March 12, 2009
Jeffrey MacDonald (Mar. 12, 2009)
Subject: Jeffrey MacDonald
Date: Mon, March 9, 2009
To: Ken Adachi
I read everything on your sight regarding the Macdonald case. I have also read Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice. I am currently reading Scales of
Justice. I would really like to believe that MacDonald is innocent. How horrible to think of two little girls knowing that their own father is murdering
them. Sad. The thing that keeps me from fully believing in his innocence is the blood evidence. The fact that the family all had different blood types and that the trail of blood tells a story. How do you explain this?
If you want to have an intelligent debate or conversation concerning the facts of the MacDonald case, then the first thing you have to do is to present a very SPECIFIC QUESTION OR STATEMENT INSTEAD OF THIS VAGUE MUSH:
"The thing that keeps me from fully believing in his innocence is the blood evidence. The fact that the family all had different blood types and that the trail of blood tells a story. How do you explain this?"
BE SPECIFIC, ok?
I await your response.
Mar 10, 2009
Ok, to be more specific, why is there a trail of blood that tells the story of a man bleeding in many different spots in his small apartment, places he states he was not in? Why is his wife's blood in the child's bed? Why is there evidence that the bodies had been moved? Why did he lie about which child wet the bed? I doubt drugged up hippies would move bodies. This is a start.
March 11, 2009,
OK, it's a start. We've at least moved from 100% mush to oatmeal with a few raisins on top. Bravo, a huge leap in concentrative effort I'm sure.
Now, can you take it to the next level and tell me from where in the 1979 court transcripts or from MacDonald's depositions or from the Army hearing records that:
1. MacDonald says he not in such and such location in his apartment and yet there was a "trail of blood" (whose blood? Jeffrey's?) to such and such location and how this makes MacDonald guilty of murder of his wife and kids?
2. Point to which court record shows that MacDonald "lied" about which child wetted the bed? That's a new one for me. I never heard that one before.
3. You doubt that "drugged up hippies" would move bodies? Is that part of your belief system that has convicted MacDonald in your mind? Are you a student on the conduct of revenge-minded "drugged up hippies" when they are members of a satanic coven in the midst of a frenzied murder scene?
4. "Why is his wife's blood in the child's bed"? You'll have to tell me the source of this statement, but assuming it's correct, then is it at least possible that Greg Mitchell, the man who later admitted to a couple who had taken him in (before he died) that it was HE who had stabbed MacDonald's wife to death and had likely participated in the butchering of the children as well, that he might have carried the wife's blood to the children's bed?
And since Macdonald had recovered consciousness once or twice after the killers had left, and had attempted to revive his wife and attend to his kids to see if they were still breathing, is it just POSSIBLE that's why the wife's blood was found on the kid's bed-assuming that MacDonald was the one who carried it there?
Your turn Mrs Holmes.
Mar 12, 2009
Omg, I really don't understand why you have to be so rude and insulting. You are the one that puts your ideas and opinions on the web for all to see. I am simply asking you to inform me. I am not saying anything is right or wrong. I am asking to be INFORMED. You don't seem to understand that questions are not attacks.
I got my information from various internet sights and from the books that I read. Macdonald stated Kristy was the child in the bed, but the DNA showed that it was actually Kimberly. This is according to websites. I am not saying this is true. This is why I wrote to you, so you could educate me.
No, I really am not an expert on drugged out hippie cults that are a part of satanic covens, if such a thing even exists. I am simply a small town high school English teacher. The fact that I am not and expert, is again the reason I wrote to YOU.
You don't seem to realize that you had already arrived at the conclusion that MacDonald was guilty for "reasons" that lacked both substance and factual basis. When I asked you to state concrete facts - drawn from the official record on the case- in order to both clarify and support your allegations, you can't do it. How would YOU like to have your freedom hanging in the balance based on the "judgment" of someone who is as uninformed of the facts in this case as you are?
An innocent man has been sitting in prison for 30 years, the most productive years of his adult life, because people on a Raleigh, North Carolina jury in 1979, demonstrated about the same level of acumen and judgmental capacity to separate the wheat from the chaff as you have shown in these e-mails.
You CANNOT accuse a man of being guilty of MURDER unless you possess UNIMPEACHABLE FACTS that THOROUGHLY support that conclusion of guilt. If you were merely looking to be INFORMED, then you should have only asked questions and not LED with you conclusion of guilt.
My response to you is entirely predicated on how you present yourself to me. You told me that you had read both Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice. HOW can you read Fatal Justice from cover to cover and come away convinced that MacDonald was guilty of those murders? That's NOT possible! You're an English teacher for Pete's sake.
No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying that. You may have skimmed it; you may have thumbed through it; and you may have even perused it, but you certainly didn't READ it, not with your brain switch turned to the "on" position!
It's not possible to be an accredited English teacher and tell me you read that book and remain convinced that MacDonald is guilty. Fatal Justice OBLITERATED every single lie lied down by the CID, the FBI, the Justice Department, convicted embezzler James Blackburn and the Prince of Darkness himself, Brian Murtagh.
I can't be warm and fuzzy with people who are as cavalier with the facts as you have presented here. I may have been sharp with you, but I have little patience with people who tell me MacDonald is guilty, but can't produce any substantive facts to support that judgment.
If you still want to intelligently discuss the case, then acquire some solid facts first and write again.
© Copyright 2009 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.
|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.|