to catch William Ivory and Peter Kearns in a lie while interviewing them. Predicting a Pulitzer Prize if she could spring him, MacDonald recalled "the hot stuff" of their last get-together in the attorney-client room. "You almost got a handful," he later wrote. "Believe me, it would have been such a wonderful release."
You’re most welcome OWC.
Last edited by TexasPoet (5/05/2022 1:06 pm)
Offline
Hard to believe that Vanity Fair article came out 24 years ago. It doesn't seem that long.
He was still optimistic about getting out back then.
Larry King was still asking softball questions and letting him get all his talking points out.
Janet Malcolm was still dropping by to visit occasionally.
Katherine first wrote to him in 1997. DNA testing held the possibility of finding new evidence that might generate reasonable doubt to base an appeal on.
The future looked bright.
How things have changed.
Offline
Grandfather wrote:
Hard to believe that Vanity Fair article came out 24 years ago. It doesn't seem that long.
He was still optimistic about getting out back then.
Larry King was still asking softball questions and letting him get all his talking points out.
Janet Malcolm was still dropping by to visit occasionally.
Katherine first wrote to him in 1997. DNA testing held the possibility of finding new evidence that might generate reasonable doubt to base an appeal on.
The future looked bright.
How things have changed.
Yes, it is hard to believe it’s been that long. Remember the idiotic, badly researched, pro MacDonald articles in People magazine, about 5 years ago? Those articles infuriated me and caused me to rant to my wife, who was understanding. LOL!
No doubt that 24 years ago MacDonald still visualized a triumphant release from prison, more celebrity, and even a return to practicing medicine. Not only has he been in prison forty years, he has had his hopes dashed a number of times.
I think one of my favorites from the DNA testing, was the hair wrapped around the splinter grasped in Colette’s hand, and how the MacDonald team claimed repeatedly that it was from the killer. They were right. DNA testing eventually revealed the hair came from MacDonald. Truth.
I think that final, harsh ruling by the Fourth Circuit, addressing all issues, probably ended all hope for MacDonald. There was no where else to go after that ruling. The Supreme Court reversing the Fourth Circuit was impossible. He doesn’t seem able to face the Parole Board again, probably because he can’t/won’t say what they want to hear and his image of himself as a noble, innocent victim is all he has left. What a very tragic, horrible figure he is!
Thanks for your posts Grandfather.
Last edited by TexasPoet (5/06/2022 11:29 am)
Offline
Thanks TP.
I have tried to forget the People article and associated TV appearance.
They were the most biased reporting I have ever seen on a true crime case.
Just shameful.
Offline
Thanks Grandfather, both articles are great. He is exactly where he belongs, if you apply the physical evidence, no other conclusion works except he murdered his family.
Offline
Yea it looks JMac ain’t going anywhere soon. Eventually yes, as all men must perish, but nowhere soon