Criminology - Jeffrey MacDonald Part 2

Episode Date: June 22, 2019

In this episode, we are covering part 2 of the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case involving his wife and two daughters. The murders occurred in 1970 while Jeffrey and his family were stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. MacDonald has always maintained his innocence and has asserted that hippies broke in and murdered his family. Join Mike and Morf as they put the wrap on this infamous American murder case. It took prosecutors quite some time to finally convict Jeffrey MacDonald for the murders. Were they correct? What does some of the physical evidence say to his guilt or innocence?  You can help support the show at patreon.com/criminology An Emash Digital production Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Criminology is a true crime podcast that may contain discussion about violent or disturbing topics. Listener discretion is advised. I'd like to welcome everyone to episode 66 of criminology. I'm Mike Ferguson. And this is Mike Morford. Mr. Morford, how are you today? I'm doing good. I'm excited about this second episode of the McDonald case.

This is a big one that people have been talking about. So I'm ready to get into it. Yeah, I am too. And I agree with you on social media. This has been a case that a lot of people have been talking about. I don't think there's any doubt, right? This is a fascinating case in the world of true crime to a lot of people. And to us included, it's why we wanted to do it.

Now, you and I are back home after CrimeCon. I was sick last week. I barely made it through that episode. And my throat is still not great, man. I don't know what I picked up either on. the plane or at crime con, but it is lingering with me, like nobody's business. Yeah, your voice was was barely, barely hanging in there for the rest of that last episode and hopefully you make it through this one.

Yeah, I think it's, it is better today, but, you know, we're talking almost a, you know, a full week home and, and it's still not back to normal. So we'll see. But we have some Patreon shoutouts. So I, let's give those. we had Sam Scrivani, Alichel Sarby Hazel, Sierra, Becky Schmidt, Teresa Ward, Sharon Chow Silver, Victoria Moore, and Charlene Deskins. So obviously, more if that's amazing support, you and I say it all the time.

We're blown away, right? When people make the decision that we love what you're doing, we're getting it for free, but, you know, here, we're willing to help you out a little bit. It's unbelievable. Yeah, every week you read those names off and I keep getting blown away each week by how many people are supporting the show. That means a lot. So thank you. And if you'd like to help support the show on Patreon, you can by going to patreon.

com slash criminology. All right, brother. Are you ready to jump into this second parter on the McDonald family murders case? I'm ready to do it. Let's go. I think let's start out by quickly recapping part one, right? It was the early morning hours of February 17th, 1970, 25-year-old Colette McDonald, pregnant with her third child, and her two daughters, five-year-old Kimberly,

two-year-old Kristen were brutally murdered in their home on the Army military base, Fort Bragg, in North Carolina. Calette's husband, Jeffrey McDonald, was injured in the attack. He was home, right, at the time that the attack happened, later was arrested in charge with their murders on May 1st, 197. They had an article 32 hearing that took place from July to September of that year, and it showed no evidence supporting Jeffrey McDonald's role in his. families murders. So the charges against him were dropped in October of 1970. But then you have

Colette's stepfather, a man by the name of Freddie Kasab. After the charges were dropped against Jeffrey McDonald, which was his son-in-law, Freddie Kasab spent the next few years determined to get Jeffrey McDonald prosecuted for the murders. CID agent, P.I.D. Agent Pee. Peter Cairns and Colonel Jack Pruitt led a CID reinvestigation into the murders that lasted until 1972. In June of that year, Kern submitted a 10,000-page report along with the film he narrated and produced on the case. In early 1975, a grand jury indicted Jeffrey McDonald on murder charges, and he pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in May of that year. Additionally, Judge Franklin Dupree denied the double jeopardy in speedy trial arguments and set a trial date for August. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial, and on January 23,

1976, it dismissed murder charges against Jeffrey McDonald. The Fourth Circuit ruled two to one that the delay of more than four and a half years from the time Jeffrey McDonald was accused of the Army of killing his family until his federal court indictment violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, in May 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and reinstated the indictments. In 1979, Jeffrey McDonald was the director of emergency surgery at St. Mary Hospital in Long Beach, California. His defense attorney, Bernard Siegel, was teaching law at Golden State University in San Francisco. But he continued to represent McDonald. On advice from Siegel, Jeffrey stopped commenting on the case to the media,

which more if I think you would probably agree in a lot of instances is very good advice and specifically in the case of Jeffrey McDonald. Yeah, I think that's sound advice that most any attorney in that position would recommend to their client. So you have the trial of Jeffrey McDonald in the murders of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen that began on July 19, 1979. Judge Franklin Dupree presided over the trial. An assistant U.S. attorney by the name of Jim Blackburn was the prosecutor, and this was his very first murder trial. He was assisted by a prosecutor named Brian Murtaugh.

Jeffrey McDonald's attorneys were, again, Bernard Siegel, and this time Wade Smith. Blackburn and Smith gave the opening statements. Blackburn told the jury that Dr. Jeffrey McDonald had, quote, in cold blood, destroyed his family. The defendant had murdered Colette by striking her with a club and stabbing her. He further stated that Kimberly McDonald was stabbed and stabbed and stabbed to death by her father. In his opening statement, defense attorney Wade Smith recounted the events of February 17, 1970, as told to military investigators by Jeffrey McDonald.

Two young white men, a young black man, and a woman wearing a blonde wig and floppy hat, Channing, acid is groovy, kill the pigs, entered the McDonald apartment and attacked Jeffrey McDonald on the living room couch. They then proceeded to the bedrooms were Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen Slash. left. Smith called the events of the evening an unbelievable, unspeakable tragedy and said the defense would bring forth a neighbor of the McDonald's who saw three people in the vicinity of the house that night. The neighbor did not come forward at the time of the murders. The first witnesses to testify were former MPs, Richard Tavir of Mount Vernon, New York, and Ken Micah of Long Island, New York. Tavir was stationed at Fort Bragg from December 68 to August 1970.

Micah was stationed there from December 68 to May of 1971. Tavir said that he thought he was responding to a domestic disturbance at 544 Castle Drive. Micah, who was in a separate military vehicle, recalled seeing a woman standing in the rain at the corner of Honeycutt Road in South Lucas. This is about a half mile from the McDonald apartment. He witnessed this as he was driving on his way to 544 Castle Drive. And as we did in the first episode, we want to detail some of the court transcript here.

Only this time, we're going to do it a little bit differently. I'm going to read the questions as prosecutor Blackburn and more answer as the witness. In this case, Ken Micah. Where was this girl standing when you saw her? She was standing off on the side of the road. I would say 10 or 12 feet, possibly more off the corner. Approximately how far from where she was were you when you saw her if you could guess? I don't recall. Was it raining at that time? I believe it had just stopped raining just prior to that. Was your window up or down? Jeeps don't have windows.

They have a canvas side curtain with heavy plastic. Can you describe this girl that you saw for us? To the best of my recollection, she had on a dark colored raincoat and what appeared to be a type of a dark colored rain hat, and I believe I could see part of her legs below the raincoat. What boots, if any, did she have on? I don't recall seeing boots. What color was her hair? if you know. I don't know, sir. Can you describe the hat that she had on? As I recall, sir,

the hat was sort of a wide, like a rain type hat that the women wear. I don't know what it's called. Was it a light or dark hat? Or do you recall? It was dark. I believe it matched her raincoat. When you saw this girl, was the Jeep going forward or had it stopped at the intersection? As we approached the intersection, again, I don't know the distance, but she caught my eye. We came to a slow stop and continued through. How was your Jeep marked? Was it marked in any way? Right across the front window under the windshield, there's a white sign with black letters approximately, I would say, five or six inches high that state military police.

It has a red light mounted on the fender. It had a round plaque on the back that also said military police. Was the light on or off, the red light? I would believe it would have been on. Did you have an occasion to observe this entire intersection? Yes, sir. Would you describe to the jury what is located there or what was located there in 1970? Yes, sir.

On the corner where I saw this girl, there is a gas station, directly across the street is a small shopping center, a PX type. And then on the opposite side is the crowsy. Rigida Courts housing area. One month later, on August 17th, 1970, Helena Stokely took the stand. She testified that she could not account for her actions between midnight and 4 a.m. on February 17th, 1970. But she denied participating in the murders.

The last thing she recalled that night was taking a tablet of mescaline. a hallucinogen from a young soldier. She also acknowledged that she owned a floppy hat, a blonde wig, and boots similar to those that Jeffrey McDonald described to investigators. So once again, we're going back to the transcripts. I'll be asking the questions as they were asked by defense attorney Bernie Siegel. Morph will be replying as Helena Stokely. Let me ask you, how long did you continue to own the floppy hat after February 17th,

1970? Maybe six or seven months and it was stolen and I got another one. You say six or seven months and then it was stolen. I started to wear it less and less frequently. You started to wear it less and less frequently after February 17th, 1970. Yes, sir. And for what reason was that? Because of the connection that people were coming up to me and assuming that since I wore the floppy hat, I was a girl in question and I stopped wearing the hat.

What about your blonde wig? Did you wear that very much after February 17th, 1970? Not at all. I got rid of it. What's that? I got rid of the blonde wig. You got rid of the blonde wig. What date did you get rid of the blonde wig? 19th or 20th, somewhere around there. 19th or 20th of February, 1970. Is that right? Yes. It is fair to say you got rid of it again because it connected you possibly with the McDonald murders. Yes. And it was at this point that the prosecution objected and probably

rightfully so, the defense is going down a path with Helena Stokely about the hat, about the wig, essentially making it seem as though she got rid of it after the night of the murders because she was involved. The prosecution didn't like that. They didn't like the way that the questions were being asked. They objected. The court sustained their objection. And so McDonald's defense team, namely Bernie Siegel, had to, to kind of rework some of the questions to Helena Stokely. What was the reason you got rid of it? Because it connected me with the murder.

What about your boots? What happened to them? The heel came off one of them and I just got rid of them. Got what? The heel came off and I got rid of the boots. Didn't bother to fix it, right? No. What pair of boots did the heel come off?

The white ones. The white ones. Where did you get rid of them? I threw the boots in the trash can and I burned the wig. Did that happen around the 18th or 19th of February that you got rid of them? Yes, sir. Where is it that you broke the heel on those boots? I'm not sure.

I just put them on one morning and found out the heel is broken. I don't know where I broke it at. I would just like to point out that Morph did a heck of a job as Helena Stokely. I'm just going to throw that out there, Morp. You're pretty good. I was going to do it in imaginary Helena's voice, but I stuck with my own voice. Decided that might not come off, right? Yeah.

So then the prosecution gets to cross-examine Helena Stokely. And Blackburn is asking her whether she had been in the McDonald residence that night or whether she had killed any of the residents. And to that question, she replied, no, sir. And I think this is, it's very important. important more. If you go back, you listen to that transcript that we kind of, you know, acted out, at one point, she said that the boots connected her with the murder. It makes it sound like, or could, to a jury that she's saying she had something to do with it. I agree with you. And I was

surprised that the attorney didn't ask her more about that connection. She got rid of the stuff because she felt it connected her to the crime. I'm surprised he didn't pounce on that and ask her a little bit more about that connection, whether it was a perceived connection or a real connection. Well, I don't think he wanted, I think he knew the answer. I think the answer and he knew it was a perceived connection. But by keeping it general, right? Just the fact that it connected her, that's where the defense got what they wanted,

which is the jury thinking, this lady. is connected to the murders, even though now the prosecution comes back and gets her to say on the stand that no, she's not connected to him in any way. Does that make sense? Yeah. That's the way I took it. Yeah. So testifying that same day as Helena Stokely was James Milne Jr. of Roanoke, Virginia. And James said that he had seen a blonde woman carrying a lighted candle and wearing a white sheet. walking near the McDonald apartment around midnight on the night of the slings. Milne was a neighbor of the McDonald's at that time. And that, to me, is something that would jump out of you.

That's not something you're going to forget. I don't know about your neighborhood, uh, Morf, but in my neighborhood, people don't walk around wearing white sheets and carrying candles in the middle of the night. They just don't do it. Yeah, I agree with you. That's pretty weird, bizarre, especially on a military base. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd see on a military base, especially. Later that afternoon, six people testified with the jury out of the room. These people were former friends and neighbors of Helena Stokely and police officers and army investigators. Each recalled a different account Helena had given them about the murders. She was involved, she was not involved, she was present on the scene, but did not participate. in the murders. She was not present, but knew who was. Helena had implicated a total of seven other participants by name. P.E. Beasley, a former cop in Fayetteville, North Carolina, testified that Helena Stokely had been a reliable narcotics informant, but said she might

have been telling the story to, quote, get all the attention she possibly can. Jeffrey McDonald testified over a two-day period starting on August 23rd, 1979. His defense attorney Bernie Siegel questioned him. Jeffrey talked about what a great wife and mother Colette was and described what his children were like, saying Kimberly was very inquisitive, I think exceptionally bright. She was a delightful person and very bright. He said that Kristen was the prettiest of all of us. She was a little ball of fire.

He said she was a tomboy at two and a half. years old, but she was also extremely loving. Bernie Siegel showed Jeffrey McDonald some photographs and asked him to identify the people in the pictures. They were of his wife and children. McDonald also testified about how happy he and Colette were when they found out she was pregnant with their third child. Colette had had pretty difficult pregnancies with both Kimberly and Kristen, and according to Jeffrey, the couple had made the decision that this was going to be it. They were not going to have any more children after this third child. Seagull questioned McDonald about the events leading up to the murders. After he got home from

work on February 17, 1970, McDonald said he picked up Kimberly. In his statement, McDonald said said, she was at home. She had gotten home from school. And I think, think Chris went along also, but we went down to see Trooper, the pony, and Kimmy rode her very briefly because it was cold and wet out, and she really didn't want to ride that night. So we came back fairly quickly. We fed Trooper and came back. We were probably back about a quarter to six. When McDonald and Kimberly returned home, Colette and Kristen were there and the family ate dinner. Afterwards, Colette headed to her night class, and MacDonald played with his children on the living room floor before getting Kristen in a bottle and putting her to bed around 7.15 p.m.

MacDonald then said he went to the living room to go to sleep. Kimberly was there. He told the court she was playing with a game on the coffee table. I was watching TV and fell asleep, and she was playing with some, I think it was some sort of pasty game, using paste and doll figures, or drawing one of the two. too. She was either drawing or using paste figures in a book on the coffee table that I probably cleared off for her. McDonald said he fell asleep at some point, but was awoken by Kimberly who wanted to watch the weekly comedy show laughing. And apparently this was something that

the father and daughter did together every week. McDonald said he put Kimberly to bed around 9 p.m. and read her a story. Collette came home between 9.30 and 10. p.m. The couple chatted. They watched TV for a little while. Then Colette drank about an ounce of liquor before going to bed. McDonald stayed up and watched Johnny Carson, washed the dinner dishes, and finished reading a book. And then it was sometime between midnight and 2 a.m. Kristen woke up crying. So Jeffrey gave her another bottle. And then around 2 a.m., he went to bed. saw Kristen lying in bed with her mother. He noticed a wet spot, assumed that Kristen had wet the bed.

And this is something that, you know, more of going back to episode one, we didn't talk about it. We'll talk about it now. He never mentioned, right, whether or not he cleaned Kristen up. But he did not clean up the wet spot. He talked about that. He pushed the bed clothes away to let it air dry. this is something that has kind of always bothered me about this case. And again, I didn't want to talk about it in episode one. I wanted to make more out of it, you know, at this point. That to me is

not what a father does. And, and I'm just saying that as a father. My kids are older now, but I remember times when they would wet the bed. It is a full blown, you know, everybody get up. We got to get the sheets into the washing machine, get, you know, get you out of those wet clothes, get you cleaned up into new jammies. That's what a father does or a mother or anyone. You don't just say, oh, they peed to bed. I'm going to go to bed and somebody else is going to clean this up. I don't, I don't get that. Yeah, maybe if it was if you're super tired of a little night, you might strip the sheets and stuff off the bed and wash them first thing in the morning. But, yeah, I sort of agree that it doesn't seem normal that he would have just disregarded it and said,

ah, whatever happens, happens. I think at the very least, most people would have stripped the sheets off and dealt with them in the morning. That plus get your child out of what had to have been a bunch of wet clothes. Oh, yeah. Definitely change the diapers and that kind of stuff. Sure. Yeah.

So that part has always thrown me a little bit as it, you know, as it relates to this very specific part. But then McDonald said he went back to the living room to sleep on the couch and at, you know, from there he was awakened by the attack. McDonald retold retold the events that happened after that about, you know, the four hippies who attacked him and his family. During his entire testimony with Siegel, McDonald used the words, I probably numerous times when asked a question about what he was doing.

It sounded as if he wasn't too sure about his actions that night. And you think about that more, the words I probably, most likely, do not instill a bunch of confidence, right, in the jury of the testimony of whoever is saying that all the time. Well, I don't know, but I probably did this. I think that's maybe one reason why defense attorneys don't put their defendants on the stand. No, I would agree with that. I think a jury from the defendant wants to. hear, this is what happened. Not this is what could have happened. It's what might have happened. They don't want to hear that. Jim Blackburn cross-examined McDonald the following day on August 24th,

1979. When demonstrating how the attack on McDonald may have happened, Blackburn poised above McDonald. Holding a wooden club, the prosecution said McDonald used to beat Kimberly and Kristen to death. McDonald claimed he could not recall the details of that night nine years prior. I do think we have to address that, right? I'm sitting here saying a jury doesn't want to hear the defendant say, I probably, or this probably happened. But keep in mind, this is nine years later. And I do think that's important to point out. Jim Blackburn then asked for a demonstration of the events on the night of February 17th, 1970. And McDonald replied by saying this, The only thing that is clear is the first blow.

As I was trying to fend off the second blow, the other assailants were hitting me. It's hard to say. This was second 11 of a 30 second altercation. But at some time, I had hold of the arm or I had already slid down onto the club and I felt the pain in the chest. Blackburn questioned McDonald about the presence of threads from his pajama top on the wooden club and in the family bedrooms. McDonald asserted that he was wearing the blue pajama top as he slept on the couch was startled awake by the intruders and struggled with them in the living room. He said he bunched the pajama top around his wrist and used it to ward off stabs from an ice pick. He then said his attacker knocked him unconscious, and when he woke up, he found the

bodies of his wife and daughters. Throughout cross-examination, McDonald often said, I don't recall, and I have no clear remembrance, when Blackburn would press him for details. Various other government witnesses testified that the holes in the pajama top could have been made while the garment was lying flat, and that they corresponded to the wounds and collect McDonald's chest. The trial lasted until August 29, 1979. The prosecution had contended that McDonald killed Colette in a rage after fighting with her on February 17, 1970. While in the rage, he killed Kimberly, possibly by accident. McDonald later decided he would have to kill Kristen, too. He then inflicted wounds on himself to support his story that he was attacked by a group of hippies.

The jury deliberated for six and a half hours before finding doctors. Jeffrey McDonald, guilty of first degree murder in the death of Kristen McDonald and and two counts of second degree murder in the deaths of Colette and Kimberly McDonald. Federal District Judge Franklin Dupree sentenced McDonald to three consecutive life sentences. Under a new federal sentencing procedure at the time, no minimum time was set before he could be paroled. And Judge Dupree denied a request that McDonald be allowed to remain free while the verdict was appealed. So federal marshals took McDonald away in handcuffs.

Freddie and Mildred Kasab were there almost every day of the trial. After sentencing, Mildred told the press, quote, I can let my daughter rest. Freddie then said, we do not feel happy. We felt this was something that had to be done. We feel that justice has been vindicated. We feel that we have been vindicated, especially for a charge that we have been hounding this man for years. Directly after the verdict was announced, St. Mary's Medical Center, where McDonald worked prior to the trial, announced that he had been dismissed as director of emergency medical services,

and that his medical privileges had been suspended. McDonald filed a bail request, but a judge denied the request on September 14, 1979. on October 4th, 1979, Jeffrey McDonnell was transferred to the federal prison at Terminal Island in Los Angeles, California. 12 days later, the government filed a motion in opposition to McDonald's motion for bail pending appeal.

So McDonald and his legal defense team, they're filing all kinds of motions, right? Trying to get bail, trying to get the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, to overturn his conviction. It takes a while. But on July 29th, 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and a two to one vote ruled that the nine-year delay

in bringing McDonald to trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial. So his conviction was overturned and McDonald was let out free on a $100,000 bail. This was in August of 1980. This is huge. A few months later on December 18th, 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted five to five to hear the case on ban, which meant the case would be heard in front of all the judges of a court rather than just a panel of judges selected.

In March, 1981, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to reinstate McDonough, McDonald's 1979 conviction. Attorneys contended that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong when it reversed McDonald's murder conviction after ruling that he had been denied a speedy trial. The government said that any delay in bringing McDonald to trial, quote, does not constitute a speedy trial violation. Under standards established by the Supreme Court itself in a 1972 decision, the Supreme Court agreed in May 1981 to hear the keys. If the federal government won, that McDonald would still be entitled to appeal his conviction on a number of other grounds. If the government lost, it could never retry McDonald for the murder of his family.

A few months later, on March 31, 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court voted six to three that McDonald's Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial had not been violated. McDonald was arrested by FBI agents and sent back to Terminal Island to resume his sentence of three consecutive life terms. McDonald was now free to appeal his conviction once again. In April 1982, Helena Stokely signed a 53-page statement saying that she witnessed the murders of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen McDonald's by members of a satanic drug cult who broke into the McDonald's home on February 17, 1970. The investigation into the case was reopened. It was May 21st, 1980. when Ted Gunderson, a former FBI agent and defense investigator for Jeffrey McDonald,

interviewed Helena Stokely. In that interview, she claimed to have witnessed the 1970 murders. So here is a part of that interview. The night of the murders, how many members of your cult actually were involved in the murders? I prefer not to go into the cult. I know, but how many members? were with you that night that you went into the McDonnell House. Five in one car and I'm not sure how many showed up after that.

Were they all high on drugs? Yes, sir. And the night of the murders, you mentioned to Mr. Beasley into me that there were seven of you all together. Is that true? Yes. Would you name them? No. Why won't you name them?

I've already stayed. I'm under personal threat and everything like that. Are you concerned about your personal safety? Mine, my family. Nearly by the fact that you may be on television? No, sir. I've already been contact. By whom?

Members of the call. They said it was all right to go on television? No, sir. They told me to keep my mouth shut. That's what I'm saying. Aren't you concerned about being on television, then? No, sir. I feel that Captain Jeffrey McDonald should be freed once and for all.

and not to have to go through all of what he's been going through for the last several years. So your motivation, as far as Mr. Beasley and I are concerned, in coming to us, actually we went to you, but you did furnish us statements. Your motivation then is out of conscience for Dr. McDonnell, concerned for your personal safety, the safety of your child. Yes, sir, that and the fact that I had not been coerceded. I haven't been promised anything except for the fact that I was promised relocation and changing name and all that kind of thing which I don't want you're talking about

promises from us yes I've never promised anything by us right I know monetary promises nothing like that in other words what you're saying is basically just a conscious thing the conscious thing but as far as the reason they're given you given Mr. Beasley and me these statements is because we've not made false promises to you. Is that what you're saying? So far now. Have other people made false promises to you? Yes.

Who? Numerous people. Numerous agencies. Would you name the agency? The CID, the police department, the prosecution against McDonald, just very different people. everyone's promised immunity at least five or six times than I haven't gotten it. And you still don't have immunity? No, sir.

Then where would you go from here? How about your future life? I feel I can handle my own future as long as... If I feel that Dr. McDonald's can be freed as he should be, then as far as I myself go, I think I can handle myself. Is it not true that another one of your concerns is the possibility that you could also be prosecuted and go to jail? It's not basically a concern. Legally, I don't think I could.

So that's not really a big problem, right? Why do you say you do not believe you could legally? Well, I checked into the allegations that were made against me. state and federal. I don't think hold us anymore. Are you talking about the statute of limitations? Yes, sir. Now, as you recall, Alina, most recently,

Mr. Deasy and I have talked to you, and we are going to attempt to talk to top federal and state officials in hopes of obtaining immunity for you with the understanding from you that you, in turn, will furnish us not only more details or other details which you may be withholding, but also the names of the people involved in the members of your cult and other information. Is that true? Yes, it's true.

Didn't somebody else possibly offer you this class of honor? The FBI has asked me for names, but I feel anyone else who has taught me been trying to coerce me into something. Going back to the murders themselves, you told us yesterday that you, the cult considered going in, I think, three nights before.

Is that true? Yes, sir. And did they... Why did they decide not to go into the McDonald's house? Three nights before we had a meeting and anyone who was in the meeting at that time felt that it would not be necessary.

They thought that we could go in and contact him and verbally try to get something over to him without having to use violence or anything. Elena, going back to the trial, you've given Mr. Beazney and me the blubilant amount of information about the murders and so forth. Why didn't you purchase information during the trial? at the time of the trial

I really felt that Dr. McDonald would go to prison and I had nothing to worry about because the CID had told me that he was going to prison and that was it and they were so assured of that fact that

I felt I had nothing to worry about but if you'd come forth with this information he may not have gone to prison and at that point I could have gone myself so you basically were were trying to keep yourself and going to prison? Yes, sir.

Since then, you had a change of conscience? Since then, I've seen the style that Dr. McDonald's had to live, the pain he's gone through with his family, his father and mother-in-law, and that sort of thing, and I don't feel that's right. Are you concerned about going to prison now? No, sir, not at this time. Why?

Right now, I just feel that. statute of limitations has run out. I tried to come forward before, and every time I have, I've been made to look like some idiot, some incompetent fool that doesn't know what's going on. It was so high on drugs. It's been proven otherwise, because I have been under hypnosis. I've had aptitude tests run and all this kind of thing. and I feel now that Dr. McDonnell should be free and able to live his life about the fear of ever going back to prison.

So in that audio that you just heard, Helena Stokely, she sounded pretty clearheaded, was able to detail what she felt at the time of that interview was correct and true, which by all counts would seem to work in Jeffrey McDonald's favor. But the problem is, Helena Stokely changed her account multiple times, depending on who she was recounting the story too. One of the men who was alleged to have been with Stokely in the McDonald House, Greg Mitchell, passed away on June 3, 1982 in Lynchburg, Virginia. He was only 31 years old. His cause of death was attributed to cardiopulmonary arrest due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage and cirrhosis of the liver. And Helena Stokely herself was found deceased in her apartment January 14th, 1983. She had been dead for several days.

And the date of her death is listed as January 9th, 1983. So at least four or five days probably more before somebody. found Helena. Her cause of death was listed as pneumonia and cirrhosis of the liver. And like Greg, very young, she was only 32 years old and at that point had an infant son that she left behind. So I think the big thing here is that if Helena Stokely truly knew any of the details surrounding the McDonald family murders, she took those details to the grave. And that's because all of the accounts that she gave over the years, they were so conflicting that nobody could ever really, you know, pin her down. It was hard to know which account,

if any, was true. Jeffrey McDonald was transferred from Terminal Island in California to Bastrop, Texas on August 27, 1982. In 1983, Fatal Vision by Joe McKinness was published. We mentioned in the last episode that McGinnis was hired by McDonald before his trial in 1979. McDonald wanted the author to interview him, go through the trial, and write a book. However, during the trial, McGinnis became convinced of McDonald's guilt, and the book showed McDonald's as a sociopath who murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters. Jeffrey McDonald was extremely upset over the book because the book was supposed to show his innocence.

but McGinnis specifically insisted on a sign release from McDonald, allowing him to write freely. In the book, the author claimed that Jeffrey McDonald could have killed his wife and daughters in a fit of psychotic rage while under the influence of amphetamines. McDonald had been boxing with the base boxing team in the weeks leading up to the murders. The coach of that boxing team told McDonald that he needed to lose weight, and to do that quickly, McDonald turned to taking amphetamines. In fact, Jeffrey McDonald had lost almost 15 pounds the month before the murders. According to some medical reports, the amount of amphetamines it would take to lose 15 pounds in a month could cause confusion, assaultiveness, hallucinations,

panic states, and the most severe psychosis, as well as cardiovascular reactions, chilliness, headache, and many more symptoms. Some of these symptoms were symptoms that McDonald was said to have exhibited immediately after the murders. The army tested Jeffrey McDonald's, for various drugs following the murders, but they did not test for amphetamines because in 1970, those kind of drugs were not considered to be dangerous. So there's no indication of how much,

if any, amphetamines McDonald had in his system. The theories and claims made in the book were largely disputed by Jeffrey McDonald. And on July 20, 1984, McDonald filed a lawsuit against McGinnis for damages, fraud, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. That November, the TV miniseries Fatal Vision aired on NBC.

Actor Gary Cole portrayed Jeffrey McDonald. McDonald tried and failed to delay the airing because he had a motion pending for a new trial, which was denied by Judge Dupree on March 1, 1985. and as with everything else, Jeffrey McDonald's defense team, you know, would appeal this. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

agreed to hear arguments on Judge Dupree's denial of a new trial in October of 85. But just two months later in December, Jeffrey McDonald was transferred from Bastrop, Texas to Black Canyon in Phoenix, Arizona. And ultimately, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

affirmed Judge Dupree's denial of a new trial and the Supreme Court upheld their decision. On July 7, 1987, the civil trial Jeffrey McDonald v. Joe McGinnis began. McDonald was sent back to Terminal Island during the trial. The jury deadlocked in August, and the judge declared a mistrial. On November 23rd, McDonald accepted a $325,000 settlement from McGinnis' insurance company, as opposed to retrying the case. Mildred Kasab filed a lawsuit against McDonald and his mother on December 1, 1987, regarding the settlement.

A year later, she offered to settle with McDonald with the $325,000 plus interest was paid two-thirds to her and one-third to the McDonald's mother, Dorothy. McDonald declined the offer. In January 1989, a four-day trial took place with Judge Ross making the final decision on how the settlement money would be distributed. The attorney bill is $102,000. After the attorney was paid, Dorothy McDonald would receive $93,000 and Mildred Kasab $80,000.

Jeffrey McDonald was allowed to keep $50,000. So, morph, as per usual, the attorneys make out better than everybody else. I think that happens a lot of times, right? But what really gets me is that, Jeffrey is allowed to keep $50,000. I'm not saying that's wrong. I guess my question is, what's he doing with that $50,000?

Does that go on to his prison account? Because that is a boatload of money in prison, right? $50,000. Yeah, the $50,000 will buy a lot of cigarettes or whatever else you can buy. And ramen noodles. You can get a lot of ramen noodles for $50,000. Yeah, he's probably set for life. But I agree that the money, him getting that money,

at all if he's been found guilty of these crimes is a travesty. Over a year later in 1990, McDonald's lawyer Harry Silverglade petitioned for a new trial saying that the government had suppressed evidence. Silverglate claimed that private investigators had found notes and testimony about an alleged confession by a one-time suspect that could clear Jeffrey McDonald. The judge dismissed this petition. That same year, the New Yorker, journalist and author Janet Malcolm published a book called The Journalist and the Murderer. This is another book written on the McDonald case. The very first sentence of the book became one of the most famous first sentences of any nonfiction book in American literary history.

It goes, every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. The sentence was aimed at Joe McGinnis, who Malcolm believed was in the wrong for stringing along Jeffrey McDonald, who was professing his innocence. On March 27, 1991, Jeffrey McDonnell became eligible for parole. However, he did not apply for parole. Still maintaining his innocence, he wanted his honoration instead. The next month, David Isman, one of McDonald's defense attorneys in his 1979 trial, took his own life by shooting himself in the chest while sitting in his parked car. According to one source, he was to be indicted on allegations he was caught handling funds,

generated through sales of cocaine and marijuana. His suicide was not related to the Jeffrey McDonald's case. Jeffrey McDonald's defense attorneys filed a motion for a new trial once again on June 26, 1991. Shortly after this, McDonald was transferred to the federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon. A few days later, federal district judge Franklin Dupree listened to arguments that McDonald should be granted a new trial. This time on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

In July 1991, Judge Dupree denied the petition for a new trial, saying that the new evidence did not exonerate Jeffrey McDonald. On October 3, 1991, McDonald's defense lawyers appealed Dupree's ruling on the grounds of judicial bias due to his rulings in favor of the prosecution. Several months later on June 2, 1992, the fourth store, Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a new trial for Jeffrey McDonald. According to that court document, in 1983, 1984, in preparation for McDonald's first collateral appeal, counsel requested and received copies of investigation files from the

Army Criminal Investigation Division, CID, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. The files contained lab notes of CID chemist Janet Glisson, describing the blonde synthetic hairs and lab notes reflecting the presence of black and green wool fibers. All documents were date stamped upon receipt by McDonald's counsel, providing evidence that these particular lab notes were actually received in that 83, 84 time frame. The FBI files read in part.

Quote, in fact, that portion of Janet Glisson's lab notes discussing the blonde synthetic hair was tagged and annotated by defense counsel, showing that a member of the defense team had at least seen and considered the evidence. These are the same documents which present counsel for McDonald now introduces as newly discovered evidence. And this is extremely important, right? If it's true. that these documents were out there and available to McDonald's defense team, then they should have been presented by McDonald's lawyers in the 1984-1985 appeal. All rights to further appeals were forfeited, and the ruling was upheld by the U.S.

Supreme Court on November 30, 1992. Not much happened with the case itself for about five years. James Blackburn, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted McDonald in 1979, turned in his law license in April 1993 when he was found guilty of several ethical violations. Blackburn spent some time in prison and afterwards got a job as a waiter, where some of his customers were old clients. Both Freddie and Mildred Kasab passed away in 1994. Mildred on January 19th, followed by Friday on October 24th.

Federal District Judge Franklin Dupree, who presided over every trial in the case thus far, passed away on December 17th, 1995 at the age of 84. Another book was written on this case. It was called Fatal Justice, authored by Jerry Potter and Fred Boss, two of McDonald's supporters. It was published in February of 1995, but the book fell flat. It was meant to, you know, sort of refute McGinnis's fatal vision, but it was alleged that it was filled with misquotes and proven false information.

Lawyers representing McDonald filed an appeal on April 22, 1997, to reopen the 1990 petition. The defense claimed the government submitted affidavits of FBI special agent Michael P. Malone that were false and misleading in regards to the facts that were fundamental to the court's dismissal of the 1990 petition. This was specific as to whether or not long blind fibers found at the crime scene were made from sarin. Seren was a common material used in wigs before the murders. It was also used in making doll hair and is more coarse than nylon. Like most little girls, McDonald's daughters played with dolls.

So I do think more if this is a very interesting component of the case, you have these long blonde fibers that were found at the crime scene. they know they were made from this thing called Saren. Saren was used to make wigs, but it was also used to make doll hair. Jeffrey McDonald had two daughters who undoubtedly had a bunch of dolls. They played with dolls. It's just one of those components that's very interesting. Yeah, I think if this is ultimately a doll hair, that's pretty easily explained. But if for some reason it could be determined that it's a,

wig hair, then that opens up some new questions. Well, given the fact that he has said all along, right, that a woman in a blonde wig was there. Additionally, the defense requested DNA testing of all of the biological evidence. But Judge James Fox denied the petition and the defense appealed his decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This was in 1998. The court upheld Judge Fox's decision, but they did allow some limited DNA testing. In December 2000, DNA testing began at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. But as it relates to the case, as it relates to Jeffrey McDonald, this DNA testing was

kind of a non-starter, morph, there was really nothing that came out of it. One big thing that did happen to Jeffrey in 2002 was that he got married. He became romantically involved with an old family friend named Catherine Courage, and they got married in prison on August 30th, 2002. Almost three years later in January 2005, McDonald applied for parole for the first time, something he swore he would never do. At this time, retired U.S. Marshal Jimmy Britt contacted Wade Smith, telling him he had information on the McDonald case. He told Smith that he had transported Helena Stokely from South Carolina to North Carolina, and on the trip, she told him she was in the McDonald home on the night of the murders. Britt also said that he had heard Stokely say the same thing to Jim Blackburn.

Britt claimed that Blackburn threatened Stokely and told her that if she went to court and testified to that, he would indict her for murder. Blackbird denied the allegation. Britt then gave a statement under oath and two affidavits a couple weeks. later. Jeffrey McDonald was denied parole on June 16th, 2005. At the May 10th parole hearing, he maintained his innocence. He never admitted guilt. A reconsideration hearing was scheduled for May 2020. He is also entitled to an interim hearing every two years. And the first one was in May 2007. Jimmy Britt filed an affidavit again on November 3rd, 2005.

in regards to what Stokely and Blackburn said years before. A month later, another retired U.S. Marshal named Lee Tart gave an affidavit essentially backing up what Britt had said earlier. You know, Brit had told him that he transported Stokely from South Carolina to North Carolina and said that she had been involved in the murders. At this time, the defense filed a motion. requesting a hearing on newly discovered evidence and some constitutional errors. Two months later, January 2006, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defense motion

to seek relief through the district court. So on January 17th, 2006, McDonald filed a 2225 motion in the district court of North Carolina, which basically is kind of like this big umbrella where you're saying the sentence that you received was unjust. And you're asking the court to vacate the sentence, set it aside, or correct it to what it should be. In March 2006, McDonald filed a motion to add an additional predicate to the 2225 motion to include DNA without obtaining. pre-filing authorization. DNA test results were filed with the court on March 10, 2006. The results showed there were no matches to any hair belonging to Helena Stokely and Greg Mitchell.

A hair found in Klett McDonald's right hand was her own, but one found stuck in her bloody left hand was matched to Jeffrey McDonald, whose DNA profile also matched body hairs found on the bedspread from the master bed, and on top of the sheet of Kristen's bed where he tried to revive her. later, McDonald attempted to vacate his conviction through a filing. And this was based on some newly discovered DNA evidence that his defense said prove the presence of unknown hair at the crime scene. So they had a two inch hair with the root and follicle that was found under Colette. they had a pubic hair that was found between her legs and a hair with the root intact found under Kristen's fingernail. The very next day, his defense team filed a motion to expand the record to include

the evidence presented at the 1979 trial, evidence previously submitted as exhibits in support of his various motions to vacate his sins, affidavits and evidence and evidence. previously filed in prior motions to overturn his conviction and DNA results, as set forth in the March 10th, 2006 report issued by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. On March 30th, the government filed a motion to strike those exhibits submitted in connection with McDonald's motion for relief. Both sides agreed that the three unsourced errors did not belong to anyone in the McDonald family based on DNA test results. The defense contended that the Harris belonged to intruders, but offered little evidence to support that argument during the hearing.

The prosecution shot back that there was bound to be hair from unknown sources in the McDonald's apartment, in part because it was used for government housing. The McDonald's had only lived there a short time before the murders. It's possible the Harris could have belonged to a former tenant, or even one of the McDonald's friends. They also said the unsourced hares did not contain any blood, nor had they been yanked out by the roots, as in a struggle. about a year later on April 16, 2007, the defense body motion to supplement itemized material by adding the affidavit of Helena Stokely's mother, who was also named Helena Stokely. In the affidavit, the elder Helena said her daughter came to her twice. The last time in 1982, saying that she was present in the McDonald's home during the murders.

She said her daughter tried telling the truth, but the FBI and other law enforcement officials told her to keep quiet. On the second occasion in 82, her daughter said she feared prosecutor Jim Blackburn. The government filed a response to the defense motion with exhibits on May 7, 2007. Jimmy Britt passed away on October 18, 2008 at the age of 70. Judge Fox denied the defense's motion to add additional information, expand the record with itemized evidence. Additionally, he granted the government's motion to strike the exhibits. On November 24, 2008, the government filed a motion to modify Judge Fox's order to reflect that Jimmy Britt's claims were not true. To prove this, they filed jail documentation that Helena Stokely was in the Pickens, South Carolina Jail.

after she was arrested. The government also filed documentation from the actual agents who did the transfers of Stokely from Pickens, South Carolina, to Raleigh, North Carolina. So essentially, what's being said here is that the conversations that Britt claims he had with Stokely couldn't have occurred when he says they did because Helena Stokely is documented as being in another jail during that time. So more if, you know, McDonald's defense team filed motion after motion, right? We've talked about a bunch of them. One source reported that McDonald also requested a new trial in March 2010 based on new DNA evidence and affidavits from witnesses who said they heard others confess to the crimes. Both Stokely and Mitchell allegedly confessed to friends

and family, that they were responsible for the murders of Colette and the girls, and that Jeffrey McDonald was innocent. At this hearing, the prosecution argued that the DNA evidence should not be admitted. In 2012, a judge ordered documents in McDonald's case to be delivered to the North Carolina Center on actual innocence. And specifically to its executive director, Christine Mummy. This organization had gotten involved in McDonald's case in 2009. They wanted to try to help prove Jeffrey McDonald's innocence. The center requested 40 items be tested prior to the hearing, but hundreds of bloodstains were collected, along with murder weapons, eyeglasses the children wore, and pieces of the surgical glove used to write the word pig on the master bed

headboard. Christine Mama said, this is the first time the judge is having to consider all the evidence in the case as a whole. Pieces of evidence were considered in the past. Now the Fourth Circuit has told the judge to consider the evidence as a whole, whether it made it at trial or not. On September 4th, 2012, the book, A Wilderness of Error by Errol Morris was published. Morris is an American documentary filmmaker who believes that Jeffrey McDonald is innocent. And he believes that the facts contained in his book helped prove that. The book contains partial court transcripts, charts, graphs, and illustrations. Dwight Garner, a critic for the New York Times, wrote in a review of the book.

He will leave you 85% certain that Mr. McDonald is innocent. He will leave you 100% certain he did not get a fair trial. Aaron Morris thought that McGinnis and writing his book focused on McDonald's guilt because that made for a better story and it would sell more books. The evidentiary hearing finally took place in a federal court in Wilmington, North Carolina on September 17, 2012 and lasted seven days. On the first day, defense lawyer Gordon-Widenhouse said, We feel like evidence is coming in the way we wanted to, so we were very pleased at this point.

McDonald and his lawyers argue that DNA tests show that hair samples found underneath one of the victim's fingernail did not come from any member of the McDonald's family. Additionally, there was Stokely's confession. She allegedly told retired U.S. Marshal Jimmy Britt that she was in the McDonald home on the night of the murders. Joe McGinnis testified for the prosecution at the hearing and told CNN, in about Jeffrey McDonald. He looked like a shadow. There was no substance to him. I guess many years in prison can do that to you. I looked at him, but he would never look me in the eyes. It was the first time he had seen McDonald in 35 years. In closing arguments, Wydenhouse asked a federal judge to vacate McDonald's conviction.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Murtaugh countered saying the new evidence was ink conclusive and not sufficient to prove McDonald was wrongfully convicted of killing Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen in 1970. Fellow prosecutor John Bruce discredited the testimony of Jimmy Britt, who claimed Stokely confessed to him, that she was present at the crime scene. Furthermore, Bruce said the hearing proved Brit never drove Stokely from South Carolina to North Carolina, where he said the confession took place. After the hearing, Wydenhouse said, no reasonable juror would have found

Jeffrey McDonald guilty, if that jury would have heard the new evidence. Following the evidentiary hearing, Joe McGinnis released another book titled Final Vision, the last word on Jeffrey McDonald. This was released in December of 2012. The book was in response to criticisms of his original work, and it was also to try to prove McDonald's guilt was undeniable. And just like with Fatal Vision, a TV movie based on the book later aired in December of 2017. Almost two years after the evidentiary hearing, the Department of Justice issued a press release on July 25th, 2014 regarding the ruling from the 2012 Evidentiary hearing. United States District Judge James C. Fox entered an order on July 24, 2014,

denying McDonald's motions and stating that McDonald had not made a sufficient showing to permit him to appeal Judge Fox's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. If McDonald wishes to appeal, he will now have to ask the Fourth Circuit for permission to appeal the ruling. Judge Fox denied another trial and upheld Jeffrey McDonald's conviction once again. In January 2017, McDonald's filed an appeal to reverse Judge Fox's. decision. But like many times before, he was denied a new trial in December 2018. This may have been

his last chance at freedom. And I think more what this shows me and probably should show everyone is just how many chances some people have at, you know, appealing. I mean, how many did we probably, I don't even know if we talked about every one of them. But Jeffrey McDonald and his legal team over, which has, you know, essentially been 40 years since his original trial. He's had so many different appeals. And it's been 50 years after the brutal murders of his wife and children. We can't forget about that. The one thing I will say about Jeffrey McDonald is he has never wavered in his innocence, right?

The entire time he has remained adamant. that he did not kill his family, but that it was a group of hippies who entered the home and killed his wife and daughters. So, and I think this is a case that divides, right? There are a number of cases like this that where you have people that are extremely entrenched

on one side of the aisle or the other, there are a lot of people that believe Jeffrey McKeys, McDonald is an innocent man. He has been rotting away unfairly in prison, probably an even greater number of people that think he's guilty, right, and got exactly what he deserved. And no matter what you do, you're probably not going to change most of those people's minds. Now, we're not trying to, right? We're trying to put out the evidence. We're trying to give everybody the facts and you can make up your own mind. The one thing I will say is 50 years ago, long time, right? If these murders happen today in 2019, with all of the forensic tools and investigative advances, you have

to wonder what would have been different about the outcome. And I think we see firsthand covering this case, like you mentioned, the amount of times that McDonald and his defense team were in court battling one thing or another. But the end result is he's still in prison now and he may be for the rest of his life. But if this case happened the same way it happened in 1970, in 2019, I think it would be interesting to see what advances in science would do for this case. But that's it. That's it for the case of Jeffrey McDonald, the McDonald family murders. It will always be, I believe, one of those polarizing cases, right, with people on each side of Jeffrey's guilt or innocence. And I think there's no shortage on books and movies to check out

about the case, too. Thanks goes out to Debbie Buck at TruecrimeDiva.com for writing and research assistance in this episode. If you have not done so yet, please take a minute, go out, rate the show, give us a five-star rating. That goes a long way towards helping other people find the show, as does word of mouth. You know, that's invaluable. If you have true crime friends that are looking for podcasts, tell them about ours. If you want to find us on social media, we're on Twitter with the handle at Criminology Pod. You can also find us on Facebook by searching for criminology podcast or by searching for a criminology podcast discussion and fans. All right, Morph, that is it for another episode of criminology. We'll be back with everyone

next Saturday with something brand new. So for Mike Ferguson. And Morph. We'll talk to you next week. Take care, everyone.