The MacDonald Case: The Suitcase

The suitcase, on right, as it was found on February 17, 1970
Photo: thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

In this case, with enough gore to fill the pages of a lengthy book, the presence of a suitcase seems tame and uneventful and is very rarely mentioned.  It's one of the lesser pieces of evidence at a crime scene that has much but I believe its presence tells a very important story.

The suitcase was noticed by both William Ivory and Robert Shaw, initial investigators at 544 Castle Drive the morning of February 17, 1970. It sat on the white shag carpeting in the master bedroom, near the right hand corner of the footboard of the master bed and in a southward direction from Colette MacDonald's body.  It wasn't far from a pile of bloody bedding that had been placed or dropped outside the master closet door, immediately adjacent to the bedroom door.  The right side of the closet stood open; white shoes just inside the right side of the closet bore blood spatter.

The suitcase itself had no blood on it.  The carpet around it, and underneath it, however, had quantities of blood  - Colette's blood. The obvious inference is that the blood was shed before the suitcase was placed in that spot in the master bedroom.

Paul Stombaugh, once a Special Agent for the FBI, who became a qualified expert in fabric impressions, stains, hairs and fibers, and who examined the physical evidence in this case and testified for the prosecution in 1979, believes that Jeffrey MacDonald, after butchering his family and before deciding on the drugged-out-hippies-intruder theory and inflicting a wound on himself, grabbed that suitcase and planned to pack it and flee.

It is one theory.  MacDonald's narcissism, though, always gives me pause.  Would a narcissist like MacDonald actually flee?  And if he was going to flee, why wouldn't he do so before laying a hand on his youngest child, Kristen?  Wouldn't it make more sense, grotesquely, at least, to plan to flee while Colette and Kimberley were both unconscious, but still alive, in the master bedroom and Kristen had not yet been touched?  And if he was going to run, would he change out of his pajamas, especially given that the top was already torn and Colette's blood had already stained it, and into street clothes before packing?

Another view of the case, on right, with bloody bedding and open closet door
Photo: thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com 

Let's consider another theory.

We know from Mildred Kassab's later testimony and statements that Colette called her on the morning of Monday, February 16, 1970.  It was winter in North Carolina, gray and raining, and pregnant Colette had two children that were cooped up in a small apartment and no car. (The family's vehicle, one that was given to her by her aunt, was taken by MacDonald to and from work each day, leaving Colette to do her errands and shopping on foot.)  She was also increasingly unhappy in her marriage, although being private, she did not tell her mother this. She asked Mildred if she and the children could come home (to New York) for a visit.  Ground in the Kassab backyard had recently been broken for a swimming pool that the Kassabs hoped they, as well as Colette and the children, would enjoy for years to come. This was on Mildred's  mind as she considered the danger to the children and suggested that Colette wait until spring. By spring, the pool would be completed and therefore safer.

What if Colette, dispirited and unsatisfied with her domestic situation, had packed a suitcase with clothing for herself and her girls, in anticipation of going home?  She must have been thoroughly disappointed at not being told to get on the next flight.  Perhaps rather than unpacking, she simply placed the suitcase in the master bedroom closet, under the bed or in some other location.

What if before or during the argument that erupted fatally later that evening, Jeffrey MacDonald found that suitcase and didn't like that his wife was leaving, even for a temporary visit home?  The suggestion that she was going to leave certainly would not comport with the idyllic family life that MacDonald later told authorities.

Imagine that after Colette, Kimberley and Kristen had been murdered, MacDonald, while staging the scene, and/or after making the phone call for help and before the MPs arrive, must remove evidence that Colette had packed to leave.  He pulls her things from the suitcase and returns them to her dresser drawers, quickly.  The children's clothing is placed in a stack on the hallway floor, closest to the sofa in the living room, either due to forgetfulness, expediency or because MacDonald had no wish to again see what he had done to his children by returning the items to their proper bedroom.  Although he unpacked the suitcase, he forgot about it and left it on the floor, on top of and around blood evidence.

When that suitcase was inspected by Ivory, it was found to be empty.  An inspection also revealed that one of the dresser drawers, one belonging to Colette, was found that morning slightly open and the contents were in a jumble. Perhaps Colette had opened that drawer while preparing for bed that evening.  Perhaps she herself had put her own clothing in the drawer, without taking care for being neat.  Or perhaps Jeffrey MacDonald did it.

Either theory regarding the suitcase could be accurate; both could be wrong.  Just another enigma in the puzzle of this case.

What do you think?

The MacDonald Case: The Footprint

Photo: JustTheFacts

In a case rife with physical evidence, the bloody footprint found inside Kristen MacDonald's bedroom is often overlooked in being as "important" as other clues and evidence but the print is vital to telling the true story of what happened the evening of February 16-17, 1970.

The footprint was noticed by the investigators on the morning of February 19, 1970 and classified as a bloody print made by an adult bare foot. While there was a great deal of blood in all three bedrooms, the bulk of the blood found in Kristen's room was under her body, on her bed and splattered on the wall.  So a bloody footprint on the wood floor would definitely stand out.

Photographs were taken of the print and, unfortunately, the print itself was destroyed when, in an attempt to preserve it by removing the floorboards, the boards split and basically eradicated it. However, based on the photographs, analysis and Jeffrey MacDonald's own testimony, it provides an important piece of the puzzle.

MacDonald was fairly descriptive of his alleged attackers, down to sergeant's stripes on a jacket and boots worn by the female intruder and three male intruders.  He never mentioned that any of them were barefoot.  All members of the MacDonald family, however, were at that time.  Given the footprint was obviously that of an adult, both Kimberley and Kristen can be ruled out.  That leaves Colette MacDonald and Jeffrey MacDonald.

Colette's feet were examined and while she did have blood down portions of her pajama bottoms, her legs themselves were not injured and never bled.  Neither did her feet.  Not to mention that the size difference between her feet and MacDonald's feet would be apparent.

MacDonald's left foot, February 25, 1970
Image: thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com 

Back to MacDonald's testimony.  He admitted the footprint was his and this admission was borne out from the impressions taken of his left foot a week after the murders.  

Now, that's not unusual.  This was his home.  He said he put Kristen to bed earlier that evening.  He also said that he went to Kristen's room at least twice after the killings in order to administer CPR and check on her.  So finding a bare footprint is not incriminating.  Not even a bloody footprint.

This is where we have problems, Houston.

That footprint was made in the blood of Colette MacDonald.

It would be expected that in his handling of the bodies, MacDonald would get blood on him.  With the exception of the spot in the master bedroom doorway where Kimberley was felled, all of the blood (and there was a lot of it) shed in the master bedroom was Colette's.  The carpet her body was found lying on was pretty much soaked through.  MacDonald could most certainly have stepped in it while checking on/administering aid to his wife.

But no bloody footprints were discovered exiting the master bedroom, walking down the wood floor hallway nor going into Kristen's room.  Only exiting.

How on earth could someone step in Colette's blood in the master bedroom, leave the bedroom, walk down the hall, enter another bedroom and track that blood on their way out?   It is impossible.

So let's go back to Kristen's room.  As I posted above, the majority of the blood found in her room was under her body, on the top sheet of her bed, in spatters on the wall and some drips going down the side of the bed from her body.  Most of that blood belonged to Kristen.

The spatters on the wall and blood on the top sheet, however, belonged to her mother. None of Colette's blood found in that room was on the floor, save the footprint.

MacDonald never admitted to climbing on Kristen's bed and standing on it.  (For good reason - - he didn't do it and why would he?)  That is the only way he might innocently have gotten Colette's blood on the bottoms of his feet and then tracked it on the floor on his way out.

During his many interviews and his testimony about the events of that evening/early morning, he never said that Colette was in Kristen's bedroom during any of his "visits" to check on his daughter.  So clearly Colette had already bled in that bedroom before MacDonald went in, per his own testimony.

The doorway of Kristen's bedroom
Photo: thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com 

Let's go to what the experts said from the dimensions of the print.  They claimed that the print was made by a person carrying something while exiting the room.

We know that Colette MacDonald bled in that bedroom.  We know that scrapes from the club were found on the ceiling of the room, despite the fact that Kristen herself had not been struck with the club.  We know that Colette's blood spattered the wall and we know that she was struck with the club multiple times. We know that some of her own blood was found down the front of her pajama pants, despite her not suffering any injuries below her chest. We know that she was then moved back to the master bedroom where she was found.  We know that the blue bedspread had a large quantity of Colette's blood in it, as well as bloody fabric impressions from her pajamas.

Take all of this together and what does it mean?

Jeffrey MacDonald left that footprint as he was carrying his wife's battered body back to the master bedroom.  He had struck her at least once, viciously, with the club and had hit her with enough force to leave the scrape marks on the ceiling and cast off blood spatter on the wall.  Colette had bled enough to leave bloodstains on the top sheet of Kristen's bed and then had fallen forward to bleed on her own pajama bottoms.  MacDonald left her there, unconscious and bleeding, while he returned to the master bedroom to collect the bedspread so that he could return Colette to the master bedroom.  He placed her body in that spread and as he was picking her up, as she was still bleeding, he stepped into her blood that was in/on that spread and left the footprint.

There is no innocent explanation for it.  None.  MacDonald himself admitted he left that footprint. He cannot explain or account for its presence in any way.

People Magazine "Investigates" the MacDonald Case

Okay, so I watched People Magazine's take on the MacDonald case.  Good grief.  Where to even begin?

Given they subtitled the show (and MacDonald himself) "The Accused," it's really no surprise that the program itself was almost completely one-sided in MacDonald's favor.  Who was the "reporter" on this "investigation?"  Kathryn MacDonald?  O.J. Simpson?

I am guessing that no one on staff read the Article 32 hearing transcript (the document that firmly convinced me of MacDonald's guilt.)  By the same token, I'm also certain that no one read the autopsy reports, the reports of MacDonald's documented injuries or viewed crime scene photos.

Here is just a (relatively) short list of the program's oversights and flat out errors:

* MacDonald did not have some 23 stab wounds.  He had one abrasion on his forehead, some scratches to his bicep and one clean incision to his abdomen/lower chest.

* Despite reporting that MacDonald was attacked and stabbed with the icepick, he had no icepick wounds on his body (unlike his wife and daughters, who were viciously attacked with it many, many times.)

* MacDonald claimed to have been attacked and stabbed as he was seated on the sofa, fighting off three violent men.  He even claimed to have used his pajama top as a defensive weapon, to avoid blows.  First, how did the pajama top get around his wrists to use?  Secondly, why did he have no defensive wounds on his fingers, hands, wrists or arms?  I have never heard of anyone who was being attacked with a knife, especially by multiple people, to not have defensive wounds on their hands.  And thirdly, if he was seated and struggling, how on earth did these people manage to give him a clean cut to his lower chest/upper abdomen?

* MacDonald was not "left for dead."  Unless, of course, one could perish from excessive bicep scratching.

* Kristen was stabbed some thirty-three times; not the seventeen reported.

* The lab did not destroy the bloody footprint found in the doorway of Kristen's room.  While attempting to remove it, the boards came apart.

* The statement of no one in the MacDonald residence having a drug addiction/problem may not be accurate.  MacDonald had been taking Eskatrol prior to the murders.  Based on his own handwritten notes, those that were given to his attorney, he was taking some 3-5 capsules per day. He was also operating on very little sleep at the time of the murders.  A decade or so after the murders Eskatrol was taken off the market due to the possibility of excessive use causing paranoia and/or psychosis.

* The program's slant made it sound like MacDonald had not been granted DNA testing which would prove his innocence.  That is absolutely false.  DNA tests have been done.  None of them show any evidence of intruders being in the home that night.  To the contrary, a hair found grasped in Colette's death grip, a hair that MacDonald assured his four remaining supporters would belong to her killer, was identified as his own. (Possibly the only truth he ever uttered about this case.)

* The unidentified mystery hair is not such a mystery.  It was determined to have possibly come from one of the children's dolls or even from one of Colette's own falls.  The presence of a wig hair in a hairbrush does little to bolster the case of four drugged out hippies hell bent on destruction.

* Helena Stoeckley did indeed make a confession.  The program neglected to also report that she recanted her confession.

* What hippies, invading a home with the desire to obliterate everyone in it, would do so without weapons handy?  All weapons used in the murders came from the residence.  Furthermore, what persons would attack a pregnant woman and two little girls first, leaving MacDonald - - the biggest threat - - until last?  No, you would immobilize or incapacitate your biggest threat immediately.  Also, as MacDonald was reportedly their target (per this program, at least), it makes no sense to not go after him first.

* The evening/early morning hours of February 16-17, 1970 was a cold, wet one.  Yet not one bit of mud or water was tracked in by these intruders.  The only wet blades of grass found, in fact, were adhered to the hem of MacDonald's own bathrobe (left there, perhaps, when he put his robe on to walk outside and kneel in the grass to discard the weapons?)

* The program reported that the government's case rested on the theory that the murders were committed solely because one of the children had wet the bed.  They did not mention this was an incident that may have started an argument but the murders were not committed only because of it.

* The program reported that the MacDonald marriage was a happy, harmonious one.  Completely at odds with what family, friends and neighbors reported and testified to about their view of the marriage in the months prior to the murders.  To wit, they stated that neither Colette nor MacDonald seemed particularly happy and neither was pleased about Colette's third pregnancy.  Additionally, Colette had called her mother on the morning of February 16, 1970, wanting to return home with her daughters.  All three of them would be dead in less than twenty-four hours.

* The report of MacDonald having a single one-night stand is beyond laughable.  MacDonald was a flagrant philanderer.  The investigators knew it, Colette knew it and we know it.   At the time of the Article 32 hearing, roughly two months after his family had been butchered, MacDonald was having sexual relations with a woman in his BOQ room.  Hardly the grieving widower and father the program would like us to believe.

* The show did not report much on the physical evidence at all.  For instance, Kimberley's blood (and brain matter) was found in the master bedroom.  Colette's blood was found in Kristen's room. Other than a smudge on the Esquire magazine and a drop on the lenses of MacDonald's glasses, no blood was found in the living room (and the intruders had allegedly already attacked Colette and the girls with the very weapons they were swinging at MacDonald.  Scrapes from the club were found on the ceiling of Kristen's room although she herself was not struck with the club; similarly, despite MacDonald claiming to have been struck by the club, no scrapes were found on the living room ceiling.  It was proven that Colette's blood was on MacDonald's pajama top before it was torn. Kimberley's blood was found on that same pajama top although MacDonald claims to have taken it off to cover Colette before he went to check on his daughter.  The urine stain found on the bed in the master bedroom was typed to Kimberley although MacDonald claimed it was Kristen that was in the bed.

* MacDonald claimed he did not go or call the neighbors for help because he did not know them well.  Really?  How well do you need to know someone to scream or cry for help when your family has been slaughtered?

* Children's clothing was found in a pile at the end of the hallway, closest to the living room.  Colette's belongings were found jammed in a dresser drawer.  A suitcase was discovered in the master bedroom; no blood on it but blood all around, indicating it was placed there after the blood was shed.  (Prosecutors theorized that MacDonald planned on fleeing; I disagree.  I think Colette had packed that suitcase, in the hopes that after calling her mother, she would fly home with her children. After killing his family, I believe MacDonald found that suitcase and in his attempts to stage the scene, unpacked it. I think he threw Colette's belongings into a drawer and may have forgotten about the children's, which were left in a pile on the floor.  He also forgot to return the suitcase to the closet.)

* The home telephone number of MacDonald's Commanding Officer was found either on the club used in the murders or written in the MacDonald home. The wife of the CO remembers getting a phone call in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970 from a man asking for her husband who was then not at home.  She claimed she could not identify MacDonald but it does seem coincidental, doesn't it?  I believe that MacDonald called his CO for assistance/guidance before he decided to go with the hippie intruder story.

* MacDonald told his former father-in-law Freddie Kassab that he had tracked down and killed one of the intruders.

* The program did not show the portion of The Dick Cavett Show where MacDonald laughed about the Army's incompetence and had to be reminded that three persons (and one unborn child) had died.  The program also did not report that Cavett himself felt MacDonald's affect was all wrong.

I hope that persons unfamiliar with the MacDonald case did not watch this show and come away with the feeling that justice was not served and MacDonald was unfairly convicted.

Jeffrey MacDonald is NOT the victim here.  Reserve sympathy for Colette, Kimberley and Kristen MacDonald.

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?

The MacDonald Case: The Living Room

According to Jeffrey MacDonald's account of the night of February 16-17, 1970, the living room is where he struggled with four assailants and fought for his life, as well as the lives of his wife and children.  If you've read about the Manson murders or seen the crime scene photos, you will notice furniture askew and, most importantly, not just the large areas of blood directly under the bodies but footprints, hand prints, castoff blood and spatter from the victims who attempted to escape.  None of these things were found in the MacDonald living room despite this room being as cramped with furniture and items as the dining room. 

 

The sofa remained in what appeared to be its normal position.  No investigative reports mention marks or indentations in the wall where the sofa may have been pushed or rammed as you would assume during a struggle between a Green Beret and three male intruders.  Pillows and an afghan remain relatively neatly on the sofa.  An end table with candles and several items on it, including a lamp that looks to be top-heavy, remained in place.  The lampshade isn't even askew.  A picture hanging directly above the sofa is still straight and even. 

The coffee table is overturned and lying on its side.  Magazines and children's games rest underneath it.  An upturned plant is on the floor, going toward the front door, a relatively large distance from the table.  Its flowerpot is upright and next to the table.  Interestingly, one of MacDonald's bedroom slippers rested on top of the leg of the overturned table.      

An expensive stereo system, on the wall adjacent to the dining room, is untouched.  Breakables in the stereo cabinet and resting on top of the stereo speakers, are undamaged.  Pictures on these walls remain in place. 

MacDonald's reading glasses were found on the floor, directly underneath one of the windows.  Both sides that go over the ears were found upright.

Blood was found in only two locations in the living room, both in very small quantities.  The first location was a blood smear found on the cover of the Esquire magazine featuring an article on the Manson murders.  The second was a speck of blood, typed as Kristen's, found on the outer lense of MacDonald's eyeglasses.




That is the sum total of the disarray to the living room. 

Despite MacDonald alleging that one of the intruders tore his pajama top in a struggle on the sofa, not one pajama top fiber was found in any location in the living room. 

Despite MacDonald claiming to have been struck with the club that beat both Colette and Kimberley, not one drop of their blood was found in the living room, either on the floor (from blood dripping from the weapon) or in cast-off marks on the walls.

Despite MacDonald claiming to have been struck with the club, no scrape marks were found on the living room ceiling. 

Despite MacDonald's claims that his feet were bound up in the afghan when he fell off the sofa to the floor during the attack, the afghan was found on the sofa. 

Quite a struggle. 

Pictures:  www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

The MacDonald Case: The Dining Room

Area of the MacDonald dining room, showing Colette's handbag and the clear handled hairbrush on the sideboard, as well as a portion of the rug.  Marks where blood smears leading into the kitchen were found are visible.

When investigators arrived at 544 Castle Drive early on the morning of February 17, 1970, they found the dining room area of the apartment remarkably untouched. 

A table with four chairs was positioned in the middle of the room.  There was a buffet table with Valentine's Day cards placed atop it, all cards still standing upright.  Several sidechairs jockeyed for space.  None of  the furniture was broken or displaced.  A rug that was easily scuffed and moved remained flat on the floor.  Colette MacDonald's handbag sat on the sideboard, untouched, along with a clear handled hairbrush, with a few strands of hair.  Blood smears led from the dining room floor to the kitchen doorway. 

Just feet away, Jeffrey MacDonald allegedly fought with at least four murderous intruders who, according to him, had already slaughtered his family or were in the process of slaughtering his family, and were intent on killing him.  MacDonald was a 26 year old Green Beret, physically fit.  Despite having been woken from sleep on the sofa, according to his account, he claimed to be fighting for his life and the lives of his wife and children. 

So wouldn't you expect for the fight to spill over into the adjoining dining area?  Wouldn't you expect for the table and chairs to be shoved around?  For the cards on top of the relatively unstable buffet table to fall down?  (In fact, Freddy Kassab upon his revisit to the crime scene stomped his foot several times and the cards fell down).  For the cabinet itself perhaps suffer broken glass?  For the rug to be bunched up and moved around?  For the sidechairs to be pushed aside, knocked over?



Close up of Colette's handbag and the infamous clear handled hairbrush.

Wouldn't there be some evidence of intruders, especially if blood was found anywhere in that room - - even in minute quantities?  The victims' blood being found there would indicate that either a victim or victims bled in that room or their killer or killers were in that room in a bloody state. 

Since the blood found was in small quantities, that rules out direct bleeding by a victim.  It's likely the blood was transferred from or smeared by a weapon or a piece of clothing or fabric.  An intruder, having just committed murder, and walking around the apartment in the dark (per MacDonald's testimony of no lights being on in the living room, dining area or kitchen) would very likely stumble into a piece of furniture, don't you think?  Or leave fingerprints on said furniture or walls. 

So why was blood found there?  I believe it's from the bloody bedsheet that was used to transport Colette's bloody and bleeding body into the master bedroom and Kimberley's body into her bedroom.  I think the killer, in an attempt to clean up and stage the crime scene, planned to take the bedsheet to the kitchen, where the washing machine was located, to launder it and in doing so, left those marks.

Below are more pictures taken of the dining room on the morning of February 17.  Note how close the room is to the living room, where the life and death struggle supposedly took place.  Note how cramped the space was.  Now imagine a minimum of four intruders fighting with a Green Beret and what that room should look like.

Photos: www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

The MacDonald Case: Fayetteville, Fort Bragg and Castle Drive circa 1970

In order to fully dissect the crimes and study the evidence, I think you need to have a good idea on the background of the location. 

Fayetteville, North Carolina (as well as the U.S. in general) was very different back in 1969 and 1970.  Home to the Army's Fort Bragg, there were major changes during the 1960s - - from the Vietnam War to politics to segregation (still alive and well in that era). 

Fort Bragg did not send many large units to Vietnam but from 1966 to 1970, more than 200,000 soldiers trained at the post before leaving for the war.  Many of them would return to Fayetteville (if they were fortunate enough to survive) broken, disillusioned and addicted to drugs. 

At the time the MacDonald family arrived in September of 1969, Fayetteville was not so affectionately known as "Fayettenam" due to the large number of soldiers discharged from the Army who had seen action in Vietnam.  The drug culture was at its height, along with the omnipresent hippies who made Hay Street in the downtown Haymount District their crashpad. 

Fort Bragg at the time was an open post, meaning that there were no guards, no gated entry, no military ID or pass required.  While there was Military Police (MPs) on a constant patrol, anyone could drive on or off base and without any record or notation. 

544 Castle Drive was on-post military housing which, in 1970, meant that you couldn't dial "0" for assistance (911 had not come into being yet).  You had to contact the Military Police on base.  The home was set out like a duplex from the exterior, with the front doors being side-by-side but the MacDonalds' neighbors actually living above them.  The apartment itself consisted of a living room, dining area, kitchen, utility room, bathroom, master bedroom and two additional bedrooms.  In viewing the floorplan, you can see how relatively small the apartment was. 

 

The exterior of 544 Castle Drive.  The area outlined in red is the upstairs neighbors' apartment.  The MacDonald front door and apartment are to the right in the photo.

 

February 17, 1970 was also a mere seven months after the gruesome Manson murders - - murders committed by "hippies" against the white establishment they deemed "pigs". 

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.