The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
Letters to The Editor

The MacDonald Case & Ted Gunderson
Shilling for the Prosecution: Brian's Story

[Editor's Note: The person who represents himself below as "Brian Em" is anxious to engage me in a debate about the Jeffrey MacDonald case. He desired to get my attention by first ridiculing Ted Gunderson and then mocking my articles about the MacDonald case. He wished to provoke me into a reply and did it in the time honored method employed by agent provocateurs-through the use of goading insult. If he merely had an academic interest in the case, he would have addressed me more politely, but instead he chose to behave as a mocking firebrand in order to insure my response and that tells me something. It ought to tell you something as well. "Brian" is not a ordinary reader, in my opinion. He's shilling for those who wish to continue the injustice against and maintain the fraudulent conviction of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. If he was on the level, he would not have misrepresented the facts as copiously and as egregiously as he has done here. He's on a mission of some stripe and perhaps we will discover more about Brian's dedication to proving the prosecution's case all over again-despite the fact that MacDonald was convicted in 1979 and is serving 3 consecutive life terms and no longer has any recourse in appellate courts. Dr. MacDonald has been trying hard to get a DNA analysis to prove his innocence since about 1995, but the prosecution has been also been working hard to thwart his efforts. I wonder why if he is as 'guilty' as strident Brian here contends?..Ken Adachi]
January 14, 2006

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Em" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Subject: The Ted Gunderson Files

I just finished skimming through your page about Gunderson at and have to pick myself up off the floor, I'm laughing so hard. Aren't you embarrassed at all the falsehoods and misrepresentations you have there, when everyone can see the factual documents for themselves that show you're mistaken about so much that you write?

I wonder how much Gunderson paid you to put up this page! What a laugh.

From: "Educate-Yourself" <>
To: "Brian Em" <>
Subject: Re: The Ted Gunderson Files
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:49:37 -0800

Hello Brian,

OK, I' interested in reading what you got. Please send me all the documents that show that I'm mistaken
I'm looking forward to reading them and I greatly appreciate your efforts to enlighten me.

Regards, Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Em" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: The Ted Gunderson Files

Didn't you even see the link I sent you?

Just for starters:

Your page claims that MacDonald was "falsely convicted in 1979..." MacDonald was certainly not "falsely convicted." Where is the proof of that? He has lost all his appeals, he has been to the Supreme Court seven times, and remains in prison, and the records show that he was quite rightly convicted of the horrific crimes of which he was accused.

Your page claims that "The murders were in fact committed by a local drug/satanic group..." In fact, they were not. Not a single shred of conclusive forensic or circumstantial evidence of any kind ever supported MacDonald's stories of "intruders," and the forensic and circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming, with more than 1,100 pieces of evidence presented at trial. The evidence against him (and the lack of any evidence of "intruders") caused the jury to find him guilty of triple homicide in just a short six hours, and the jury's verdict has been upheld time and time again. Besides which, weren't you aware that MacDonald's descriptions matched the New York Four and his own girlfriend Carol Larson and a girl named Sherry and even "intruders" described in the Esquire magazine, as well as several hundred other people? I guess Gunderson didn't want you to know that, eh?

Your page claims that "The Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), however, from the very beginning of its investigation at the crime scene, tried to frame Dr. MacDonald..." Utter and complete nonsense, which you would certainly know had you actually read the records in the case.

Your page claims that "...the same Army CID investigators then launched into a vendetta 're-investigation' of MacDonald,..." More nonsense. The reinvestigation was a reinvestigation of the CID, and as it happened, the evidence that was forthcoming during that very lengthy, very thorough reinvestigation only helped to seal MacDonald's fate even more. No medic or MP or investigator put MacDonald's bloody pajama cuff imprints on the master bedroom sheet, nor did they put his pajama fibers on the murder weapon outside, or put his blood in front of the kitchen sink, or put one of his pajama fibers under his baby daughter's fingernail, nor did any of them put 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes in his pajama top which matched the 21 holes in Colette's chest, nor did any of them force him into repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt.

Your page claims that "...MacDonald was cleared of charges following a four month long military hearing thanks to the oversight of a straight shooting Army review officer by the name of Colonel Warren V. Rock. Rock ruled that the CID charges against MacDonald were 'nor true'." Rock, of course, was not a judge, he was only an investigating officer. He also incorrectly applied an illegal standard in demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless, MacDonald certainly wasn't happy with the outcome of the Article 32. He wanted Rock to declare him "innocent," but Rock, of course, couldn't do that. Today, it's a good guess that MacDonald probably despises Rock, since had Col. Rock found that the charges warranted court-martial, MacDonald would not have been able to be tried again and would be a free man today. So, while not a misstatement of fact, it is somewhat misleading, IMHO, to fail to tell your readers of this.

Your page claims that "Ted Gunderson, with the help of Fayetteville police detective, Prince Beasley, was able to elicit a series of signed confessions ..." You fail to say that the "confessions" were found to be coerced (just check all those missing segments of the tape, the court's discovery that Gunderson was attempting to pull the wool over their eyes, etc.), that Beasley was found to be confabulating, that Beasley seems to have had doubts about Gunderson's tactics, etc. You also fail to inform your readers that Stoeckley recanted, that she admitted that her story of being with Mitchell that night was a fabrication, and that she claimed she had seen MacDonald committing the murders. In short, her "confessions" were worthless.

Your page claims that "Stoeckley revealed not only corroborated details of events that occurred on the night of the murders..." but of course you didn't bother to tell your readers that she was shown the pictures of the crime scene by the defense before she testified, that other details were fed to her by Gunderson and Beasley, and that more than a few of the details she related didn't match MacDonald's story at all.

Your page claims that "...the government, but the government closed their ears to anything Helena Stoeckley had to say." Stoeckley was not only investigated, but she testified at trial, for heavens' in the world do you construe that as the government "closing their ears" to what she had to say??

Your page also claims that "Authors Jerry Potter and Fred Bost finally set the record straight..." which is probably the biggest laugh of all. Anyone who even begins to research the factual records can see in an instant that the book is filled to overflowing with countless misrepresentations, errors, and even outright lies (such as the false reporting of Stombaugh's trial testimony). Just a few examples: Potter and Bost report that wax with a hair embedded in it was found (false; look at the CID records and it's easily seen that this was only described as a "hard yellow substance" and no hair whatsoever is mentioned); that wax was found on the side of the washing machine (false; this was blood); that Helena Stoeckley took 3 polygraph exams in 1980, passed 2 of them and the 3rd test was deemed inconclusive by polygraph examiner Scott Mero (false; Stoeckley actually took 2 polygraph exams, she passed 1 of the exams, and failed the other); that Paul Stombaugh could not point out the 4 blood stains from Colette that continued across a rip on Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top to the jury (false; Stombaugh pointed out the stains several times during his testimony at trial); that Stombaugh asked that the court provide a light box for him, so that he could see the 4 blood stains (false; Bernie Segal was the individual who posed the question of whether Stombaugh would like to use a light box. Stombaugh responded by stating that the use of a light box was up to Segal); that in response to the light box obliterating the 4 blood stains, Stombaugh "sheepishly" told Segal that the blood stains were more visible when he first examined the pajama top in 1971 (false; Stombaugh wasn't "sheepish" about this at all; prior to the light box experiment, Stombaugh stated several times to both Blackburn and Segal, that the stains were more visible in 1971); that Janice Glisson found that the limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5, contained enough distinguishable characterstics for comparison purposes (the truth is that limb hairs, body hairs, and hair fragments do not contain enough distinguishable characterstics for comparisons under a microscope); that the FBI lab notes from the 1978 fiber re-examination were discovered via FOIA in 1989 by Ellen Dannelly and Fred Bost (false; Ted Gunderson discovered those lab notes in 1981 and he did not require an FOIA request to obtain the notes); that multiple witnesses testified at the Article 32 hearing that Jeffrey MacDonald got completely off the gurney prior to being wheeled out of 544 Castle Drive (false; Jeffrey MacDonald is the only individual at the Article 32 hearing who was sure that he got completely off the gurney. MacDonald also claimed that he backed into Kimberly's room which, by itself, would make Ray Shedlick's gurney theory a work of fiction); that MacDonald agreed to take a CID polygraph exam after the April 6, 1970 interview, and that he subsequently left the CID offices and met with Captain Jim Williams. Williams told MacDonald that he was foolish to trust the CID, so MacDonald called the CID to let them know he wasn't going to take the polygraph (the truth is that MacDonald spoke to Franz Grebner over the phone a mere 10 minutes after leaving the CID offices, making it impossible for MacDonald to drive to his residence, and speak at length with Williams about his experiences during the CID interview. It is more likely that the conversation took place during the interview's break when MacDonald left the CID offices for 90 minutes. MacDonald was supposed to have only taken a coffee break within the confines of the CID office during this time frame).

The things listed above are only the tip of the iceberg. Potter and Bost had no idea at all that the factual records would end up online for everyone to see, so they attempted to pull the wool over the readers' eyes, the same way your page does IMHO. If the items listed above are not enough for you, here are just a couple more links, showing all the many, many other things in FJ that readers have found to be false or misrepresented. There are even
more, but this should be enough to get you started:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Educate-Yourself" <>
To: "Brian Em" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: The Ted Gunderson Files

Hello Brian,

Wow, well you might succeed in swaying unknowledgeable people with such bluster and strident bravado, but bluster doesn't turn lies into truth, no matter how many specious paragraphs you might write.

You do NOT know the facts my friend and you obviously don't want to know the facts. You are much more committed to assigning guilt to MacDonald than any casual reader and you'll reach into any grab bag of prevarication that will suit your need to slander MacDonald.

You are on a mission, pal.

Every paragraph you write here is either patently false or perversely twisted from the reality of what actually took place in the circumstances you cite. You are a remarkable conjurer. I did read the court transcripts Brian, and much more closely than you because your statements are nothing more than tripe and full of errors.

Potter and Bost's book is a testament to honest research and true detective work that took TEN YEARS TO COMPLETE while the McGinniss book is a novel from cover to cover and that's why ole Joe had to fork over $325K after the 1986 trail when McDonald's sued him for fraud. MacDonald's team established clear and undeniable fraud, similar to the fraudulent allegations you make here.

You are full of beans Brian.

You picked the wrong guy to try to bowl over with bluster.

"Not a single shred ..." " Enough to get me started." Who do you think you're fooling?

You quote Esquire magazine as if it's a reliable source of information! Give me a break. What a total gas bag you are.

I'll save your little propaganda effort here and post it (and take it apart) when I have the time to attend to such an insipid mockery of the facts.

Sincerely, Ken Adachi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Em" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: The Ted Gunderson Files

Sorry, but the actual court documents and trial transcripts and letters from Stoeckley and many, many other documents are online (much to the chagrin of yourself and Bost and MacDonald himself, who is absolutely livid as I understand it that the actual documents are there for everyone to see; he never thought that would ever happen! heehee). You can knock yourself out claiming that they're false, but of course no one who has seen them would believe you. It also didn't escape my notice that you weren't able to refute anything I wrote, you only took the tired old defense tactic of denying it, but could of course point to no factual records to back yourself up.

I guess you didn't realize that FJ was "outed" a couple of years or so ago when the actual documents became available to the general public, and it's now known by countless people as a book so "well-researched" that it contains errors on virtually every page, not to mention outright false reporting of testimony, etc. P&B were apparently so afraid of learning the truth that they didn't even bother to interview the lead reinvestigator, Peter Kearns, who lived only a few miles away. Ultimately, MacDonald was proven to be a liar, not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence has ever surfaced to support his ludicrous stories of "intruders," MacDonald himself repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes, and your hero Ted Gunderson is now considered by many to be a joke who long ago lost any credibility he might ever have had.

As for your own reputation, a couple of months ago someone put up an excerpt from you on one of the major message boards and you should have seen the laughter and derision that resulted; that's where I learned that apparently you were known as a "conspiracy lunatic" long before I ever even knew who you were.

Bottom line is that you can try to fool the ignorant, but you'll never be able to fool anyone who's seen the factual records, no matter how hard you may flame away.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Educate-Yourself" <>
To: "Brian Em" <>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: The Ted Gunderson Files

Dear Brian,

"MacDonald himself, who is absolutely livid as I understand it..."

Please Brian, don't flatter yourself.

Dr. MacDonald has been screwed and betrayed to the hilt by professionals. Embedded, pipsqueak debunkers like you or Masewicz are taken no more seriously than flies circling horse manure. You are of little consequence. .

Your phoniness, your duplicity,. and your fronting for those involved in railroading Dr. MacDonald will be revealed in due course. Your preference for ad homenum attack reveals your susceptibility to ego-driven insult, but I'm afraid that I'm not at all bothered or angered by such tactics.

The documents you refer to have been on line long before you showed up on the scene and started your debunking website against Jeffrey MacDonald. You bait me with your mocking e-mail to engage me, but you were already well prepared to present your BS-weren't you? You came loaded for bear and took my initial response as an opportunity disgorge yourself of you well rehearsed "facts" surrounding the MacDonald case. Did you get your coaching from Ivory or Kearns or Blackburn by any chance? You seem to reflect a similar histrionic flare for bravado and bluster. Well, it doesn't matter. I will answer your duplicitous assertions when I have the time to give it the attention it deserves. You've spent considerable effort in cooking up your version of the "facts" (or did you have some help?), so I wouldn't dream of responding in an offhand fashion to such a well rehearsed play.

I won't begin to respond to your statements here because I wish to rebut your allegations properly, but your use of words like "outing" when referring to Fatal Justice is simply laughable. You really must be a pip to live with.

Until we meet again in print, please give my best to Colleen. I can only hope that she is not as crass and craven a phony as yourself.

Sincerely, Ken


© Copyright 2006  All Rights Reserved.


Free Newsletter

Email Address:

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

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.