The MacDonald Case: The Icepick

The icepick as it was found on the morning of February 17, 1970

In the Jeffrey MacDonald case, the icepick was one of four weapons found at the crime scene, tossed under a bush outside the back door with the club and the Old Hickory knife.  The fourth weapon, as you may know, was the bent Geneva Forge knife found in the master bedroom just feet from Colette MacDonald's body and the knife MacDonald claims to have pulled from her chest.  I say "claim" because the dimensions of the Geneva Forge knife did not match any of the wounds on Colette's body.

But back to the icepick.  Both Colette and her youngest daughter Kristen were stabbed with the icepick.  Only Kimberley escaped being attacked with it.   The icepick was the MVP of the infamous pajama top experiment, wherein in recreating how the pajama top belonging to MacDonald was found on Colette's chest, it was discovered that the icepick wounds through the top aligned with the icepick punctures in her chest.

It's also been said that the bloody imprint of the icepick was discovered on the Hilton bathmat found across Colette's abdomen, suggesting that after using the weapon on his wife, MacDonald then placed the bloody pick on the bathmat until he was prepared to use it again.  And once his bloody and vicious assaults were complete, and in order to explain why blood was found on the bathmat, he placed it on his wife.

MacDonald's pajama top with icepick punctures, none of which
corresponded to any of his wounds

According to MacDonald's story, he had fallen asleep on the sofa in the living room that night, being forced to sleep there after Kristen had wet his side of the bed badly enough so that he would not be able to crawl into bed.  At some point after falling asleep he says he was awoken by both Colette and Kimberley screaming and he saw four individuals standing around him on the sofa.  He claims that a struggle then ensued in which his feet were bound up in the afghan he had used for cover and his hands were bound by his pajama top, which had gotten pulled from behind over his head.  He thought that he was struck possibly more than once by what he took as a baseball bat and then claims to have seen the glint of a blade before feeling what he then assumed was a punch and later came to believe was a stab wound or wounds.

This is where it gets interesting with the icepick.  Remember that MacDonald says he saw the glint of a blade.

Upon regaining consciousness, he goes to check on his family members for signs of life and to attempt CPR before calling for help.  When the MPs arrive, they transport MacDonald out the front door to a waiting ambulance and to Womack Hospital.

During an interview conducted while he was at Womack Hospital, MacDonald says that "that is when I must have gotten stabbed with the icepick."

How does MacDonald know an icepick was involved?  Let's go back a couple of paragraphs - - he said he saw the glint of a blade during the attack, which would insinuate a knife, not an icepick.  The icepick was not found inside the house where he might have seen it; it was found outside.  And not outside the front door, where he was wheeled out into an awaiting ambulance on the morning of February 17, 1970 but outside the back door.  In no retelling of the murders has he ever suggested that he saw the attacks on either his wife or his daughters.  So he wouldn't have seen the icepick  being wielded on them . . . unless he was wielding it himself.

The icepick and MacDonald's own suggestion of icepick wounds to his body appears to be a major slip-up he committed in the immediate hours after the murders and one that he would manage to deflect.  Much more importance was placed on the origin of the icepick with MacDonald claiming never to have seen it before, the family having not owned an icepick, with the MacDonald babysitter and Colette's parents stating the MacDonalds did indeed have an icepick and the instrument would be used to remove Popsicles and other treats from the freezer for the children.

Where does the truth lie?  What do you think?

The MacDonald Case: Resuscitation Attempts

If you know the basic facts about the MacDonald case, you know that old Jeff was a doctor.  He worked in Emergency Services at St. Mary's Hospital in Long Beach during the mid-70s and by all accounts, he was a good surgeon.  I'm not disputing that because I think Mac probably did well with people who were unconscious or dead. 

He was also an M.D. while he was a Captain in the U.S. Army stationed at Fort Bragg when his family was butchered.  It's part of what makes the case, and his tale, interesting.

To wit . . . MacDonald claims that he performed CPR on his wife and daughters, that he tried desperately to revive them before placing the call for help to the emergency operator (this was in the days prior to 9-1-1).  It would make sense, no?  For anyone but especially someone who is trained in administering medical care.

Here are the problems.

First, the positions of the victims.  Both children were found lying on their sides.  You may think it's not a big deal but if you're performing CPR, you want the person receiving CPR to be flat on their backs.  So if MacDonald attempted to revive his daughters, why weren't they found on their backs? 

Second, when performing CPR you want to do so on a flat, rigid surface.  So someone trained in how to resuscitate an individual would know to move the individual from a "giving" surface like a bed to the floor.  Both little girls were found in their beds.  

Thirdly, if MacDonald was attempting to save his family members, why didn't he turn on any lights?  When the MPs arrived, all three bedrooms were dark.  None of the lamps or light switches had been turned on.  Nor did MacDonald mention turning the lights on during his efforts.  Wouldn't any parent going to check on the welfare of their child, especially a grievously injured child, turn on a light to see exactly what was wrong?  How could MacDonald even know what was ailing his children if he was going into a dark room?  How could he see a knife protruding from his wife's chest (his account) if the master bedroom was cloaked in darkness?  No blood drops or swipes of blood were found on the switches themselves or the walls near the switches, which should have been the case had MacDonald flipped lights on after handling a body or two.

I don't recall reading that it was noted that MacDonald had any blood on or about his mouth.  Why is this an issue?  Well, Colette and Kimberley MacDonald had horrific head injuries; both were bludgeoned, resulting in their heads and faces being covered in blood.  If MacDonald did give them CPR, wouldn't that blood have transferred to his mouth and/or face? 

And finally, the timeline.  MacDonald claimed to have made attempts to revive his family before checking on his own wounds and washing his hands in the bathroom (really?) and then calling for help the first time.  There was a two minute gap in between his first call and second, during which he claimed to have checked all his family members for signs of life, possibly checked his own wounds again and washed his hands yet again and checked out the back door for signs of the intruders.  Two minutes is a very short period of time.  Even if you only spent thirty seconds on each family member (which is very perfunctory in my jaded opinion) that only leaves thirty seconds to check out the back door and then check your own wounds, possibly washing up again.  And we all know that MacDonald was and is all about MacDonald so not nearly enough time on himself.  But clearly also not enough time to perform all those acts he said he did. The time of the calls is not in question so that leaves us with the theory that MacDonald is lying.

I don't believe he performed CPR on his family for all the above reasons.  And if he was a victim, if he had nothing to do with the murders, wouldn't he?  Especially given that he was a doctor.  Yes, the victims were his family but wouldn't he automatically go into "doctor mode"?  Wouldn't he lift his children off their beds to do CPR?  Wouldn't he turn the lights on to treat them to begin with? 

This part of MacDonald's account simply doesn't add up. 

What do you think?

Jeffrey MacDonald: Killer Husband, Killer Father

Every February 17 I spend in contemplation about the victims of Jeffrey MacDonald.  As a true crime "afficionado" (for lack of better word), I have read a lot of cases and yet this one - - known as the Fatal Vision case by most - - has stuck with me and affected me the most.  I didn't know the victims - - I was not yet two years old at the time of the murders, my family didn't know them and I have absolutely no connection other than one that was conceived when I saw the miniseries back in 1984 or 1985 and then read Joe McGinniss' excellent book on the case.  It sprouted a seed that still lives on today, that has caused me to reread Fatal Vision many times, as well as every other book written on the case and many articles both in print and online.

Despite MacDonald's vast number of supporters, there really isn't a mystery here.  The physical evidence says that MacDonald killed his pregnant wife and two young daughters.  His own words are damning and incriminating.  And yet so many - - myself included - - have become obsessed with this case, desperately wanting to know what happened, how it happened and why. 

There is so much information and topics with regard to this case that I cannot simply make one post as I did with the Betty Broderick case.  So I am going to break down what I can and devote a post to each subject.  I will include the facts, as well as what is in dispute and, of course, my opinion.  I welcome any and all comments. 

For Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald, as well as the unborn baby boy Colette was carrying at the time of her death, you will never be forgotten.