[Continuation] Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II - Page 61

Henri McPhee · 24th February 2021, 02:19 AM

This is what the wig expert Jerry Pollak said about saran in wigs in 1996. These North Carolina and Supreme Court judges should read this before they start agreeing with Judge Dupree. They are ll-informed. It looks like a mannequin or 'masquerade' wig to me:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ff-pollak.html

Henri McPhee · 24th February 2021, 02:46 AM

There is an interesting letter from Lucia Bartoli to Christina in 2005 on the internet. She seems to be one of several aggrieved ladies who fell out with MacDonald after he married Kathryn. The point is she was closely involved with the case at one time and she has some interesting opinions about it. It doesn't look as though an evidentiary hearing will end this nonsense as she seems to think:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...toli-2005.html

"F) The AFIP was agreed to by the defense because originally the prosecution, it was known, would choose LAB CORP, but there were reports that that lab was "faulty" in certain ways. Thus a specific number of labs was agreed upon and the defense was allowed to choose it.

G) The judge waved the fee for DNA testing. Why? Because imagine if you or I were depending upon that to prove our innocence yet we didn't have the money for it... But it may be ONE of the reasons that the number of exhibits for DNA testing was restricted to 15. Judge Fox also noted for the attorneys that even if the results would be FAVORABLE to MacD., this would ONLY MEAN that he was not alone. So Fox was indeed very foxy.

H) ONLY an evidentiary hearing will END this nonsense. I should think that BOTH sides would desire that so that it would end.

I) Sadly, the gov't. is NOT comprised of honest, altruistic persons alone. There are corrupt, ambitious people there too. I know too many of those, including a couple of FBI special agents. I ask your audience to remember that the prosecutor and the judge are paid by the same side.

J) I do know other things about the case that I can reply to, but the important thing here, is that I did a specific job and that job got the client back into court. THAT was not an easy task. I did it for more than MacD. I did it to glean a new sort of sideline for myself and have obtained several assignments as an investigative researcher. I also kept the "game" alive because I was studying a new facet of this, much larger than I had thought possible. I also was searching for who the "mole" on the defense team could be. (I did find out and have kept that to myself and two other persons only)."

Henri McPhee · 24th February 2021, 10:16 AM

I still think Mrs Garcia might have been in possession of the MacDonald murders wig but it was disregarded by CID agents Ivory and Kearns either as a cover up for the American public, or because of corruption. The public and the House of Commons only understand straight lines. There was a rumor fairly recently that Mrs. Garcia's son might have been involved in the MacDonald murders and he seems to be one of about three Cathy Perry associates who were stabbed by her before she was taken to mental hospital.

I have discussed this matter on this forum in 2013 and I stand by this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=9443539

GiSEQ · 24th February 2021, 04:30 PM

Henri’s ability to regurgitate “I think”, “everyone’s corrupt”, “everyone’s lying”, “judges and attorneys all bad”, “the killer’s innocent” ad nauseam is boring.

Come back when you have actual facts admissible in a court of law.

Henri McPhee · 25th February 2021, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by GiSEQ

Henri’s ability to regurgitate “I think”, “everyone’s corrupt”, “everyone’s lying”, “judges and attorneys all bad”, “the killer’s innocent” ad nauseam is boring.

Come back when you have actual facts admissible in a court of law.

It's inadmissible in a court of law for witnesses to commit perjury and for judges to be corruptly biased as well as mistaken and unfair and allow a mistrial where the disclosure of exculpatory evidence is blatantly disregarded by the prosecution.

It may be boring for somebody who works for CNN and is only interested in soaps and quiz shows, or for somebody trying to overthrow democracy. Some people never watch the news on TV. The trouble is it's a serious matter for Jeffrey MacDonald.

It's not just me who has a low opinion of the administration of law in the MacDonald case. This is a quote from Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard from the 2012 evidentiary hearing being cross-examined by a prosecution lawyer in which Leonard says MacDonald was screwed:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ranscripts.pdf

A. MR. LEONARD STATED THAT HE DIDN'T -- HE DID NOT KNOW IF
13 MACDONALD WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT. HOWEVER, HE STATED THAT HE
14 DID NOT FEEL THE PROSECUTION -- THAT HE DID FEEL THAT THE
15 PROSECUTION DID NOT PROVE THEIR CASE. HE STATED HE THOUGHT
16 MACDONALD HAD BEEN SCREWED.
17 Q. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE STATEMENT I ASKED YOU ABOUT
18 EARLIER. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER
19 YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT TO MR. MYERS?
20 A. I DON'T REMEMBER MAKING -- I REMEMBER TALKING TO MR.
21 MYERS. I DON'T REMEMBER TELLING HIM THAT I DID NOT KNOW IF
22 MACDONALD WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT.
23 I DON'T REMEMBER EVER TELLING ANYBODY -- WELL, IT'S
24 VERY TRUE THAT I THOUGHT BECAUSE OF WHAT I TOLD YOU THAT
25 MACDONALD DID NOT HAVE -- I THOUGHT THAT MISTAKES WERE MADE IN
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 322 Filed 11/21/12 Page 76 of 182
Leonard/Cross Page 1135
September 24, 2012
1 HIS DEFENSE THAT HAMPERED HIS DEFENSE SERIOUSLY AND THAT THE
2 JURY JUST WAS NOT RELATING TO MACDONALD.
3 AND SO IF I THINK THAT HE HAD BEEN SCREWED, I WOULD
4 HAVE THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SCREWED BY HIS DEFENSE
5 TEAM.
6 YOU KNOW, I WASN'T REFERRING -- I WASN'T REFERRING
7 TO MISCONDUCT BY ANYBODY, BUT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THAT
8 SERIOUS MISTAKES I THOUGHT WERE BEING MADE BY THE DEFENSE TEAM
9 IN TRYING TO COMMUNICATE JEFFREY MACDONALD'S POSITION AND IT
10 WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THAT RESPECT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY WENT
11 ABOUT HANDLING IT.
12 Q. ALL RIGHT. IN FACT, DO YOU SHARE THE OPINION HELD BY
13 MANY IN THE RALEIGH DEFENSE BAR THAT MACDONALD WOULD HAVE BEEN
14 ACQUITTED IF WADE SMITH HAD HANDLED THE ENTIRE CASE?
15 A. WELL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT DISABILITY, OKAY, SO HIS
16 CHANCES CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATER, BUT I DON'T KNOW
17 WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE WAS AND I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT
18 THE EVIDENCE WAS.

GiSEQ · 25th February 2021, 04:02 AM

Henri you just proved my point.

By the way, I’ve been following this case since 1983.

Henri McPhee · 25th February 2021, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by GiSEQ

Henri’s ability to regurgitate “I think”, “everyone’s corrupt”, “everyone’s lying”, “judges and attorneys all bad”, “the killer’s innocent” ad nauseam is boring.

Come back when you have actual facts admissible in a court of law.

I have come back with actual facts like the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers with no known source and the black wool fibers around Colette's mouth and biceps and on the murder weapon and the lack of honesty and credentials of prosecution witnesses.. The trouble is these silly judges just say every time that it does not meet the 'daunting burden' of proving MacDonald innocence. The bad police work with regard to Helena Stoeckley and her associates was unfair on MacDonald.

The only way any American judge is going to release MacDonald is if some DNA was found indicating intruders. This is not likely to happen because the corrupt prosecution is in charge of the forensic evidence and can hide it and MacDonald experts are denied access to it.

Norma Lane is One Who Cares on this forum and Christina's forum. She is anti-Mac and thinks Greg Mitchell confessed to her something terrible that happened in Vietnam. I don't think her ex- husband is so sure. He seems to be more sensible about it.

Not every American judge talks baloney:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...new_trial.html

"Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter articulated the purpose of a motion for new trial:

"American criminal procedure has its defects . . . .But its essentials have behind them the vindication of centuries . . . . All systems of law, however wise, are administered through men, and therefore may occasionally disclose the frailties of men. Perfection may not be demanded of law, but the capacity to correct errors of inevitable frailty is the mark of a civilized legal mechanism. Grave injustices, as a matter of fact, do arise even under the most civilized systems of law and despite adherence to the forms of procedure intended to safe-guard against them."

BStrong · 25th February 2021, 01:39 PM

Anyone else enjoy the irony of the landlord accusing all and sundry of "drunkenness" while simultaneously insisting that the testimony of the most drug and alcohol dependent person in the case be granted credibility?

JTF · Yesterday, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Anyone else enjoy the irony of the landlord accusing all and sundry of "drunkenness" while simultaneously insisting that the testimony of the most drug and alcohol dependent person in the case be granted credibility?

The landlord is the King of Irony, and Helena Stoeckley is one of his main subjects. Stoeckley's drug intake was so prodigious that she died at the age of 30 on her couch as her infant son was crawling around on the floor under his crib. The only consistent story she gave about this case was that she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70 due to her excessive use of multiple substances. She provided this story to newspaper reporter Pat Reese two days after the murders, and repeated it several times to investigators and under oath at the 1979 trial. The landlord, however, has chosen to ignore these pesky details and has embraced selected bits from Stoeckley's various accounts of being inside 544 Castle Drive. Considering that there is not a shred of evidence DEFINITVELY linking her to the crime scene, the landlord offers her confessions and unsourced household debris as proof that she was present at 544 Castle Drive on 2/17/70. Classic weak sauce.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Henri McPhee · Yesterday, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by JTF

The landlord is the King of Irony, and Helena Stoeckley is one of his main subjects. Stoeckley's drug intake was so prodigious that she died at the age of 30 on her couch as her infant son was crawling around on the floor under his crib. The only consistent story she gave about this case was that she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70 due to her excessive use of multiple substances.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Helena Stoeckley was as guilty as hell. She said she couldn't remember to CID agents where she was that night because of drugs. The trouble is those drugs don't cause a loss of memory.. There should have been a first-class trial judge in Nroth Carolina who didn't suffer from an astonishing lack of vision. People used to say on the NacDonald forums that Helena appeared on TV with Detective Beasley shortly before her death and said she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. That may not have gone down too well with the North Carolina judges.

There is a fair and just website about all this updated in June 2020:

https://patri-x.com/dr-jeffrey-macdo...govt-cover-up/

"Stoeckley died in 1983, post-trial, allegedly of natural causes. She died at home, purportedly of a liver disease and pneumonia, but it was a sudden death, inconsistent with liver disease or pneumonia in a 32 year old person. She was home alone with her baby and it was her custom to seek help when she was ill since she was a very attentive mother to her son. She did not seek help at this time but she had previously expressed to her friend and an investigator that she was ready to tell something that she knew was going to be a “major bombshell” about the MacDonald case. She had hesitated to do so before because she had asked for immunity and it had been denied. (Interestingly, a resident of Stoeckley’s apartment building had seen two clean-cut men in suits who had asked for Stoeckley and hung around for about two days immediately prior to her death. A forensic pathologist was present at her autopsy, and if, in fact, Stoeckley had been the victim of foul play, it was undetectable on autopsy."

Henri McPhee · Today, 09:49 AM

There is a 2020 website by a Fayetteville Observer journalist which basically boils down to the 'profound' fact that some people are convinced MacDonald is guilty and others think he is innocent, and that it was a long time ago.

There is an interesting bit on that website in which instructor crime scene investigators now use the MacDonald case as an example of how not to do it. I have mentioned this before now on other MacDonald forums and been told at the time that it doesn't happen. North Carolina judges should have taken this into consideration before they jumped to conclusions about the case:

https://stories.usatodaynetwork.com/...donaldmurders/

"The MacDonald case provided a harsh lesson for the military about preservation of crime scenes, said Kelvin Culbreth, a local Cumulus Media radio executive who grew up in Fayetteville. In 1984, Culbreth joined the Army and went to military police school in Alabama.

One of the most important jobs of an MP is to preserve a crime scene to protect the evidence for the investigators, Culbreth said. His instructors had a training room modeled after the MacDonald home, he said, and they used the MacDonald case as a scenario and example of what not to do.

“There was just so many things, so many things that contaminated that crime scene,” he said."

24th February 2021, 02:19 AM	#2401
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	This is what the wig expert Jerry Pollak said about saran in wigs in 1996. These North Carolina and Supreme Court judges should read this before they start agreeing with Judge Dupree. They are ll-informed. It looks like a mannequin or 'masquerade' wig to me: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ff-pollak.html
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th February 2021 at 02:23 AM.

24th February 2021, 02:46 AM	#2402
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	There is an interesting letter from Lucia Bartoli to Christina in 2005 on the internet. She seems to be one of several aggrieved ladies who fell out with MacDonald after he married Kathryn. The point is she was closely involved with the case at one time and she has some interesting opinions about it. It doesn't look as though an evidentiary hearing will end this nonsense as she seems to think: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...toli-2005.html "F) The AFIP was agreed to by the defense because originally the prosecution, it was known, would choose LAB CORP, but there were reports that that lab was "faulty" in certain ways. Thus a specific number of labs was agreed upon and the defense was allowed to choose it. G) The judge waved the fee for DNA testing. Why? Because imagine if you or I were depending upon that to prove our innocence yet we didn't have the money for it... But it may be ONE of the reasons that the number of exhibits for DNA testing was restricted to 15. Judge Fox also noted for the attorneys that even if the results would be FAVORABLE to MacD., this would ONLY MEAN that he was not alone. So Fox was indeed very foxy. H) ONLY an evidentiary hearing will END this nonsense. I should think that BOTH sides would desire that so that it would end. I) Sadly, the gov't. is NOT comprised of honest, altruistic persons alone. There are corrupt, ambitious people there too. I know too many of those, including a couple of FBI special agents. I ask your audience to remember that the prosecutor and the judge are paid by the same side. J) I do know other things about the case that I can reply to, but the important thing here, is that I did a specific job and that job got the client back into court. THAT was not an easy task. I did it for more than MacD. I did it to glean a new sort of sideline for myself and have obtained several assignments as an investigative researcher. I also kept the "game" alive because I was studying a new facet of this, much larger than I had thought possible. I also was searching for who the "mole" on the defense team could be. (I did find out and have kept that to myself and two other persons only)."
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th February 2021 at 02:49 AM.

24th February 2021, 04:30 PM	#2404
GiSEQ Student Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 33	Henri’s ability to regurgitate “I think”, “everyone’s corrupt”, “everyone’s lying”, “judges and attorneys all bad”, “the killer’s innocent” ad nauseam is boring. Come back when you have actual facts admissible in a court of law.
GiSEQ Student Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 33

25th February 2021, 02:23 AM	#2405
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	Originally Posted by GiSEQ Henri’s ability to regurgitate “I think”, “everyone’s corrupt”, “everyone’s lying”, “judges and attorneys all bad”, “the killer’s innocent” ad nauseam is boring. Come back when you have actual facts admissible in a court of law. It's inadmissible in a court of law for witnesses to commit perjury and for judges to be corruptly biased as well as mistaken and unfair and allow a mistrial where the disclosure of exculpatory evidence is blatantly disregarded by the prosecution. It may be boring for somebody who works for CNN and is only interested in soaps and quiz shows, or for somebody trying to overthrow democracy. Some people never watch the news on TV. The trouble is it's a serious matter for Jeffrey MacDonald. It's not just me who has a low opinion of the administration of law in the MacDonald case. This is a quote from Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard from the 2012 evidentiary hearing being cross-examined by a prosecution lawyer in which Leonard says MacDonald was screwed: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ranscripts.pdf A. MR. LEONARD STATED THAT HE DIDN'T -- HE DID NOT KNOW IF 13 MACDONALD WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT. HOWEVER, HE STATED THAT HE 14 DID NOT FEEL THE PROSECUTION -- THAT HE DID FEEL THAT THE 15 PROSECUTION DID NOT PROVE THEIR CASE. HE STATED HE THOUGHT 16 MACDONALD HAD BEEN SCREWED. 17 Q. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE STATEMENT I ASKED YOU ABOUT 18 EARLIER. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER 19 YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT TO MR. MYERS? 20 A. I DON'T REMEMBER MAKING -- I REMEMBER TALKING TO MR. 21 MYERS. I DON'T REMEMBER TELLING HIM THAT I DID NOT KNOW IF 22 MACDONALD WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT. 23 I DON'T REMEMBER EVER TELLING ANYBODY -- WELL, IT'S 24 VERY TRUE THAT I THOUGHT BECAUSE OF WHAT I TOLD YOU THAT 25 MACDONALD DID NOT HAVE -- I THOUGHT THAT MISTAKES WERE MADE IN Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 322 Filed 11/21/12 Page 76 of 182 Leonard/Cross Page 1135 September 24, 2012 1 HIS DEFENSE THAT HAMPERED HIS DEFENSE SERIOUSLY AND THAT THE 2 JURY JUST WAS NOT RELATING TO MACDONALD. 3 AND SO IF I THINK THAT HE HAD BEEN SCREWED, I WOULD 4 HAVE THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SCREWED BY HIS DEFENSE 5 TEAM. 6 YOU KNOW, I WASN'T REFERRING -- I WASN'T REFERRING 7 TO MISCONDUCT BY ANYBODY, BUT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THAT 8 SERIOUS MISTAKES I THOUGHT WERE BEING MADE BY THE DEFENSE TEAM 9 IN TRYING TO COMMUNICATE JEFFREY MACDONALD'S POSITION AND IT 10 WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THAT RESPECT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY WENT 11 ABOUT HANDLING IT. 12 Q. ALL RIGHT. IN FACT, DO YOU SHARE THE OPINION HELD BY 13 MANY IN THE RALEIGH DEFENSE BAR THAT MACDONALD WOULD HAVE BEEN 14 ACQUITTED IF WADE SMITH HAD HANDLED THE ENTIRE CASE? 15 A. WELL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT DISABILITY, OKAY, SO HIS 16 CHANCES CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATER, BUT I DON'T KNOW 17 WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE WAS AND I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT 18 THE EVIDENCE WAS.
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th February 2021 at 02:40 AM.

25th February 2021, 04:02 AM	#2406
GiSEQ Student Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 33	Same BS Henri you just proved my point. By the way, I’ve been following this case since 1983.
GiSEQ Student Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 33

24th February 2021, 10:16 AM	#2403
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	I still think Mrs Garcia might have been in possession of the MacDonald murders wig but it was disregarded by CID agents Ivory and Kearns either as a cover up for the American public, or because of corruption. The public and the House of Commons only understand straight lines. There was a rumor fairly recently that Mrs. Garcia's son might have been involved in the MacDonald murders and he seems to be one of about three Cathy Perry associates who were stabbed by her before she was taken to mental hospital. I have discussed this matter on this forum in 2013 and I stand by this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=9443539

25th February 2021, 10:03 AM	#2407
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	Originally Posted by GiSEQ Henri’s ability to regurgitate “I think”, “everyone’s corrupt”, “everyone’s lying”, “judges and attorneys all bad”, “the killer’s innocent” ad nauseam is boring. Come back when you have actual facts admissible in a court of law. I have come back with actual facts like the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers with no known source and the black wool fibers around Colette's mouth and biceps and on the murder weapon and the lack of honesty and credentials of prosecution witnesses.. The trouble is these silly judges just say every time that it does not meet the 'daunting burden' of proving MacDonald innocence. The bad police work with regard to Helena Stoeckley and her associates was unfair on MacDonald. The only way any American judge is going to release MacDonald is if some DNA was found indicating intruders. This is not likely to happen because the corrupt prosecution is in charge of the forensic evidence and can hide it and MacDonald experts are denied access to it. Norma Lane is One Who Cares on this forum and Christina's forum. She is anti-Mac and thinks Greg Mitchell confessed to her something terrible that happened in Vietnam. I don't think her ex- husband is so sure. He seems to be more sensible about it. Not every American judge talks baloney: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...new_trial.html "Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter articulated the purpose of a motion for new trial: "American criminal procedure has its defects . . . .But its essentials have behind them the vindication of centuries . . . . All systems of law, however wise, are administered through men, and therefore may occasionally disclose the frailties of men. Perfection may not be demanded of law, but the capacity to correct errors of inevitable frailty is the mark of a civilized legal mechanism. Grave injustices, as a matter of fact, do arise even under the most civilized systems of law and despite adherence to the forms of procedure intended to safe-guard against them."
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th February 2021 at 10:12 AM.

25th February 2021, 01:39 PM	#2408
BStrong Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Posts: 13,079	Anyone else enjoy the irony of the landlord accusing all and sundry of "drunkenness" while simultaneously insisting that the testimony of the most drug and alcohol dependent person in the case be granted credibility?
	__________________ Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Yesterday, 12:38 AM	#2409
JTF Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,485	Originally Posted by BStrong Anyone else enjoy the irony of the landlord accusing all and sundry of "drunkenness" while simultaneously insisting that the testimony of the most drug and alcohol dependent person in the case be granted credibility? The landlord is the King of Irony, and Helena Stoeckley is one of his main subjects. Stoeckley's drug intake was so prodigious that she died at the age of 30 on her couch as her infant son was crawling around on the floor under his crib. The only consistent story she gave about this case was that she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70 due to her excessive use of multiple substances. She provided this story to newspaper reporter Pat Reese two days after the murders, and repeated it several times to investigators and under oath at the 1979 trial. The landlord, however, has chosen to ignore these pesky details and has embraced selected bits from Stoeckley's various accounts of being inside 544 Castle Drive. Considering that there is not a shred of evidence DEFINITVELY linking her to the crime scene, the landlord offers her confessions and unsourced household debris as proof that she was present at 544 Castle Drive on 2/17/70. Classic weak sauce. https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,485	Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 12:46 AM.

Yesterday, 01:17 AM	#2410
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	Originally Posted by JTF The landlord is the King of Irony, and Helena Stoeckley is one of his main subjects. Stoeckley's drug intake was so prodigious that she died at the age of 30 on her couch as her infant son was crawling around on the floor under his crib. The only consistent story she gave about this case was that she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70 due to her excessive use of multiple substances. https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com Helena Stoeckley was as guilty as hell. She said she couldn't remember to CID agents where she was that night because of drugs. The trouble is those drugs don't cause a loss of memory.. There should have been a first-class trial judge in Nroth Carolina who didn't suffer from an astonishing lack of vision. People used to say on the NacDonald forums that Helena appeared on TV with Detective Beasley shortly before her death and said she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. That may not have gone down too well with the North Carolina judges. There is a fair and just website about all this updated in June 2020: https://patri-x.com/dr-jeffrey-macdo...govt-cover-up/ "Stoeckley died in 1983, post-trial, allegedly of natural causes. She died at home, purportedly of a liver disease and pneumonia, but it was a sudden death, inconsistent with liver disease or pneumonia in a 32 year old person. She was home alone with her baby and it was her custom to seek help when she was ill since she was a very attentive mother to her son. She did not seek help at this time but she had previously expressed to her friend and an investigator that she was ready to tell something that she knew was going to be a “major bombshell” about the MacDonald case. She had hesitated to do so before because she had asked for immunity and it had been denied. (Interestingly, a resident of Stoeckley’s apartment building had seen two clean-cut men in suits who had asked for Stoeckley and hung around for about two days immediately prior to her death. A forensic pathologist was present at her autopsy, and if, in fact, Stoeckley had been the victim of foul play, it was undetectable on autopsy."
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 01:22 AM.

Today, 09:49 AM	#2411
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 3,982	There is a 2020 website by a Fayetteville Observer journalist which basically boils down to the 'profound' fact that some people are convinced MacDonald is guilty and others think he is innocent, and that it was a long time ago. There is an interesting bit on that website in which instructor crime scene investigators now use the MacDonald case as an example of how not to do it. I have mentioned this before now on other MacDonald forums and been told at the time that it doesn't happen. North Carolina judges should have taken this into consideration before they jumped to conclusions about the case: https://stories.usatodaynetwork.com/...donaldmurders/ "The MacDonald case provided a harsh lesson for the military about preservation of crime scenes, said Kelvin Culbreth, a local Cumulus Media radio executive who grew up in Fayetteville. In 1984, Culbreth joined the Army and went to military police school in Alabama. One of the most important jobs of an MP is to preserve a crime scene to protect the evidence for the investigators, Culbreth said. His instructors had a training room modeled after the MacDonald home, he said, and they used the MacDonald case as a scenario and example of what not to do. “There was just so many things, so many things that contaminated that crime scene,” he said."
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 09:50 AM.