True Crime All The Time - Jeffrey MacDonald

Episode Date: May 8, 2023

On February 17th, 1970, the military police at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, responded to a distressed call from Army surgeon Jeffrey MacDonald. Officers entered his home and found Jeffrey’s wife and two daughters dead. MacDonald claimed they had been attacked by a group of “hippies,” but ultimately, he was the one who was arrested and convicted of murder. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Jeffrey MacDonald. This is a case that divides people, with some believing Jeffrey is not guilty of murdering his wife and children. A woman who matched the description MacDonald gave admitted to numerous people she was at the crime scene. But there is a lot that points to his guilt as well. MacDonald has spent decades fighting his conviction, but he remains in prison.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 332 of the True Crime All the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson and with me as always is my partner in true crime. Mike Gibson, how are you? Hey man, I'm doing good. How about yourself? You know, I'm doing much better this week. Last week was just so tough.

You know, I talked about it and the outpouring of support. Yeah. For me, my family around us losing our dog, it was amazing how many people rode in. And I will say this week has been just a, you know, a tad easier. And I think that's kind of how life is, right? Things get easier with time, but it doesn't mean that they go away. You just know it's something you got to deal with and you keep going. That's all you can do, man.

How about you? Yeah, things are going all right, man. Things are going good. Good. I'm always glad to hear that. We got a big episode. So let's go ahead and get right into our Patreon shoutouts. We had Lori Ann Webster.

Hey, Lori. Alicia Rice. What's going on, Alicia? Sean Riley. Hey, Sean. Emil Gerson Zuega jumped out of the highest level. I appreciate that, Zwega. Donna Balfour.

Hey, there's Balfour. L. L. L. L. Chelsea Jains. Hey, Jains. Now and Zinn. Uh, need some Zen.

Kietta jumped out of the highest level. What's going on, Kietta? Kristen Hocker. Hey, Kristen. L.J. What's going on, L. Gwendolyn Wheeler jumped out of their highest level. I appreciate that, Gwendolyn.

Michael Hardy. Hey, Hardy. Judith Anderson. there's Anderson. Olaf Erna Goobjana daughter. I'm going to go with Gubernjadda. Okay.

Yeah. You could be absolutely correct. Hannah Banana. Hey, Banana. And last but not least, York jumped out at our highest level. There's the famous York. Yep.

Then if we go back into the vault. This week, we selected Nicole Barretta. Thank you, Nicole. Yeah, much appreciation for the new support to continue support on Patreon. We had some great people. PayPal donations from Benjamin Sturros. Thanks, Benjamin.

And Claire Ballanty. Hey, love that name, Ballanty. Yeah, thanks to everyone. Gips right now on Unsolved. We have an episode out on Dorothy Jane Scott. We're headed to Pennsylvania to talk about the disappearance, a car found.

Yeah. And then ultimately a body found. Dive until all that. Yeah. Yeah, there's a lot going on in it. Make sure you check that out. All right, buddy. are you ready to get into this episode of true crime all the time?

I'm ready. We're talking about a big case here in Jeffrey McDonald. On February 17th, 1970, the military police at Ford Bragg, North Carolina, responded to a distressed call from Army surgeon Jeffrey McDonald. Officers entered his home, and they found Jeffrey's wife and two daughters dead. McDonald claimed they had been attacked by a group of hippies. but ultimately he was the one who was arrested and convicted of murder. McDonald has spent decades fighting his conviction, but he remains in prison.

The hippies did it. Yeah, that's what he claimed. Now, this is a big case. There was a lot to wade through as far as the research. It could have been a two-parter, but it would have been two short parts. So we're probably looking at one longer episode. Hope everybody's okay with that. Jeffrey Robert McDonald was born on October 12, 1943 in Jamaica, Queens, New York.

He grew up in Patchhogue, New York. According to the Fayetteville Observer, Patchhog, if I'm saying that correctly, is a village on Long Island. Jeffrey's wife, Colette, Catherine, Stevenson, McDonald was born on May 10th, 1943 in Brooklyn, New York. Jeffrey and Collette were high school sweetheart. They graduated from Patchhog High School. Jeffrey earned a national merit scholarship to Princeton University. Not a bad school. Not a bad school for most of us.

I know it's pretty far down on your list of academic institutions. But for the vast majority of us, you know, number one, just getting into Princeton would be amazing. Getting a national merit scholarship, we'd be over the moon. It's pretty cool to get that certificate to hang on the wall too. Colette was attending Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York. Jeffrey and Collette married in 1963 when she was pregnant with their first daughter, Kimberly. So Kimberly was born on April 18, 1964.

And then their second daughter, Kristen, was born on May 8, 1967. Jeffrey McDonald went on to earn his medical degree at Northwestern University. medical school graduating in 1968. So it's cool. Yeah, I mean, you're really talking about two very prestigious schools. Jeffrey joined the Army in June of 1969. While he was undergoing a physician's basic training course, he volunteered to be assigned to the Army's special forces.

He also completed a paratrooper training course in Fort Benning, Georgia. Sounds like he was an overachiever. Well, yeah, I mean, if you just looked at this guy's credentials, you'd think, okay, this is Captain America. Yeah. He's got the brains, obviously, because of the schools he went to and what he was able to accomplish on that front. But then, you know, he volunteers for the special forces. Right. You know, those are badasses.

He does some paratrooper training at Fort Benning. It's impressive. I think you'd have to say that on a number of fronts. Jeffrey had been stationed at Fort Bragg since August 1969, according to the Fayetteville Observer. He held the rank of captain and was the physician assigned to the Preventative Medicine Division of the Sixth Special Forces. Now, let's talk about their residence. Some sources describe the McDonald residence as a house.

Other sources use the word apartment. A 1970 news and observer article states, the McDonald's lived in a unit of a four-family housing complex. So I can understand why maybe some people got confused. Oh, of course. On the wording, in February 1970, both Jeffrey and Collette were 26 years old.

Kimberly was five and Kristen was just two. Collette was also four months pregnant with their third child. It was said that Collette often had to, take care of the girls alone. She and Jeffrey experienced some difficulties in their marriage, according to Collette's mother, Mildred Kasab, at a 1974 grand jury hearing. She said, the atmosphere was very tense during the family's last Christmas together. So what do you make of that? Because I think you have to look at it in the context of what we're getting ready to talk about. Right? She already knows what ultimately happened. So,

So like we ask a lot of times, is somebody making something out of an interaction that they wouldn't have if they didn't have the knowledge of what would later come after that interaction? Well, that's a good point. It's a really good point. And I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. All I can do is ask the question. I'm not so sure that I wouldn't.

Now, maybe it was tense and she would have said it that way if you asked her the day after. Regardless. Regardless. Yeah. Around 4 a.m. on February 17th, 1970, Jeffrey McDonald called the military police to report that he had been staffed. The police arrived at the family's residence and found no signs of forced entry. The front door was locked, but the back door was open. Some furniture was overturned.

Jeffrey was found lying on Collette's chest on their bedroom floor, as reported by the Fayetteville Observer. Colette was dead. Kimberly and Kristen were found dead in their beds. Colette was stabbed 16 times with a knife, 21 times with an ice pick, and was hit in the head with a piece of wood at least six times. Kimberly was hit in the head twice. She was stabbed between eight and ten times. Kristen was stabbed 17 times and had 15 puncture wounds on her chest, according to the face. Edville Observer. Collette had some defensive wounds. Authorities determined she tried to protect Kristen. Jeffrey claimed he tried to resuscitate Collette and their daughters. So, you know, let's just take a look at this. No doubt, an extremely horrific scene. We have a wife, mother, and two children dead. Right. One of them, actually both very young, but one's two years old. Just a toddler. Yeah, yeah, so small.

And then, you know, to hear about the injuries sustained, you know, it's not something that you want to think about. But it's part of the record. It's part of the case. You've got to know it. I just think about the anger. These three individuals combined stabbing of 60 plus times. That's a lot of anger, man. Now, McDonald had far less injuries than his wife or children.

and obviously he was alive. He had a bruise on his head, minor stab wounds on his abdomen and arm, and a more serious stab wound to the chest. He received treatment at the hospital for a concussion and a collapsed lung. In total, he spent nine days in the ICU. So he didn't come out of this thing unscathed. Right. Now, what Jeffrey told the police was that he and his family were attacked by what he

called hippie intruders, right? It's 1970. We had the whole 1960s, got a little bit left, right? Right. In 1970. But it's important that he's using this word. Hippies. That night, he said he woke up and found that Kristen, who was sleeping with him and Collette, had wet the bed. He put Kristen in her bed and fell asleep on the couch. He woke up to the sounds of his wife Finn Kimberly screaming. According to the Fayetteville Observer, four intruders entered through the rear door channing, LSD is great, LSD is great.

I don't know if LSD is great or not. I've never tried it. I know a lot of people did in the 60s. And loved it. And loved it. He had the whole Timothy Leary, you know, what is it, tune in, dropout. Yeah, yeah.

There was another part of that that I can't remember. Jeffrey described the intruders as two white men, a black man wearing an army jacket with sergeant stripes in the shoulder, and a woman with long blonde hair, a floppy hat, and brown boots. She was holding what looked like a candle enchanting acid is groovy, kill the pigs. He's got a pretty good memory for everything that happened that night, but this sounds like something that came out of a horror flick. Yeah, it definitely does.

you know, we'll talk about it later, I'm sure, but it also has some Manson vibes. It does. To it, right? When you hear kill the pig and, you know, these people described as hippies and all of that, one intruder hit him in the head with a bad or club. He said he grabbed the weapon, but was then stabbed with an ice pick. He fought until he lost consciousness. He woke up on the hallway floor and searched for his family.

You ever been stabbed with an ice pick? Not recently, no. No, I can't imagine that it would feel too good. McDonald's pajama top was found on Collette's body. The bloody top had 48 punctures in it. McDonald only had four puncture wound. According to A&E, but Collette had 48. So, I mean, I think if you're drawing conclusions from that,

at least to investigators, it appeared as though Colette was stabbed through the top. Like the top was on her. Right. When she was stabbed. Those stab wounds ratios are really off. You mean his four and her 48? Yeah.

Yeah, it seems very strange that the wife and children would be stabbed so many times. But yet this man who you would think is the biggest threat to whoever has entered the the place is not stabbed near as many times. Right. Why? It's a question that we'll have to answer. McDonald said his shirt was ripped off while he was fighting the intruders and he used it to try to block their blows. You know, so here, you know, this is where we get into the area of analyzing what suspects say

because there are some things that they have to try to answer. If you look at the 48 puncture wounds to this garment, okay, how did they get there? How'd your shirt come off? All of that. Right. You got to craft a story real or not to explain it. And then figure out later if people are going to buy it, if they're going to believe it. Is a jury going to believe it if it gets that far?

And if you had to craft it, hopefully you can recall it. Yeah, that's true. the word pig was written in blood on the couple's headboard. So again, very Manson-esque, right? Manson family. It really is. Jeffrey's wallet and two rings from Collette's jewelry box were also stolen, according to People magazine. Hundreds of blood stains were collected from the crime scene, as well as the girls' glasses and pieces of the gloves that were used to write the word pig. Other important items of evidence included fingerprints, synthetic blonde hairs, candle wax, black wool fibers found on a murder weapon,

Colette's biceps in her mouth, as well as hairs in different locations. I think I just got sick. Yeah, I mean, it's nasty stuff. You know, we talk about these hairs. They were found under Kristen's fingernail on her bedspread and beneath Colette's body. Colette also had one hair in her right hand and one hair in her left hand. A hair was found on a bloody sheet in a pile of bedding on the master bedroom floor. So I mean, evidence wise, there's a lot here. Now, what do you make of it? You know, what are police going to conclude based on that?

We're going to have to figure out. Now, investigators made some errors while investigating the crime scene. a medic righted a flower pot that had been knocked over. Kristen's fingerprints were not collected and Colette's fingerprints were incomplete. A doctor also removed McDonald's bloody pajama top from Collette's body. And the military police didn't photograph Jeffrey's injuries. And then while at the hospital, his pajama pants were thrown away. So, I mean, there is a lot going on. here and some of this stuff is not good as it pertains to the investigation.

Yeah, it seems like they got sloppy there. Not really sure why, though. Well, it's not what you would call an exemplary effort, right? This is not how you would teach it by any means. But I'm with you. I'm not sure why some of this stuff did or didn't happen because, you know, for the most part, I mean, most of this stuff is kind of crime scene 101. you know, even in 1970.

Now, I talked a little bit about the Manson family murders. Those occurred in August 1969. And these murders caused widespread fear because of how recent and heinous the Manson family murders were. McDonald's description of the hippie attackers plus the word pig written in blood reminded Fayetteville residents of the crime scene at Sharon Tate's home. in LA. Pig was written on Tate's door. People feared that Manson copycat killers were on the loose and many people purchased guns. Well, no doubt, man. This had to be something people could relate to when they heard those key phrases, right? I mean, this was, that story was huge. Oh, it was, it dominated the news. The Manson family murders did. But, you know, this, this line about, you know, a lot of people

going out and purchasing guns. We say that all the time. Yeah. It's like something happens and people at that point think, okay, I need to protect myself. You have a run on gun stores and gun sales and things like that. Investigators found some hippies that matched McDonald's description, but there really were no solid leads.

And it took a couple of weeks, but Army investigators eventually named Jeffrey. McDonald as the main suspect in the murders. On May 1st, 1970, McDonald was charged with three counts of murder from July 6th through September 11th. He went through an Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a civilian's preliminary hearing.

Army investigators argued that the living room coffee table couldn't have ended up on its side during a struggle. They tried to recreate the fight, as described by McDonald, and the table always landed upside down. So I think this is just one of the many things that to them suggested that he had staged the crime scene. The officer presiding over the hearing, went to the residence and kicked the table. It landed on its side when he did it.

So here you have these army investigators saying they can't recreate it. This officer goes out, kicks it, and boom, lands on his side. Just the way that McDonald said it did. Yeah. Or not did, but how it was at the time of the investigation. Yeah. The way he claimed it happened. Yeah.

On October 13th, 1970, the presiding officer recommended that all the charges be dismissed. And recommended that civilian authorities investigate Helena Stokely, a young woman in Fayetteville, who was mentioned during the hearing as possibly being one of the intruder. So let's talk. talk about this Helena Stokely. 17-year-old Helena was described as a drug-using police informant in the local hippie community by the Fayetteville Observer. And they threw that hippie word around. They did.

Back in the day. Bandy Fair reported that Helena's old classmate described her to investigators as someone who made up stories to get attention. A psychiatrist described her as having a schizzoid. personality and reported on a discharge form that she used heroin eight to nine times a day along with other drugs. Helena's brother said she was fascinated by the occult and had a black cat named Satan. Okay, that is a lot going on for a 17 year old. Now, I think we've all known people who have made up stories because they want the attention. They want to seem maybe a little more

interesting than what they really are. Yeah. But think about this, you're using heroin eight to nine times a day and other drugs as a 17-year-old. Yeah, that's what jumped out to me. Eight to nine times a day seems ludicrous. I don't know much about heroin, but eight, nine times a day seems like a lot. And then they added and other drugs. Yeah.

Why do you need the other drugs if you're using heroin eight or nine times a day? Yeah. Just base that out the right amount of time. Stop telling people how to use drugs. Oh, yeah. Sorry. And I don't know what you, you know, you make of this purported fascination of the occult and, you know, a black cat named Satan. Would I name my cat Satan? No, I wouldn't do it. But what does it really mean? Does it mean that you're a killer? I don't think you can put a lot of weight into the fact that you have a black cat. I don't think so either. I don't think is the black cat so much as the name Satan. An MP later testified that while he was on the way to the residence, he saw a woman standing at an intersection half a mile away. She was wearing a dark raincoat and a wide-brimmed hat. Helena owned a large hat and blonde wig, but threw them both out after the murders per court records.

Okay, that's bizarre. It is. It is. Now, could you chalk it up to coincidental timing? Maybe. Maybe you can always attempt that, sure. Helena Stokely was linked to the case when Fayetteville detective Prince Beasley reported that one of his informants matched McDonald's description of the intruder.

He claimed in the docu series A Wilderness of Error that he staked out Helena's home and approached her when he saw her come home at 2 a.m. With men who matched McDonald's description. He asked her if she was there on the night of the murders. Helena said she was on drugs, but she thought she was there. All right. So now we're getting a little more interesting information. Well, and I think it's one of the things that draws so many people to this case.

You have the story told by Jeffrey McDowell. And if there was nothing that backed it up whatsoever, I think everybody would dismiss it. But that's not really the case. I mean, there are a lot of people who believe there is at least some truth, if not, you know, complete truth on the part of Jeffrey McDonald's. And I'm sure we'll talk about that as well. There have been conflicting accounts of Beasley's conversation with Helena about the murders. According to a 1998 Vanity Fair article, Beasley went to her house because he wanted to know if she knew anyone who matched the description. she gave him some addresses and told him she had a friend who was black and wore an army jacket.

Okay, so another tie-in. Yeah, I mean, possibly, but, you know, how many black guys were wearing army jackets back in 1970? How many people in general were wearing army jackets? I don't know. Probably more than we realize. Probably. Stokely was arrested for drug possession in Nashville after the murders and allegedly told a Nashville police officer. that she thought she witnessed the murders.

According to former Nashville police officer Jim Gattis, Elena described the house in detail and provided the names of the officers she spoke to in Fayetteville. Detective Beasley traveled to Nashville to talk to her. Elena said she didn't tell him everything she knew because she would go to prison. The Army sent a polygrapher to test her,

but Helena gave inconsistent statements during the exam. The polygrapher concluded that she believed she was present during the murders, but he couldn't make a conclusion about the accuracy of her statements because of her state of mind and excessive drug use at the time of the murders. Well, I'm glad they called it excessive use. Oh, it's, yeah, it was pretty excessive. But, you know, here's what I want to hit on. You have a woman who matched the description given by Jeffrey McDonald.

That's one thing. But then when you go to talk to her, she says, you know, I might have been there. And then she says, I think I witnessed the murders. Okay, you're implicating yourself. Now, with the caveat that you were so hopped up on drugs, you're not really sure. But if you ask me that question, drugged up or not, I'm saying, no way. I wasn't there. I had nothing to do with it.

She's not saying that. No, she's not. An investigator took a hair sample from Helena and got. her prints, they didn't match any at the crime scene. So again, it's why you've got a lot of conflicting stuff. Because up to this point, you're thinking, I don't know, this might be the one female. Yeah, she matches the description. She's kind of said she might have been there. But then, you know, none of her prints or hair or anything matches up to what was taken at the crime scene. on October 23rd, 1970, the army dismissed the charges against McDonald's.

He was honorably discharged in December. He then moved to California and worked as an ER doctor. At first, Colette's family believed in McDonald's innocence. Collette's stepfather, Alfred Kasab, even testified at the Article 32 hearing by saying, if I had another daughter, I'd still want the same son-in-law. If that's not a backing of your son-in-law, I don't know what is. But isn't this what we see a lot of the time? We do.

Because if you think about it, as an in-law, you put a lot of trust, a lot of faith into your son-in-law, your daughter-in-law, because they're part of the family. Sure. So, you know, to have this really vicious charge that they murder. their family, your daughter, your son, most people just can't see it. They just don't believe that that person that they know is capable of doing it.

Well, they don't want to see that. And they don't want to see it. Yeah. But I also think, you know, if that person is a good storyteller. You think they can snow people? I think so. Yeah.

Yeah. I think they could push it pretty far until eventually either the facts just prove their story wrong and you have to just say, You have to wake up and say, you know what, there's no other way but for this person to do it. Or, you know, you carry on thinking maybe they're telling me the truth. They didn't do it.

Well, let's not forget, you know, he was a doctor. He was a decorated soldier. Here's a doctor that takes an oath, right? Yep. To help people. Do no harm. And he's still in back of your mind. You have to say, how could a father?

Let's not talk about the wife for a second, but think about the daughters. how could a father murder his young daughters? And I think as the in-laws, you're thinking that. He would never hurt my daughter, let alone his daughters. Yeah, it's hard to believe that a man would do that. Unfortunately, we know what happens. We do. Kasab was devastated by the murders, and he started writing letters to the army and congressmen,

criticizing investigators and asking authorities to continue investigating. Oxygen reported that he was troubled by McDonald's cavalier attitude when he appeared on the Dick Cavett show in December 1970. And this is kind of a big deal in this case. You can go out. You can see the interview. He does have a very cavalier attitude, almost like, you know, I've moved on type thing. Yeah. And then information came out about trouble in the marriage. It was reported. by Vanity Fair that McDonald cheated on his wife and had at least 15 girlfriends. Who's got time for a wife and let one girlfriend? Let alone 15.

Let alone 15. On top of the fact that it's wrong. Let me put that out there. Now, having this information, if you would have this information early on, would your opinion had been different? You're talking about his in-laws? Yeah. I absolutely think so.

You know, because in their eyes, then he would have gone from this upstanding husband father to a snake in the grass. Right. He's cheating on our daughter. Colette's sister-in-law, Vivian Stevenson, told Vandy Fair that Colette was tired of dealing with the infidelity. McDonald also told Kasab that he and other Green Berets went looking for the hippies and killed one of them. But there was no evidence that this was true. McDonald said he broke his arm during the fight. He later admitted this was a lie and said that he did it to keep Kasab happy.

So I think all of this that we've just talked about eventually caused Kasab to come to believe that Jeffrey McDonald was a killer. Yeah. You know, he's a cheater. He's a liar. Yeah. So manipulator. How much farther is it to kill her?

And you got to wonder at that moment it hits him what that must feel like because he originally defended this guy. Yeah, I think you probably have to feel a little bit foolish, even though I'm not sure that it's warranted. But we talk a lot about how you're going to feel a certain way whether you should feel it or not. It's just going to happen. As late as December 21st, 1973, the U.S. Attorney General declined to pursue charges against McDonald. People Magazine obtained a copy of a letter that stated, the exculpatory character of some of the evidence, together with the total lack of evidence, as the possible motive. In our judgment, are major obstacles to a successful criminal prosecution. So that to me is a very interesting statement.

They're not saying we don't think he did it. To me, what they're saying is that we can't prove it. We're not going to be able to get a conviction. Yeah, if they don't think they can get a conviction, why would they ever pursue it? But Collette's parents would not give up on April 30th, 1974. They petition the federal court to have a grand jury, look into the case and decide whether or not to charge McDonald, the federal grand jury convened on August 12th, 1974, and on January 24th, 1975, Jeffrey McDonald was indicted for the murders of Collette, Kimberly, and Kristen.

So the cassabs had to have been elated because this is what they wanted. It is what they wanted. This is what they believed at this point in time. Jeffrey went to trial from July 19th through August 29th of 1979. So here again, we're almost 10 years on after the murders in like four and a half years after he was even indicted. Yeah. That's how long it took to get him to trial. According to People magazine, prosecutors argued that Jeffrey became enraged when two-year-old Kristen wet the bed. A&E reported that he got into an argument with Collette and it spiraled.

Kimberly walked into the room and her father hit her. McDonald decided to kill his daughters, then Collette. Prosecutors speculated that Jeffrey stabbed her through his shirt to help bolster his story. And by that, I'm assuming they mean that, you know, he was attacked as well. Right. Because it's going to have to come out, right, that Jeffrey stabbed himself with a scalpel to help sell the story. prosecutors that said that he then put on surgical gloves and wrote the word pig in Collette's blood on their headboard. But I do want to kind of break down what prosecutors are putting forward.

I get it. It can be tough. When your kid is wetting the bed, we've all been through that. Yeah, we have. All parents go through that. Yeah, you got to clean them up. You got to wash the sheets. You got to put on new sheets. You got to do all this. I still with a bed. Yeah. And why you call me to come over and change your sheets and clean you up, I mean, I've never said yes. You would think at some point you just stop calling me. Just think one of these days you're going to do it for me.

But, you know, really, if you sit and think about it, for a father to become enraged at that. Yeah. To the point that it leads to the murder of his entire family. I mean, you know, it's a tough sell. I don't think there's any doubt. not saying it's not plausible. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way. It's a tough sell.

You'd have to say maybe it was on top of some other events that happened that day. And that was like the final straw. But I think it becomes easier to believe when you start to factor in some of the evidence. You know, the number of stab wounds, Colette sustained versus what Jeffrey sustained and the number of puncture marks in the shirt, there were no signs of intruders to support his story. Additionally, lab tests matched fibers and threads from his pajamas to a piece of lumber used as a club.

These fibers and threads were also found in the bedrooms. Now, we got to remember we're talking about the 1970s. So you got to kind of look at all of the evidence with that. that in mind. Of course. There was a lot of fiber, a lot of hair evidence. Obviously, you had fingerprint evidence. Fibers and threads to me, I really go back and forth on because of how things transfer. I'm just putting myself, you know, in as a jerk in saying, okay, we found fibers of his, from his pajama on this, this or this. Okay, could they have gotten there because he got hit with the wood, did he roll over it?

Did it, you know what I'm saying? Right, right. Yeah. Did it land on the floor, on the carpet, and pick up a fiber? I struggle with fiber evidence quite a bit. It's hard to put a lot of weight behind it. Yeah. Yeah.

And sometimes hair evidence, too, depending on where it's found. And obviously, we're talking 1979. There was no DNA testing. Prosecutors presented blood type evidence. Jeffrey, Collette, and the girl. had different blood types, which allowed prosecutors to establish who was in what room. They argued that Jeffrey moved from room to room as he killed his family. Okay.

Now, maybe you can make something of that. Yeah, maybe. Now, could you find blood of mine in different parts of this house? I've lived here for over 20 years. My thought is probably yes. Yeah. You know, I had a nosebleed. this or that, a scrape, whatever it is.

But I think what they're really looking at is probably much greater amounts of blood. Yeah, I would think so. Obviously from the victims, because they suffered some tremendous injuries. But even his puncture wounds would have bled. And so to try to track his movements, obviously those puncture wounds had to proceed him going into these different rooms. So if he says he's knocked out after being attacked, does that play into it? So maybe when he woke up, he went room to room and somehow that transferred to blood? Yeah, I don't think you can, you can throw it out. I think you have to talk about it.

But one of the things that sticks out to me is that why would they just left him laying on the floor alive? With very few wounds? Yeah. Why not just finish them all? if he's not fighting back at that time and you're doing what you're doing with the rest of them, why not just get it over with? And I'm sure it's a big part of what, you know, put him kind of at the top of the list. And things just weren't adding up. The prosecution also read Esquire articles about the Charles Manson case. That particular issue of Esquire was found in the living room with blood smeared on it.

They pointed out the similarities between the McDonald's. Donald murders and the Manson murder. So basically what they're saying is he had just read this story. Right. And that's where he got the idea. At trial, Helena Stokely testified that she had no memories of what she was doing on the night of the murders. She said it was only like in a dream or something according to A&E.

Well, when you're doing heroin eight or nine times a day. Yeah. And other drugs. And other drugs, you might have a tough time remembering specific events. days, times what happened, things like that. Six witnesses, though, testified that Helena told them she was in the house that night. But the jury didn't hear this testimony because the judge ruled that Helena was untrustworthy and made most of her statements while under the influence of drugs.

And I'm not sure that he's wrong about that. Yeah, I don't know if he is either. But I think basically what he's saying is it's hard to believe anything that she testified. to, but it's also hard to believe what acquaintances testified to because they are basically regurgitating what she told them and she's not trustworthy. Some jurors later told Joe McGinnis, the author of a book about the case titled Fatal Vision, that they didn't side with the prosecution until they heard an April 1970 interview between McDonnell and the police, one juror said he just didn't sound like a man telling the truth.

You ever talked to somebody like that where you just know they're not being honest? Yeah. But, you know, this one's tough. You know, for a juror to come out and say they were leaning towards acquittal. Right. But this interview, at least for this person, really swayed them because they just didn't believe that he was telling the truth in this interview. Jeffrey McDonald was found guilty on August 29th, 1979, of second degree murder for the deaths of

Colette and Kimberly and first degree murder for Christa. He received three consecutive life sentences. And I found that odd. I really didn't understand that. Second degree for Collette and Kimberly, but first degree for Christa. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't know that it matters, the charge. What matters is the three consecutive. life sentences. Yeah, I mean, at least the penalty for all three lined up.

But on July 30th, 1980, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the three murder convictions. The court ruled that the nine-year delay violated McDonald's right to a speedy trial. And we pointed that out. It took almost 10 years. It's a long time to get this guy to trial. The appeals court ruled that he could be released on bail, pending a possible appeal by the government. So Jeffrey McDonald was released on August 23rd, 1980. Can you imagine? No. You go from sitting in prison with three consecutive life sentences to being released on bail, a free man, semi-free. Semifree. Pretty free. And what does that do to the family? Yeah, I'm sure his in-laws are devastated. Why is this guy out? Yeah. We thought we had him, right? He's

never getting out of prison. Next thing you know, he's out free to do whatever he wants. On March 31st, 1982, the Supreme Court reversed the speedy trial ruling. McDonald was arrested and returned to prison. You imagine sitting out there for almost two years? Yeah, a year and a half. All right, things are good now. I'm golden.

And then boom, you're back in prison. Witness Helena Stokely died in 1983 from pneumonia and cirrhosis. of the liver. She was just 32 years old. Helena claimed in a 1982 interview with former FBI official Ted Gunderson, who joined McDonald's defense team, that her polygraph test was a setup. She said she was told if she agreed to take the polygraph test. Her drug charge would be dropped. According to oxygen, she said in this interview, I had $25,000 worth of mescaline. So I would have been, then a fool to deny that. Okay, if that's true, then yeah, you would be a fool.

Because $25,000 worth of drugs back then is going to land you in prison for a very long time. Very long time. And I guess $25,000 today would, too, I don't know. But this is early 1970s. That's a lot of drugs. Yeah, you're going to do some time for that. During a 1982 interview, Helena talked with Gunderson and Detective Beasley. she said she was part of a satanic cult that murdered the family because Jeffrey McDonald was not

helping heroin addicts at Fort Brett. She claimed that her group didn't discuss killing anyone. They planned to go to the house to make him realize he had to help us with something like that. Helena said she remembered being in the home and chanting acid is groovy, kill the pigs, hit him again. She also said there were seven people. inside the home. Okay. Numbers grown. She provided the signed statement, claiming she witnessed the murders, and Gunderson gave this evidence to the authorities. However, the statements have been criticized for a number of reasons. One former FBI agent who was assisting Gunderson later told authorities he believed there was an element of duress and unethical means were used to get Helena to

cooperate. This was according to Vanity Fair. Well, we know. back then there was some of that going on. And unfortunately, maybe there is still today. Helena was allegedly told she would be relocated to California, given a new identity, and would even possibly have a movie deal. The old movie deal, they always throw that in there, you know? Yeah. Yeah.

Get you a movie deal. During the month of her interview, Helena also traveled to visit her mother and confessed to her role in the murder. This would become a key part of a later appeal. So, I mean, Helena Stokely is right in the middle of this whole thing. Yes, she really is. Her statements, her confessions, this and that, it's huge. Also, Helena's boyfriend at the time, Greg Mitchell, confessed to his involvement in the murders multiple times over the years.

He died in the early 80s as well. The book Fatal Vision that we talked about earlier was published in 1984. Jeffrey invited McGinnis to write the book to show his innocence. but McGinnis's book presented him as guilty. Jeffrey McDonald won a $325,000 breach of contract settlement in this case. Colette's parents sued McDonald to try to prevent him from profiting off the book. He got $50,000 of the proceeds from the lawsuit, but he gave the rest to attorneys, his mother and the cassat.

Now, I think Gibbs, you could look at that a number of ways. You could say that he's trying to. to do the right thing. Take care of his mother, give something back to the cassabs who lost, you know, their daughter and granddaughters. But you could also say he's in prison. What's he going to do with $325,000? There's only so much ramen you can eat.

I don't know. That's a lot of ramen, wouldn't it? It is a lot of ramen. Yeah. It's a lot of cigarettes. You could buy a lot of protection. So I don't know. I think people will look at that different ways.

you know, maybe he was setting up for a later parole board hearing. You know, he wanted to come off as the good guy. I don't know. While Jeffrey was in prison in the 90s, he read about new forensic DNA testing that he thought could help him prove his innocence. He told his attorneys who were working on a post-conviction motion for his case. McDonald's legal team added the request for DNA testing to their 1997 motion. They wanted all the crime scene evidence tested, which was hundreds of items.

And I think this happened a lot. For people in prison convicted of crimes who, you know, maintain their innocence, once this started to come out about DNA testing, I'm sure it was brought up by a lot of people to their attorneys. This could help prove my innocence. Sure. Why wouldn't you want to attempt that? Or it could prove my, yeah. Or it could prove my guilt. But, you know, my thought is, what does he have to lose?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the motion and remanded the matter to the district court. U.S. District Judge James Fox allowed testing on 27 exhibits. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology was designated to conduct the testing. Two years later, though, when the testing still hadn't started, co-founder of the Innocence Project, Barry Shaq, joined. in lobbying for testing. And I know that all true crime fans know who Barry Shack is, but it would take years to get the test results. While in prison, Jeffrey married his second wife,

Catherine McDonald. They had met briefly in Baltimore, but didn't talk for years until she wrote to him in prison in the 90s. They developed a friendship and continued writing to each other. Catherine told the Washington Post in 2005 several years into this, we realized we had become basically a couple. Took them a couple years to figure it out. Doing a lot of handholding, are you? You're going to see a lot of movies? Doing a lot of Netflix and chill.

Netflix and chill. No, you're not. But again, I don't understand it. I know it happens all the time. Does. Yeah, I go back to the making a murderer. you know, when he's in prison for the second time, that lady kind of comes out of the woodworks and wants to start a relationship with him. She's way out of his league. Sure. And he's in prison.

And he doesn't realize that there's something else going on there. The whole time I'm watching it, I'm thinking, clue in, buddy. Come on. Yeah. You got to figure it out at some point. Catherine became a paralegal to help Jeffrey with this case. In 2000, she started a website, which led to new evidence that was part of an appeal. They got married in prison in 2002. What's like? It's probably like a beautiful ceremony. Yeah, you've got a DJ, you know, just all your friends are invited.

The reception is probably crazy, like, you know, off the hook. No, you're actually probably on the hook. Oh, that's true. probably cuffed. Probably are. Literally. Yeah. Catherine has advocated for Jeffrey for many years.

She speaks to the media, works with his legal team, talks to witnesses and once appealed to former President Trump on social media. She told the Fayetteville Observer in 2017, I know my husband is innocent. He is the most honorable person I have ever known. If I ever had one scintilla of a doubt about Jeff, I wouldn't be where I am. He is innocent. And justice has to be. mean something. So I'm not putting this woman in the category of that, that woman from making a

murderer. No. Obviously, she cared about this guy. They got married. She thought he was innocent. She was fighting on his behalf. It doesn't sound as though she was doing it for, for any other reason than that. Gene Stokely, Helena's brother contacted Catherine. When his mother was dying, she went to a nursing home in Fayetteville on March 31st, 2006, to obtain a sworn affidavit from Helena Stokely, Sr. before she passed away. Helena, the daughter said that herself, Greg Mitchell, and two other men, went to the apartment to harass McDonald. Mitchell and one of the men killed Colette and the girls. Helena Sr. said that they went to the home that night to try to teach Jeffrey McDonald the lesson because they thought he was too hard on drug users on the base.

They didn't plan to kill his family, but things got out of hand. According to the desert news, Helena Sr. said, on the second occasion, during which she confided in me, she told me she could no longer live with the guilt of knowing she had been in the house, but lied about it at trial. She told me she was afraid to tell the truth because she was afraid of the prosecutor. Now, I understand that. nobody wants to say something that's going to incriminate them to ultimately, you know,

have them wind up in prison. Sure, yeah. That's a scary avenue to take. But I think you really have to dissect this and try to figure out if there's any truth to it. Now, she was a heroin user, admittedly. A heavy heroin. So was she trying to get off of heroin? Was she upset that Jeffrey McDonald was.

doing enough to help people. They said, you know, he was too hard on, on drug users. I don't know. Or was it just known that she was a heroin user? So they kind of worked that into the angle. Well, that seems plausible. I think that's what's tough in some of these cases. You can make arguments on either side.

Jeffrey McDonald applied for parole in 2005, but was rejected on June 15th of that year. he was rejected because he refused to acknowledge his guilt. NBC reported that in October 2000, McDonald wrote to Kathleen, it would be a dishonor to their memory to compromise the truth and admit to something I didn't do, no matter how long it takes. And we see this time and time again. We also see it from people who turn out to be innocent, that they refused to admit to doing something they didn't do, even knowing that by doing so, they greatly increase their chances of getting out. I mean, the parole board is basically saying, if you won't express your guilt, then we're not letting you out.

No, no reason to. Now, is he doing it because he really didn't do it and therefore doesn't want to admit to it or because he did it, but still doesn't want to admit to it because it would jeopardize a later appeal or whatever. And he has to be careful with all that. He does. On March 10, 2006, U.S. Attorney Frank Whitney announced the filing with the results of the DNA testing.

According to a release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of North Carolina, DNA testing conducted by an independent laboratory selected by Jeffrey McDompton, has determined that neither the DNA of Helena Stokely nor Greg Mitchell. was present in any of the questioned hair or blood samples tested. And thus has produced no evidence exculpatory of McDonald. There you go. Well, and I do think this is something that you and I have discussed before.

What does the absence of DNA mean versus finding DNA at the scene? Because to me, they are a little different. Yeah. if the person is wearing gloves and, you know, taking protective measures, could they not leave DNA? And I, and fingerprints and stuff like that. And I would say the answer is yes. Yeah, sure. So the absence of something to me is not quite the same as the presence of something, if that makes any sense.

That makes sense. Well, it should make sense to you because you're a Rhodes scholar. I am not only a R-H-O-D-E, but also R-O-A-D. You like that? I just like the fact that you're showing off the fact that you know how to spell Rhodes Scholar. But the one thing I will say is that you have DNA that shouldn't be there. And it doesn't match those two people. So it does have to mean something.

But I don't know what it means compared to if they had found their DNA. Right. There, because they were eliminated as possible donors of the DNA sequences and the samples. It was said that instead, the AFIP testing confirms the results of FBI microscopic hair comparisons introduced at trial. And by identifying Jeffrey McDonald as the donor of hairs found in critical locations, which he claimed would prove to be evidence of intruders. And I think it's the term critical locations that's key, right?

Jeffrey McDonald lives there. His hair is going to be throughout that residence. Sure, just like we talked about, your blood is probably throughout this place here. Yeah, but if it's found in somebody's clenched hand or, you know, in some type of critical location like that, it definitely means something different. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence that a hair found in Collette's right hand, matched the hair on her head, DNA testing confirmed this result. The prosecution also offered testimony that a fragment of a Caucasian limb hair found in Colette's left hand

did not possess enough points for comparison purposes. McDonald claimed this hair was left by the killer. However, it was said that DNA testing of the hair established that Jeffrey McDonald, and not an intruder, was the source of the hair in Collette's left hand. So limb hair is kind of a strange term. It is. I'm assuming they don't know if it came from an arm, a leg, or whatever. Obviously, they can tell it's not a head hair.

Yeah. But what I'm really getting from all of this is that, you know, him coming out and saying, you know, this DNA testing is going to prove my story. Well, it didn't at all. If anything, it kind of bolstered the prosecution's theories. That's true. Now, did he know that or was it worth taking a flyer on it because the outcome couldn't get any worse for him no matter what? That's probably true right there, the latter.

So what's the harm? Yeah. Maybe somebody will make a mistake. Maybe they won't be able to get a good enough sample and it will cast a little doubt or something like that. The DNA of an unidentified hair found on a sheet, which the defense claimed, came from an intruder matched Colette's DNA sequence. This sheet was found on the master bedroom floor and had Colette's blood on it.

And the other thing is it's just interesting to look at DNA results many years later after a trial where there was no DNA. Because you have these people making all of these claims, but there's no way to know whether they're true or not. Well, by this point in time, there is a way. Now, there's a little more to the story, and you can say, did they get it right? And so far, it's leaning more towards the prosecution side. Yeah. And the DNA is kind of blowing up a lot of the defense arguments. There were hairs with DNA sequences that do not match the McDonald family, Stokely, or Mitchell. However, any residents, such as the McDonald's would be expected to contain hairs from persons other than the four people

who lived there. Evidence presented to the jury in the 1979 trial included numerous unmatched fingerprints, hairs, fibers, and candle wax remains. And there again, the fact that you have unidentified prints or hairs or, you know, whatever it is, what does it mean? Does it mean that they were from these killers, these intruders, or was it from somebody who attended a potluck dinner three months earlier? I really don't know if you can separate that, like that determination. No, not if you can't match whatever it is to something in a database. If somebody's not in the database, you don't know who the hair or fingerprint or whatever it is belongs to. What does it mean? I mean, people are in and out of people's homes all the time.

They sure are. Whether they're doing work, repairing an HVAC system, cleaning, you name it. People are in and out of, not my house, but most people's homes. Well, people can get into your house. No. Yeah. If you find DNA from someone other than my family and you here, it means something or immediate family. Yeah, yeah.

I do have immediate family here. You do let them come over occasionally. Occasionally by appointment. In 2006, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed McDonald to introduce evidence that retired deputy U.S. Marshal Jimmy Britt said he heard prosecutor Jim Blackburn threatened witness Helena Stokely. Britt gave his statement to defense attorneys in 2005. One of McDonald's previous attorneys also said that Stokely was prepared to testify,

that she was in the home on the night of the murders until prosecutor Blackburn threatened to charge her. On April 16, 2007, McDonald's attorneys filed the 2006 affidavit from Helena's mother as part of his pending appeal. In 2008, the U.S. District Court dismissed McDonald's appeal. So you have affidavits from a number of people, but to the court, that wasn't enough to overturn anything, not even get a new trial. In March 2010, this thing just dragging on. It does. Right? Year after year after year, McDonnell's lawyer sought a hearing on the premise that the DNA evidence warranted a new trial. In 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the district court to consider new evidence. That same year, the North Carolina Center on actual innocence

appealed to have all the evidence tested after they received a request from one of McDonald's attorneys. The hearing before a federal judge was scheduled for September 17th, 2012, regarding the DNA evidence and the statement from Jimmy Britt. The judge would determine whether or not to order a new trial at the end of the hearing. And we talked about the family of the victims. And you can see what a roller coaster this must have been. Yeah. He's guilty. He's free. No, he's guilty again. He goes back. And all of these appeals, every time they come up, okay, there's new evidence. We think there's new evidence. It had to have been really tough. It had to be challenging for him too, right? Thinking maybe I got this. And then to be let down.

Let down. Yeah, that's something we don't talk about. Yeah. Probably enough is the roller coaster ride that, you know, some of these prisoners take. Now, we don't care as much. Because, because most of the time they're guilty. Right. But let's say you're innocent. Yeah. That would be extremely hard to think that, oh, no, they're finally going to see the truth. Right.

You're just one step closer and then you get pulled back. Yep. On September 18th, Helena Stokely's brother, Eugene, testified that she confessed on her deathbed, that she was in the home on the night of the murders. prosecutors tried to dismiss this testimony by suggesting that Helena told many people. She was in the house on the night of the murders. On the first day of the hearing, the defense presented the November 3rd, 2005 affidavit from former deputy U.S. Marshal James Britt.

James Britt had passed away by this point. And this is part of the problem when you have something that drags on for so many years. Yeah, they have his affidavit, but he can't get up there. and testify. No, he's gone. So essentially, Britt was assigned to drive Helena from the county jail in Greenville,

South Carolina, to Raleigh, North Carolina for questioning before the trial. During the trip, according to him, she brought up the trial on her room. She told Britt and an administrative assistant that she was in the house that night

to get drugs. She described details about the house, including a hobby horse. Prosecutor said, photo of the hobby horse appeared in the Fayetteville Observer, which implied Helena had just seen the pictures and wasn't really at the crime scene. That could be true right there. Well, and that's always a problem. You know, when somebody comes out later and says something, and it's proven that they could have seen that in a paper, saw it in a TV segment. Okay. Does it carry the same weight as it would have

if that stuff was not public knowledge. And I would say probably not. Doesn't mean it's not true. I just don't think it carries the same way. Yeah, I agree with you. Britt said he heard her confess to being there a second time at the courthouse. She made her confession to U.S. Attorney James Blackburn. Blackburn allegedly told her, according to ABC,

if you testify before the jury as to what you have told me were said to me in this office, I will indict you for murder. Wow. So, you know, we kind of talked about it a little bit earlier. But if that is true, you could see why the thought of being indicted for murder would change your testimony. Absolutely it would. It would be like, hmm. I think I'll just keep my mouth shut.

Yeah. Yeah. Because I would like to stay out of prison. I mean, witness intimidation right there. James Blackburn later went into private practice and was found guilty of ethical violations. in 1993. He pleaded guilty to fraud, embezzlement, in other felonies.

He was disbarred. So that doesn't make him look great. It doesn't. It makes him look like a dishonest person. Now, it doesn't absolutely mean that he did this to Helena Stokely, but it doesn't look good. On September 19th, James Blackburn testified that he never threatened Helena Stokely with murder charges.

He said that Jimmy Britt was not. even in the room where he and other prosecutors were interviewing her. He never allowed a marshal to be present during a witness interview. Yeah, but now I can't believe what he says. Yeah, but he said this before all that came out. Yeah, but now that you know, you know what I'm saying. Yeah, I get what you're saying. But if you're a jury or if you're a court, how are you weighing all this stuff? Yeah, because before you knew this, you're probably, he's a prosecutor. Yeah. Why would he lie? Exactly. And again, I'm not saying he did lie. I'm just saying what later happened doesn't make him look good.

And I think that's what you were saying as well. It discredits what he said. You know, how do you determine what he said in the past was true and what was not? Yeah, I get that. Prosecutors presented law enforcement documents showing that other marshals, not Jimmy Britt, drove Helena Stokely on the day of her transport. So there's just tons of conflicting information. Two of Brits' former supervisors testified that he was a fabulous and a troublesome employee who could not be trusted, according to the LA Times.

One witness testified that Brits submitted a fake overtime claim and once got into a fist fight with another marshal over a woman working in the office. So a lot of people connected to this case in what you would think is law enforcement do the right thing capacity. you later find out that, okay, people had a lot of bad things to say about them or they were indicted for something. Former FBI agent Frank Mills Jr. who drove Helena Stokely on a different date in 1979 said Helena claimed she had no memories of the night of the murders because she was on mescaline, heroin, and other drugs. Stokely said she lied to the police and military investigators when she said she might have been at the house. So, you know, part of this is on her because she's telling so many different stories. Yeah, it's all over the place. On cross-examination,

though he conceded that Helena did not categorically state that she was not involved in the murders. He testified that she described a recurring dream in which she was in the McDonald's holding a candle in saying acid is groovy killed the pit. If you're taking masculine. Heroin. You're going to have some bizarre, crazy dreams. And other drugs, not named. Yeah, maybe.

Maybe. I don't know. But would you say that that knowledge kind of taints a lot of the things that she said? Yeah. Yeah. I think it would too. Helena also told reporters that she saw her boyfriend and another man, kill Collette and the girls.

But at trial said she couldn't remember. anything. According to Blackburn, Stokely told him and other prosecutors the day before she testified that she had never been to McDonald's home. On July 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge James Fox denied Jeffrey's bid for a new trial. Judge Fox stated that Jeffrey had not made a sufficient showing to permit him to appeal the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. And I'm sure he's heavily involved with his attorneys on these appeals because we know right he's a very smart guy yeah you know went to princeton went to um med school northwestern northwestern and i mean i don't feel bad for him but i know that he's probably

disappointed each time one of these appeals get turned down well i i think every inmate is disappointed when they're when their appeal is rejected i'm just thinking maybe he's got more invested into it of the crafting of the appeal? Oh, he might. And there are a lot of people who believe that, you know, he's innocent or maybe innocent. There's a lot of people that think he's guilty as well. According to a release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, the district court found James Brits allegations, incredible and unreliable. The court found that the DNA results did not constitute exculpatory scientific evidence. So, I mean, I think these are the two things. they were really hanging their head on, right?

This affidavit by James Britt. Right. And the DNA results. And the court basically said, no, it doesn't mean anything or doesn't mean enough. The court stated that a separate order would be released in regards to McDonald's 2011 motion requesting additional DNA testing. Well, I think he wanted some extra DNA testing on what, some 40 additional items. Yeah. And he was backed up by that North Carolina center on actually.

innocence, but in 2014, the motion was denied. And then in 2015, the U.S. District Court kind of backed it up. In December 2016, McDonald's attorneys presented a new court filing as part of his appeal, asking the court to vacate his conviction based on evidence found after his trial. Some of this evidence was discovered through DNA testing, but some of it was withheld at trial by prosecutors and was obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. This according to McDonald's attorneys, they disputed the prosecution's claims that there was no signs of intruders citing the candlewax from three different candles found at the crime

scene, which did not match any candles that the family owned. The synthetic blonde wig hairs found in a hairbrush next to the phone, black wool fibers found at the crime scene, didn't match any fabric in the home and unidentified fingerprints, palm prints, and footprints, as well as evidence that was lost or destroyed due to an apt handling of the crime scene. This evidence included the pajama bottoms and skin recovered from underneath Colette's fingernail, according to People magazine.

So, you know, there's a lot there. And I think at the crux of it, they're basically saying that, you know, this crime. scene was so botched. Right.

That, you know, how can you rely on anything? They're also saying that prosecutors withheld evidence, which that would be, you know, a big time violation. And we've already identified all of the things, all of the evidence that his defense team said was uncovered after the fact. On December 21st, 2018, a three-judge panel rejected McDonald's appeal. the next year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take his case. 2019. Wow. We're really up there now. He was eligible for parole in 2020. But the AP reported that he

waived two opportunities to seek parole. Now, why would he do that? Probably because he knows he's not going to get parole because he's not willing to admit he committed the crime. Yeah, we already said that that was part of what the parole board wanted to hear, which makes it really tough for people who are truly innocent. Yeah, sure. Yeah. In November 2020, McDonald filed a motion requesting compassionate release and a reduction in a reduction of his sentences.

This hearing took place on March 11, 2012. So we're smack dab into COVID now. Oh, yeah. McDonald suffers from kidney disease, skin cancer, and high blood pressure. His attorneys argued that these factors make him a candidate for a sentence reduction. His attorney, Elliot Abrams, told the judge that McDonald was at the end of his life and had already served 40 years in prison. So the compassionate release law allows some federal prisoners over age 70 to get out of prison

under certain circumstances, such as serving at least 30 years or having extraordinary and compelling reasons. prosecutors argued that the laws cited by the defense didn't apply to McDonald's case because the crimes occurred before the new laws took effect. Even if they did apply, they said McDonald's should be denied because he never showed remorse. On April 9, 2021, Judge Terrence Boyle denied McDonald's motion. He ruled that McDonald was ineligible for compassionate release because he was sentenced under an older law that gives inmates the opportunity for parole. McDonald appealed, but then asked to have the appeal dismissed.

And there's really no record that indicates why, you know, he dismissed it, but it might go back to what we were talking about earlier. Maybe he just doesn't want to be denied and he knows he will be. Jeffrey McDonald is 79 years old and still incarcerated. His case has been in the national media for five decades. And, you know, like I said before, there are a lot of people who believe in his innocence, but there are a lot of people who believe in his guilt as well. This is one of those cases that divides people.

Controversal. Yeah. There are more people on each side of the fence than normal. You know, in most of the cases that we do, they're pretty cut and dry. You're going to have some people who don't believe a person is guilty based on the evidence. but by and large the majority of people are going to listen to everything and and soak it in and say well sure he's guilty but this is not one of those cases no it's not cut and dry at all i don't believe it's cut and dry well i don't either i don't i don't know that it's definitive

right because you are talking about you know somewhat maybe of us a botched crime scene right um 1970s technology at the time. And then, you know, how many people's cases actually get overturned? I mean, the hurdle is very high. Yeah. Oh, yeah. The bar to get over to accomplish that. And most people just can't do it.

You know, but as we wrap up this case, I lean towards him being guilty. Number one, that's what a jury decided. They did. So many different appeals courts have looked at it. it and said there's nothing for us to overturn. Right. You know, the 48 puncture marks in in the shirt, it seems so strange to me when it's your shirt and you only have four puncture wound. It's definitely an issue. And your wife has that exact number, 48. I mean, he had some wounds, some of them severe, but he was also a doctor. So he potentially knew what he was,

dueling to himself. Yeah, he could have known how to injure himself, but make sure that they wouldn't be life-threatening? Exactly. I think so. Now, could you make a mistake? Could you guarantee it? No, but...

He definitely had more knowledge than others in that arena. Yeah, I think what you really have to look at is motive. Yeah. Now, the 15 girlfriends, to me, kind of screams a guy who wasn't happy. Right. who maybe wanted to be free of his marriage, free of his kids, and this is the way that he thought he would make that happen. But that's not definitive. It's not. I mean, I, and I think that's what throws people about this case is, you know, where's the conclusiveness? You know, where's that kind of

lockdown evidence? And I just don't know that there really is that. Well, there's not. I think that's what would have made this case more concrete versus having people on both sides of it just saying, you're wrong, this happened. And other people say, no, you're wrong. This happened, right? Because nothing is that solid. Yeah. But at the end of the day, unless there's something that happens, Jeffrey McDonald's going to die in prison. Yeah. Unless something dramatically changes. He's already 79 years old. Exactly. And he keeps waving appeals because he doesn't want to. He doesn't want to to admit guilt. Sure.

Whether that's because he just doesn't want to do it or he's not guilty. I think he's going to go to his deathbed saying I didn't do it. At this point, why would you change your story? Yeah, yeah, that's what I was thinking. So many years on, why would you just all of a sudden change it? Yeah. You know, if it's the truth, you're going to stick with it. If it's a lie, you're going to stick with it because you're vested.

Yeah, you're, you're, you're pot committed. Yeah. this point. But that's it for our case on Jeffrey McDonald. We got one voicemail. Okay. Because I knew this was going to be a longer episode. Okay. But it's a longer voicemail and I got a kick out of it. All right. So let's play. Let's hear it. Hey, guys. This is Chuck from Missouri. Really enjoy your podcast. I was listening to the one about Ernest and Mike was talking about the T-shirts that he bought for his daughters that said something along the lines of something about an attitude and my dad knows that a very body. So my son had

posted something on social media as a picture of him and his sister. And at the time, I believe she was about 15. And one of the kids said, holy cow, man, your sister's hot. Is she single? And I got on there. And I said, yeah, she is. And she'll say that way. And I said, by the way, she's only 15.

And he's like, well, I'm only 17 and I can take whoever I want. And I said, well, that's great. And I got 140 acres out here in the middle of Missouri that needs fertilizer. And his next comment was, let me say no more. We're all good. So, yeah, it's just, it's one of those things that, you know, when you live in the Midwest, you know, the town that I live in, and they're a bigger town than ours is probably 45 miles away

and we're surrounded by cornfield. So, you know, there comes a point where people from the city, you know, they don't understand it when we say people come up missing around here. I mean, they don't realize there's cornfields for 30, 40, 50 miles in every direction. So, you know, you can tell people not to mess with your family, and I don't think they realize it until they actually do research on what goes on in the country. You know, you had to, down in Skidmore, Missouri, you had to bully down there that, you know, basically,

five or six guys shot the guy on town square and nobody said anything and they still don't know who actually killed the guy because nobody ever talked. You know, we had a cereal color that lived about 12 miles from us and I think he ended up with seven or eight bodies. So, you know, when you look at the Midwest as a whole, it's one of those places where you just don't go down there messing with people. So love listening to you guys. Keep up the good work. Keep your own time ticking. That's why that corn grows so good in that area. That's why it's knee high by the 4th of July. Isn't that the old saying? Yeah.

But no, I got to kick out of that. And we had no bail bag. No mail. No mail. So that is it, buddy. Or another episode of true crime all the time. So for Mike, and givey.

Stay safe and keep your own time ticking.