Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald "Conclusions": A Few Comments from the Cowardly Lion (aka, Steve Gilbert)

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/macdonaldconclusions22mar01.shtml
March 22, 2010

Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald "Conclusions": A Few Comments from the Cowardly Lion (aka, Steve Gilbert)  March 22, 2010

Subject: conclusions
From: svg2253@aol.com
Date: Mon, March 22, 2010
To: Ken Adachi

Your write up contains many of the judgements about MacDonald's conviction. First, to be accurate, an article 32 does NOT exonerate anyone... it is similar to a grand jury that decides if enough evidence exists to try the person.... there is no guilt or innocence involved. So MacDonald was never exonerated. Secondly, it would have taken my co-agents a lot more work to put together a massive conspiracy in which no one ever talks to convict someone for absolutely no reason. It would have been easier to find the real killers if they existed. You are allowed your opinion, but at least be accurate when you attack those who were there.

***

Dear "Dr. G",

You like to pontificate, don't you Steve?

After all, you possess a "Bachelor of Technology in Criminal Investigations" degree from the state university of New York at Canton and that must make you a genuine EXPERT in all things involving the criminal/justice system (both military and civilian, I might add). It probably annoyed you that I used the expression "exonerate" in reference to Dr Jeffrey MacDonald's exoneration at the Army's Article 32 hearing in the late Summer and early Fall of 1970 on Fort Bragg, North Carolina. However, as long as Webster's Dictionary continues to define the word "exonerate" to mean

"1: To relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship.2: To clear from accusation or blame" ,

I think it's OK that I used that expression to characterize the conclusion arrived at by the person assigned by the Army to be in charge of that Article 32 hearing, Colonel Warren V. Rock ( a 30 year Army professional), when he pronounced at the end of that three month Army hearing-that ALL of the charges against Dr. MacDonald "were not true". In fact, I can't think of a more accurate expression to describe Colonel Rock's conclusion about the outrageous and egregious injustice inflicted upon Jeffrey MacDonald by the CORRUPT investigators within the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID) who attempted to frame MacDonald for the murders.

The Article 32 event was a military HEARING. It's analogous to a trial in that there was a prosecution team and a defense team presenting both sides of the argument, which is completely different from a CIVILIAN grand jury which only presents allegations from the prosecutor's side in order to bring an indictment. . .

I'm quite sure that if YOU were falsely accused of murdering your wife and two small daughters within a few months of having survived that bloody massacre on the night of February 17, 1970, you too would embrace the term "exonerate" as the appropriate word to use to describe your release from that accusation.

"Secondly", if your "co-agents"' are as stupid, uninformed, and self-assured as you are, I'm SURE that they could not discover a "a massive conspiracy in which no one ever talks to convict someone for absolutely no reason", because 'stupid people do as stupid people does'

It's so easy to throw poison darts from the sidelines, isn't it Steve? Anonymity is such a wonderful thing, if you can get away with it of course.

Whenever you find your balls, Steve, and can work up the courage to actually sign your e-mail before you send it-as it is CLEARLY stated and DEMANDED on the Contact page- I'll consider responding to your crushing ignorance (assuming you have something intelligent to say). .

In the meantime, maybe you could hire Don Nicoloff to be one of your vaunted "co-agents" in your airy-fairy world of  "criminal investigations"? It took him exactly 65 seconds to dig up your name, address, academic background, and photo after I gave him your e-mail address (normally it takes him about 45 seconds, but he had been awake for over 50 hours, so we'll cut him a little slack)

Sincerely, Ken Adachi

PS. Anyone interested in hiring Steve Gilbert and his crack team of "co-agents" can reach him care of: :

One Cornel Drive
Canton, NY 13617

e-mail: svg2253@aol.com
Tel. (315) 386-7922

PPS. note that undercover work is Steve's specialty

***

----- Original Message -----
From: SVG2253@aol.com
To: pitari@peoplepc.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Subject: Re: conclusions

Ken, you're quite the investigator..but wrong again.... I do not possess that degree, I have my doctorate and my masters is in forensic science. Good thing YOU did not investigate the crime, eh? Talk about not being correct about conclusions. I will not engage you in the immature rant you provided to me since it is based upon ignorance of many facts. MacDonald was not exonerated since there is no guilt associated with grand juries; you need to understand the system before quoting a dictionary.

Dr. G

***

Dear "Dr G",

Well, , now I'm even more impressed, a doctorate!

I presume you had to obtain the bachelor degree from Canton before you were eligible for the masters or doctorate, but perhaps I quibble over minutia.

I allow my readers to read your words and judge their sincerity and accuracy (and screwiness!).

There's another "doctor", railroaded and framed, who's been sitting in prison for 31 years for a crime he never committed. He can't whip out an e-mail response or even peruse the Internet from the comfort of his home, but he knows what many other intelligent (and REAL) investigators such as Ted Gunderson or Fred Bost know : he's innocent

Sayonara, Ken Adachi

***

----- Original Message -----
From: SVG2253@aol.com
To: pitari@peoplepc.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Subject: Re: conclusions

Geeze Ken, read.... I said I do not have that degree from Canton..... I taught that degree.. read my email. Gunderson and Bost do bring up many valid points about the case. And my co-agents admit to these issues. However, negative evidence that they mention does not necessarily disprove the charges. They may produce reasonable doubt, but that's about it. In this case, the jury decided and the appellate courts upheld. MacDonald's biggest error was trying to arrogantly testify in his own defense and failed to explain many issues about the scene. As a defendant, he does not have to explain anything...unless he waives that right and takes the stand. I have conducted many death investigations and other crimes, and it is very common that extraneous unexplained "evidence" is found. I have also been in many staged scenes. I would not presume to attack someone who was a subject matter expert unless I had "been there." In this case, Bernie Siegel made the decisions about the defense and, in my opinion, did a poor job.

***

Dr G,

OK, I'll take your word for it, but you didn't make it clear in your previous e-mail. You also didn't say that you taught the degree.

Concerting your statements about the case, you're shooting from the hip. Any intelligent person who studies this case carefully, and takes the necessary amount of time required to read all the transcripts and above all the thorough investigative work of Ted Gunderson, Jerry Potter, Fred Bost, Prince Beasley, Ray Shedlick, Jr., and others, can easily see the prosecutorial malfeasance and the CID/FBI/ and police collusion in railroading MacDonald. It's not ambiguous, it's not shadowy; and it's not a "possibility": It's crystal CLEAR. You also fail to mention that there were THREE people (Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, and Cathy Perry) who CONFESSED and ADMITTED to participation in the murders. Helena Stoeckley told Prince Beasley on the night of February 18, 1970, less than 24 hours after the murders, that she was there!

You can't argue the facts of this case because you don't KNOW the facts of this case. Unfortunately for you, I do.

Ken

---

© Copyright 2010 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.