Subject: MacDonald case discrepancies
From: dgarts@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, January 29, 2011
To: Ken Adachi
Hello Mr. Adachi,
I appreciate your efforts to pursue truth with respect to "what really happened".
Neither of us "were there", so what we have are whatever we may understand to be the"facts" of the case, and our own interpretative methods. As such, I'm not in a
position to say forthwith that I am right or you are wrong or vice versa.
However, I'd be most interested in your fielding a few questions of mine, if you
could. These are not a rehash of discussions "out there", but my own personal gaps
for which I've searched (perhaps not enough, the answers might be out there) but to
date have not found the answers.
First, it has always intrigued me that Mr. MacDonald said he "brought her back",
referring to Kristen his youngest daughter, after she allegedly had wet his side of
the bed. But he didn't change her.
I'm a father, and that just does not make sense in my mind at all. No matter how
upset a caring parent might be with a 2 year old, that parent would still feed,
shelter, bathe, protect, care for his child.
So, my first question is, how did, does, or would Mr. MacDonald, or you, explain
this in a way that demonstrates his care for his child?
Beyond this, the physical evidence demonstrates that urine on his side of his bed
was not that of his youngest daughter, but in fact was of his 5 year old, Kimberley.
My second question is, how did, does, or would Mr. MacDonald, or you, explain why
he'd say the pee was from Kristen when in fact it was from Kimberley?
With respect to the wounds of the murder victims, Colette was stabbed some 37 times,
Kristen stabbed 47 times, allegedly by a group of drug-crazed satanic hippies...yet
Mr. MacDonald himself, the person who allegedly was the target of vengeance, is left
relatively unscathed and very much alive. How did this drug-crazed hippie gang
gather the self-control to stop short of their primary target, Mr. MacDonald
himself, after such atrocity inflicted upon his family?
The forensic evidence appears to support a sequence of events that shows Kristen was
killed last, while Kimberley and Colette were attacked in the same room (Kimberley,
thus, was the one victim who was not found where she was attacked, but her body was
moved after she had been attacked).
One theory suggests that Kimberley was in her parents' room with her father who was
doing something ill-appropriate with her. Colette happened upon them, threatened to
expose Jeffrey, sending him into a blind rage and lashing out to protect his image;
upon killing Colette and Kimberley, he fashioned the story and completed the
gruesome act by eliminating his two year old before calling the authorities in a
peculiar order - ambulance last, and using the very detached strange language of
telling the emergency personnel on the phone that "some people" had been
stabbed...not "my family", or "my wife", or "my children"...but "some people."
This theory explains why he didn't change Kristen. She had not peed the bed, there
was no need to change her. It explains why Kimberley was not found where she was
attacked - it put the truth of the matter to close to the centre of attention. The
spark that set the whole sequence of actions in motion was his molesting his
daughter and his wife finding them and threatening him. To leave a crime scene that
pointed away from ever approaching this truth, he physically removes Kimberley from
the scene where it all started.
It also may be able to explain why Kimberley received the least number of stab
wounds - Colette and Kristen represented a threat to his image, witnesses to his
perverse attraction to his daughter Kimberley, an attraction which ultimately
reduced the level of violence towards her.
Curiously, in his statement to investigators, he referred to the intruders in his
home as "people", but referred to the emergency phone operator as "asshole" -
strangers in his house on a mad killing spree upon defenseless females in his family
were "people" yet a phone attendant trying to provide help is the "asshole"...?
Of course, I have a plethora of other questions, but I'll stop here for now. If you
are willing to engage at least the above, I'll appreciate it and we can decide to
what extent to continue the discussion further.
Regards,
D. Garts
dgarts@yahoo.com
**
Dear Mr. D. Garts,
I'll respond to your questions this time because Jeff MacDonald, whose life has been destroyed by a corrupt legal system, is an innocent man who deserves to be defended, and since he's not in a position to do it himself, I'll defend him against your accusations and presumptions. Judging from the tenor of your questions, it seems to me that you're already firmly convinced of Jeff's guilt. Your bias against Jeff MacDonald is immediately apparent when you refer to him as "Mr." MacDonald instead of his rightful title which is Dr. MacDonald, MD.
Obviously, you wish to have a debate with me. This is a parlor game for you. But I don't have the time or interest in debating with yet another armchair MacDonald inquisitor because your mind is already made up and nothing I say will change it. I will never understand how people like yourself can conclude that a gentle, caring, and loving physician and father would inexplicably and savagely slaughter his wife and two young daughters one night based on the insignificant, trivial, and uncorroborated minutia 'evidence' with which you frame these questions. There is apparently a certain segment of the American population which lacks a gene responsible for engendering common sense.
Do you realize what sort of sociopathic, psychotic, and immoral personality it would take to viciously murder a young wife and two young children out of the blue? People who behave in a normal, sane, moral, and rational way ALL OF THEIR LIFE do not--and CANNOT--suddenly turn into Jack the Ripper at the drop of a hat. Common sense SHOULD TELL YOU THAT.
Why do you assign so much importance to trivial minutia about pee when the larger weight of the lack of REASONABLENESS of the prosecution's fantastical assertions should be uppermost in your mind? It takes a great deal of ACQUIRED indifference to the value of human life, coupled with a LIFETIME of abuse and abusing in order to produce a personality that is WILLING to snuff out innocent life, especially of one's own family, with such viciousness. Have you become so bewitched by the ludicrous fantasies routinely employed these days in movies and television dramas in which we see a 115 pound waif of a woman throw around and pummel a 280 pound mafia goon with Karate chops and JuJitsu flips, and behave as if this is believable and reasonable?
I answer your questions as presented. In some cases, I'll group a few question together with a single reply.
Q1. "Beyond this, the physical evidence demonstrates that urine on his side of his bed
was not that of his youngest daughter, but in fact was of his 5 year old, Kimberley.
My second question is, how did, does, or would Mr. MacDonald, or you, explain why
he'd say the pee was from Kristen when in fact it was from Kimberley?"
Reply: Whatever urine the corrupt Army CID claimed was found in the master bedroom and where it was found is utterly irrelevant in assigning guilt to MacDonald for the murders. Before a doped-up Greg Mitchell entered the MacDonald bedroom to stab Colette and her kids to death, I have to assume that the only urine stain to be found would be in the bed where the youngest had wet the bed while falling asleep with her mother. After Greg and his pals began butchering the mother and the children, it's not uncommon for victims of deadly assault to release urine and feces when confronted with the terror of being murdered in their own bedroom. It's of NO IMPORTANCE if Dr MacDonald couldn't get the right location for Kristen or Kimberley's urine in the bedroom. It's likely that all three murder victims released their urine into the bedroom that night. The man underwent the most horrific and traumatizing experience that any human being could possibly endure, and you think it's significant and relevant that he couldn't match the urine stains to the right child! What the hell is WRONG WITH YOU!
Q2. "With respect to the wounds of the murder victims, Colette was stabbed some 37 times,
Kristen stabbed 47 times, allegedly by a group of drug-crazed satanic hippies...yet
Mr. MacDonald himself, the person who allegedly was the target of vengeance, is left
relatively unscathed and very much alive. How did this drug-crazed hippie gang
gather the self-control to stop short of their primary target, Mr. MacDonald
himself, after such atrocity inflicted upon his family?"
Reply: This question tells me that you really are a hip-shooting knucklehead, who doesn't know squat about the facts of this case, although you like to think you do, based on quoting how many stab wounds this one or that one received.
MacDonald "is left
relatively unscathed." Right. You really know your stuff, don't you? MacDonald was repeatedly beaten with a baseball bat, stabbed 17 times and left unconscious by the "allegedly... drug-crazed satanic hippies." He was taken to Womack Army hospital about 6:30 AM and wheeled into the operating room for 5 hours of surgery to repair the stab wound which had punctured his right lung and caused it to collapse. Yea, "relatively unscathed".
Q3. "The forensic evidence appears to support a sequence of events that shows Kristen was
killed last, while Kimberley and Colette were attacked in the same room (Kimberley,
thus, was the one victim who was not found where she was attacked, but her body was
moved after she had been attacked)."
Reply: I don't know what the Army or the prosecution claimed was the order of who got murdered, but I do know that both the Army and the prosecution at the 1979 trail simply concocted a fantasy murder scenario with equally concocted "circumstantial evidence" buttressed by "expert" testimony from Army-hired hacks who simply made stuff up and presented it as "scientific facts" such as the overlapping stab wound holes in the pajama top. Utter rubbish fabricated by an utterly corrupt prosecution team of Murtaugh and Blackburn and their corrupt minions.
Q4. "One theory suggests that Kimberley was in her parents' room with her father who was
doing something ill-appropriate with her. Colette happened upon them, threatened to
expose Jeffrey, sending him into a blind rage and lashing out to protect his image;
upon killing Colette and Kimberley, he fashioned the story and completed the
gruesome act by eliminating his two year old before calling the authorities in a
peculiar order - ambulance last, and using the very detached strange language of
telling the emergency personnel on the phone that "some people" had been
stabbed...not "my family", or "my wife", or "my children"...but "some people.
This theory explains why he didn't change Kristen. She had not peed the bed, there
was no need to change her. It explains why Kimberley was not found where she was
attacked - it put the truth of the matter to close to the centre of attention. The
spark that set the whole sequence of actions in motion was his molesting his
daughter and his wife finding them and threatening him. To leave a crime scene that
pointed away from ever approaching this truth, he physically removes Kimberley from
the scene where it all started.
It also may be able to explain why Kimberley received the least number of stab
wounds - Colette and Kristen represented a threat to his image, witnesses to his
perverse attraction to his daughter Kimberley, an attraction which ultimately
reduced the level of violence towards her."
Reply: Oh man, why did I even bother to start typing a reply to you? Are you a TOTAL moron or what? Whose "theory" are you referring to? One of slime ball Joe McGinniss' theories? Or maybe one of Murtaugh's and Blackburn's "theories"? Or was it one of Bill Ivory or Peter Kearns' "theories"? I can only HOPE that someday YOU, my friend, will be on the receiving end of someone's "theory" about YOU abusing your kids sexually and see how it feels to have your honor assassinated in this contemptible and vile way. I can only hope; I surely do. .
Q5. "Curiously, in his statement to investigators, he referred to the intruders in his
home as "people", but referred to the emergency phone operator as "asshole" -
strangers in his house on a mad killing spree upon defenseless females in his family
were "people" yet a phone attendant trying to provide help is the "asshole"...?"
Reply: Yea, really significant and important. What a tower of intellect and insight you possess. No wonder you pegged MacDonald as guilty. I can see now you have the clever eye about you. Bravo. Ever thought of getting a law degree and becoming a prosecutor? Seems like a marriage made in heaven.
Q6. "Of course, I have a plethora of other questions, but I'll stop here for now. If you
are willing to engage at least the above, I'll appreciate it and we can decide to
what extent to continue the discussion further."
Reply: Yea, I think we'll stop here. I don't think I can handle any more of these brutal questions. You're way too much for me. I'm clearly out of my league.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.