This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The pyjama top was PROVED not to have been ripped after it got bloody but BEFORE it got bloody. There are many other discrepencies in this article, please do not trust it. 77.99.225.95 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for your proof that the top was torn prior to being stained with his wife's blood, contrary to trial testimony that his wife's blood stained it prior to it's being torn. I'm all ears! 165.189.169.190 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was pleased to see that an update on the DNA evidence was made, but the new developments that came with it have been excluded. I think it's rather biased to only include new information that condemns MacDonald, when it's equally notable that three witnesses have come forward claiming that Mitchell confessed to the crime - in addition to Britt's allegation that Stoeckly personally confessed to him.
If we're going to add new information, there needs to be a balance between evidence favoring the prosecution and evidence favoring MacDonald. Otherwise, it gives the reader the false impression that MacDonald's lawyers presented new evidence and it was all soundly rejected. The same would be true if the fact that the hair was his was excluded and only the pro-MacDonald evidence was revealed. Somebody needs to summarize the new facts of the case (available many places, including crimelibrary.com) in a detailed, accurate, non-biased manner, giving equal time to both sides. --67.169.111.72 03:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What's the motive that MacDonald had to commit these horrific acts?Tom Cod 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
There are differences between the Mattingly murder and the MacDonald murders - the Mattingly murders involved the very troubled daughter and her hippie friends killing her father, not a group of hippies who were strangers to their victims.
The Government contends that MacDonald's motive that he went into a rage - a fight started between him and his wife in the master bedroom and escalated to physical battering, and ultimately to murder. Makes a lot more sense than the ridiculous motives "confessed" to by Stoeckley - "I was a member of the "Black Cult" and we believed that the murder of the a pregnant woman was the ultimate sacrifice".
Both McGinness & the A&E Green Beret Murders program cited MacDonald's abuse of amphetamine & the possibility of an extramarital affair: in addition to his regular doctor job with the Green Berets, he reputedly worked part-time in a civilian E.R. room off base. He was also heavily involved with an Army amateur boxing team, which was to leave soon for, if memory serves, the Soviet Union.
With regard to drugs, Fayetteville became a haven for wayward soldiers returning from 'Nam & leaving the Army & addicted to heroin & cocaine; McGinness reported that MacDonald was seeing overdose (O.D.) cases in the E.R. (Like Haight-Ashbury in the late 60s, Fayetteville's early 70s O.D. incidents led to what would soon be called "emergency medicine.") @Any rate, MacDonald could well have been overworked & overwrought: but after McGinness's book, I just think of him washing dishes & downing that peach liqueur.--BubbleDine 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As regards BubbleDine's contention that Helena Stoeckley's motives were "ridiculous" -- the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Ruling of May 6, 2010 has expanded MacDonald's appeal to consider evidence that trial prosecutor threatened Helena Stoeckley with a murder indictment if she told the jury what she told him: that had been in the MacDonald home when the murders were committed. The prosecutor was quite the character, eh? He was eventually imprisoned and disbarred. Sorry to bust your bubble, BubbleDineShemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Along with her contention that she had "intercoarse" with MacDonald a couple of weeks before the murders and that Allen Mazzerole was there. Yep, soooo believeable! And since we want the court to consider ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, let's hope they consider the evidence that Britt lied (he didn't transport her from Greenville) and that Helena steadfastly denied involvement to the defense during their interview with her just prior to the Blackburn's interview of her and when she was picked up by the federal marshall service on the material witness warrent. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
He was not "heavily involved" with the boxing team - he worked out a couple of times with the team and discussed with the coach becoming the team physician. He claimed and still claims that he also discussed with the coach accompanying the team on their trip to Russia. However, the coach said that although they had casually discussed the team's potential trips, the team was not planning a trip to Russia nor had he ever mentioned such a locale to Macdonald. The Government claims that he made this up with the intent of taking a "vacation" from his family - with his pregnant wife thinking he's incommunicado in Russia, he would be able to live the bachelor life he desired and indulged in while he was married.
This is an incredibly one-sided article which does not even attempt to treat the government and defense cases, or competing secondary source material, fairly or objectively. The information and tone of the language are clearly intended to condemn both Dr. MacDonald and his supporters. the article should be flagged as biased or edited to reflect a neutral point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.235.62 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Examples please?
You left out the role of the noted FBI Lab perjurer and manufacturer of evidence Michael P. Malone.[1]
I don't know whether MacDonald is innocent or guilty, but I know the people who control this article have condemned him. This article is BIASED!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't condemn him - the courts have done that, as he stands convicted of the murders of his wife and children. Feel free to insert language about Michael Malone - IMO, it should be focused on his role in this case and that has been investigated and litigated. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Does the link provided by Shemp Howard re: Michael Malone say something about Malone's role in the MacDonald case? Perhaps a mention of Malone and his issues is indicated, but also that his role in this case has been investigated/litigated and no wrongdoing has been found. I don't think a media interview with a MacDonald attorney saying he thinks Malone lied proves anything. 165.189.169.156 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states: At the urging of his wife and attorneys, he had a parole hearing on May 10, 2005. How can this be if his wife died in 1970? Obviously, the article is missing information on his apparent remarriage. The article seems to be missing a lot of information. 144.92.192.127 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
MacDonald remarried while in prison.96.227.75.132 (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Any particular reason for the massive edit done by User:Ldbosco that wiped out much of the sourcing in this article? I'm thinking the whole thing should be rolled back, since it seems to be unsourced and overlinked. Dstumme (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. A lot of references were removed and no reason is given. Lots of the language added re: links - too much - and is intended to convey a POV about the webauthors. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've twice reverted very extensive edits by User:Kkmpl that included removal of cited content and references, no edit summaries, and does not adhere to WP:NPOV IMHO. The editor is welcome to bring issues to this talk page. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is from a site about the book "Fatal Justice"...."FBI agent Michael P. Malone filed false affidavits in response to MacDonald's 1990 habeas petition. They now knew that agent Malone, who was named by the Justice Department to have testified falsely in other cases, filed false affidavits on the 22 inch blond saran fiber found in the MacDonald home." Why is there no mention of this? Malone was an FBI Agent from the FBI Lab who testified about fiber evidence, as an expert, even though hair and fiber research is not a "science," by any means, but is a highly subjective process. Malone was accused by another FBI agent of tailoring his evidence to suit prosecutors, a case of "forensic prostitution". This involved the accusation that he intentionally gave false testimony in the Alcee Hastings impeachment trial. This is part of the FBI Lab corruption revealed by Dr. Frederic Whitehurst. Malone is the man who gave critical testimony that damned Jeffery MacDonald, and it's not even mentioned.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Malone was just in the news at the end of the year for committing perjury in a case in which a man was unjustly imprisoned. [2] There may be scores of people put in prison by this man's "testimony" and faked evidence, and you don't think it's important?
LAUER: Do you think Michael Malone lied in his written testimony in the MacDonald case?
SILVERGATE: Yes, I think Michael malone lied, and Michael Malone lied under oath. [3]
This is not a law school site, a site for law students or law professors. Wikipedia is for laypeople, for general interest readers. The fact that an FBI agent that was outed 12 years ago by the Bureau's Office of the Inspector General is a perjurer and manufacturer of evidence (the Alcee Hastings case) is something that readers should know about. It goes to the heart of the legal system. We're not just interested in the legal fictions that occur in the court room, but the WHOLE story of which Malone is a part!
I have no idea whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent, but I do know that he was convicted with the help of a career perjuror. And I'm not interested in the fact that the court didn't mention Malone. If Sam Sheppard had died before his sentence was vacated by the Supreme Court, let alone exonerated in his second trial, would that mean he was guilty? Would that mean the evidence that later exonerated him wasn't relevant? THIS IS SHAMEFUL! Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I said THIS ARTCILE doesn't mention Malone, not that the court didn't mention him. Instead of whining about it, put it in, or better yet start an article about Michael Malone. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The overseers of this page need to mention that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 6, 2010 not only DENIED the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss MacDonald's appeal but expanded the issues to be decided in the appeal. This article needs to mention that the Court of Appeals expanded MacDonald’s appeal to consider DNA test results as well as evidence that the original prosecutor threatened to indict Helena Stoeckley for murder if she testified contrary to his wishes. This article also needs to mention that submissions are to be made on June 15th.
The overseers who keep this page biased against MacDoanld are just going to have bite the bullet for the next several months. This bias of who is moderating this article is obscene. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Your statement about "bite the bullet" indicates that you are the one who is biased. There is no "overseer" - update the article yourself. 75.135.87.84 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be more discussion of Morris's book? It is only mentioned vaguely and simply to assert that McGinniss's work has problems - which suggests that it is along the lines of Malcolm's book. But, from what I can gather from reviews, Morris's book seems to be largely an attempt to show that MacDonald was probably innocent. Given Morris's prominence and general credibility, doesn't his book deserve more extended treatment in the article? 98.111.161.5 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I tend to believe Joe McGinniss's interpretation of the case. In addition, the question should be asked as to why there is virtually no evidence about the so-called "cult", or the members thereof, beyond the testimony of Ms. Stoeckley. Why hasn't the defense followed up about that?
In any case, the lack of evidence proving innocence would mitigate against any overturning of the verdict; many, many people are still in jail and have much more evidence of their innocence than in this case, yet are unable to obtain release or a new trial, unfortunately.
I read Mr. McGinniss's book a long time ago, yet to me it does not appear the defense has submitted much of anything additional that is substantive since that time, certainly not enough to warrant a new trial or acquittal. The burden of proof is generally on the defense (to overturn a conviction). I feel that the Morris book has not added anything to what was known before, and, right, wrong, or neutral, courts do not overturn convictions without something substantive. If you believe that is a bad thing, then laws would need to be changed. I do, however accept that sometimes forgiveness is good, but MacDonald refuses to admit guilt, so that is hurting his parole chances. If he is telling the truth, that is indeed a tragedy. But the court system, to function properly, needs to accept the finality of its decisions, lacking anything disproving guilt.
The talk page is not supposed to be a forum to discuss the merits of this case and that is not my intention. I am simply asking if any factual information might be available regarding a point of interest to me. The article states that when the MPs arrived, the house was dark with no lights on. Dr. MacDonald claims that after being assaulted by the alleged assailants in the living room, he passed out from his wounds. After regaining consciousness, he then went to check on his family and gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to his wife in their bedroom. He then phoned for help before passing out again. But he didn’t turn on any lights during this time? Did Dr. MacDonald ever offer an explanation as to why he would have stumbled around in the dark rather than turn lights on? If so, could the explanation be added to the article as a matter of interest and clarification? It is difficult to fathom that this curious point was never raised before. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with this subject to edit the article. However, there is clearly an over-reliance on primary sources like trial transcripts and a dearth of reliable secondary/tertiary sources and so I've tagged accordingly.
I also wanted to provide feedback on something very specific and encourage you to consider it in improving the article: there is a decontextualized reference to "extramarital affairs" in the "Prosecution" subsection that I believe is confusing b/c the topic is not introduced to the reader at any point before in the article. The specific passage reads:
"Another piece of damaging evidence against MacDonald was an audio tape made of the April 6, 1970 interview by military investigators. Listening to this tape, the jury heard MacDonald's matter-of-fact, indifferent recitation of the murders. They heard him become angry, defensive, and emotional in response to suggestions by the investigators that he had committed the murders. He asked the investigators why would they think he, who had a beautiful family and everything going for him, could have murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters in cold blood for no reason. The jury also heard the investigators confront MacDonald with their knowledge of his extramarital affairs, to which MacDonald calmly responded, “Oh... you guys are more thorough than I thought.”"
What is the relevance of the "extramarital affairs" and where is the supporting detail and sourcing, please? Why aren't any alleged affairs introduced way, way before in the article so that the reader knows this crucial detail of the subject's behavior and/or relationship issues/status/drama prior to the current mention (which still remains totally decontextualized)? This seems especially sloppy and confusing because of what's written in the following section:
"Despite the evidence, the prosecution was hampered by the lack of motive for MacDonald to have committed the murders, since he had no history of violence or domestic abuse with his wife or children. Since Dupree refused both the defense and prosecution requests for any psychiatric evaluation to be done for MacDonald, he also refused the prosecution's request to allow into evidence any part of the Article 32 transcripts from MacDonald's 1970 U.S. Army hearing. Dupree ruled that since the current trial was a civilian trial and the Article 32 military hearing had several reports from the military investigators, which claimed that MacDonald may have murdered his wife and two daughters in a drug-induced rage, it was considered biased and hearsay."
That is, there's no mention of extramarital affairs as any kind of a factor in the murder(s), or salient to the subject's story - at least up til this point in the article. JDanek007Talk 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This is under the section "The murders":
"They found the front door closed and locked and the house dark inside. When no one answered the door, they circled to the back of the house, where they found the back screen door closed and unlocked but wide open."
This seems to be contradictory. It says that the screen door was closed but wide open. What is meant by this? Could we get someone to edit this to clarify it?
168.8.249.187 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The article says that CID didn't believe that Dr. McDonald could have been "bested" by three druggies when he was a Green Beret. He was a doctor ASSIGNED to 3rd SFG, but was he really a Green Beret? Did he go though Special Forces Assessment and Selection? Or was he just assigned to the Support Battalion for 3rd SFG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4A88:6F00:D6D:748D:CCF7:D123 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that he was an actual Green Beret, since the article says he joined the army on 7/1/1969 and was assigned to the Green Berets less than three months later - that's barely enough time to complete basic army training, never mind the special forces selection and training or the three years prior military service you need before you're eligible for SF selection. 24.115.46.109 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jeffrey R. MacDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The last link is in fact an anti-MacDonald site run by his detractors, and I think it should be described as such. The website run by his supporters is not listed. Thanks. bt10ant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note a site formerly maintained by Macdonald supporters - spoecifically his wife - that was previously listed on the page has not existed for a long time, and that's why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.253.2 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I happen to think the guy is as guilty as sin (in the interest of putting all my cards on the table).....but even I notice the NPOV issues with this article. A good example is this:
MacDonald's defense called forensic expert James Thornton to the stand. He unsuccessfully tried to rebut the government's contention that the pajama top was stationary on Colette's chest, rather than wrapped around MacDonald's wrists as he warded off blows, by conducting an experiment wherein a similar one was placed over a ham, moved back and forth on a sled, and stabbed at with an ice pick.[22]
The source for that is the trial transcript itself. (Via the Jeffrey MacDonald web site, which takes the position he is the killer.) To say Thornton was unsuccessful clearly violates wiki's rules on OR. To reach that conclusion, one would have to produce a interview with one of the jurors and (even then) qualify it by saying something about how it was the opinion of the jurors that he was unsuccessful. (After all, juries have fallen for junk science before. If Thornton's conclusions are also disputed by another expert (outside of the prosecution's case), those view can be presented with a RS.) The article makes a number of statements like that. I think it likely needs an overhaul.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Anybody think it worth mentioning Hoover's death as being a catalyst? From the beginning, he forbade the FBI from getting involved because of the mess the CID made of it.....after he died, they got into it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
1. At one point in the article it says "No fragments of skin were recovered from beneath the fingernails of any of the victims." But later on the point is made that yes: Colette had some skin under her nails and it was lost.
2. We probably should include the fact it came out in the Article 32 that the flower pot was stood up by army personnel. In the April 6, 1970 interview with the CID they accused Jeff of setting it up.
3. A big point of contention over the years (that goes unmentioned here) has been that coffee table in the living room. The investigators said it should have flipped all the way....but Col Rock went to the residence himself and flipped it over and a chair (braced against the wall) stopped it from going all the way.
I may address this myself in the coming days if someone doesn't beat me to it. ThanksRja13ww33 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I will probably add to the article at some point McGinniss's Eskatrol theory. (From the book Fatal Vision. It's mentioned in the Fatal Vision article the last time I looked.) That was a big revelation at the time as the motive was always the aspect of the crime even people who believed he was guilty struggled with.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
At one point we say: "To the chagrin of Provost Marshal Robert Kriwanek, on October 13, 1970, Colonel Rock issued a report recommending that charges be dismissed against MacDonald as insufficient evidence existed to prove his guilt." Actually Rock went further saying the charges were "not true". MacDonald has used that to claim double jeopardy. (Which has been rejected by the appeals courts) I need to address this too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Also probably worth mentioning Blackburn was (later) disbarred. That's become a big part of Mac's appeals.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
"no wet footprints were found at the crime scene" was added recently. I need to address that too. (More accurately to something that is claimed.) As Col Rock pointed out: if there were no wet footprints....that means the MPs were not there either. (And we know they were.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to add a brief comment about Ken Mica seeing a gal in a hat on the way to answering the call for help that night of the murders. This is a significant point that goes unmentioned. (And I delve into it some here because my addition will be much shorter.) Mica has said how odd it was to see that. This came up at the trial.....however he was not asked if it was Helena Stoeckley. And (in fact), after the trial, he has made it clear that the woman wasn't Helena. Mica has also said that his interviews with shows like Unsolved Mysteries, False Witness, 20/20, 48 Hours, etc were edited to intimate it was Helena.
I think it's worth mentioning because it's been another point that Team Mac has brought up a lot over the years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
We note the fact that Mac lied to the Kassabs about tracking down (and killing) one of the intruders (as well as other things)...but the article currently ascribes his motive "to discourage Kassab's efforts to obtain a copy of this [Article 32] transcript" and [later] "to placate Mildred and Alfred Kassab, whom he described as "bizarre" and "fanatics" regarding their interest in their search for justice."
In the interest of NPOV, I think we should mention his side of it, i.e. he has claimed he was trying to get them past their grief. He (for example) told American Justice while it was (in retrospect) a "crazy" thing to do.....he also said it was a "attempt to somehow assuage their grief a little, and get them past step one in overcoming their own grief".
Unless there are any objections, I can drop it in.
And by the way, I don't think he described the Kassabs as "bizzare" solely on the basis of their pursuit of justice. He mentioned some of Mildred's bizarre statements (at least according to him) after the murders.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
He tried discouraging him from obtaining the 2,000-page transcript, then got his mother to bring it, saying he needed it back after one weekend as he needed it for legal means. Three years later nothing had been done on MacDonald's part. I did mention I am trying to keep a NPOV, Rja13ww33. It is difficult, not least because even if you try and find facts or circumstance in MacDonald's favor, they are few and far between. Also, I am trying to remain aware of the length of the article and the exhaustive record of charges, legal hearings, convictions, appeals, "new evidence" hearings, overrulings, appeals etc.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In the article it was added (about the Grand Jury): "Also to testify was an individual who stated that, in his experience, individuals under the influence of LSD seldom become violent..."
The cited source doesn't mention that but Joe McGinniss said in Fatal Vision (the book) the person who said that was "The newspaper reporter who had covered the Article 32 hearing and who had interviewed MacDonald on the morning the charges against him were dropped also agreed to testify."(p. 479)
I've never been clear on who this person was (or if he testified). Checking the witness list for the Grand Jury, I don't see a reporter down as a witness. (Interestingly enough, this guy is given a scene in Fatal Vision (the miniseries)....testifying to the Grand Jury. But he is not identified there either.)
Anyone know who this is (and/or if he actually testified)? We probably should be clear on that point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I may be nitpicking but I noticed the part about how Blackburn framed his questions to Mac (at trial) in the form of "If the jury should find..." was removed. I thought that was noteworthy. It was a point for Blackburn in closing and was part of the shown testimony in the movie Fatal Vision. It is also (as far as I know) unique as trials go. I can't think of one (other than this one) where the attorney framed the questions this way.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I added brief statements and notes about how short Wade Smith's time in front of the jury was. If anyone feels it should be elaborated upon further: let me know. A lot of observers have expressed the opinion that it was a mistake to have Segal in front of the jury that much and that his argument didn't fit the profile of this particular jury. (Interestingly enough, Richard Cahn (who helped the Kassabs file their citizens complaint) was one of the people who expressed this pov.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
After reading the wiki article about this well respected and influential lawyer, I don’t think “flamboyant civilian defense attorney” is accurate or fair. TKnLA (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Stoeckley confessed to being part of the murders, in the form of an affidavit and Gunderson recorded video testimony of her confessing details to her involvement (on the Internet you view for yourself the video of her giving details of the murder)
At times Stoeckley denied having anything to do with the murders. But that does not change the fact that she really did confess to being involved.
You can argue if Stoeckley is lying or not, and you can point out that she has previously denied involvement in the murder, but --her confession definitely happened and thus is not alleged--
The subsection should be changed to simply: "Confession of Helena Stoeckley" YeshuaAdoni (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The subsection is on her confession of the crime.
The argument you are making is nonsense,.
If you want to post doubt about the truthfulness of her confession, so be it. But -- her confession is not alleged -- and the subsection title should be changed.
Although there IS an alleged confession, but it's not Helena.
From the aftermath subsection: "Gregory Mitchell, whom Helena Stoeckley accused of murdering Colette MacDonald, died of cirrhosis of the liver on June 2, 1982, at the age of 31. Like Stoeckley, Mitchell is known to have been a heavy narcotics user. Prior to his death, he is alleged to have confessed to his involvement in the murders to acquaintances.[213]" YeshuaAdoni (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
If someone confesses to something, their actions are a confession. If other people doubt the honesty of that persons statements, they does not make the action of their confession alleged.
What you are describing, is a voluntary choice of denying reality.
You already agreed that the confession is not alleged.
Stop this nonsense. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone can falsely confess to a crime. They still confessed. It's not alleged.
Someone can confess to a crime, and there be no evidence to support they actually did the crime. They still confessed. It's not alleged.
"Statements of Helena Stoeckley" is even worst than "alleged confession". Stoeckley made many statements about all kinds of topics (too many to count), and this subsection is about her statements of confessing to involvement in the murders.
The subsection should be: "Confession of Helena Stoeckley"
YeshuaAdoni (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
kieronoldham suggested: "Later confessions of Helena Stoeckley"
And I think that describes her statements better. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
My 2 cents: Stockley's confession is not alleged: she gave it one time on tape. In the case of Gregg Mitchell, that is secondhand (in that he supposedly confessed to a number of people).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I came across this interview with Jeff.....and this fascinated me because it is about the only time I've seen him asked if he was certain if Helena Stoeckley was the woman he saw that night (with the candle):
Not sure if it is worthy of inclusion....but thought I'd bring it up because I've never seen him asked that anywhere else. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
It is mentioned in this article that the argument may have started because of Kristen MacDonald's habit of wetting the bed. MacDonald did indeed state that he had found Kristen in the bed and she had wet it. However, no mention is made in the article itself of the fresh urine stain on the bed. The issue is that analysis proved that the urine stain on the bed was from the urine of Kimberley MacDonald, not Kristen. This information is buried in a note. A casual reader would assume that it was Kristen who had the bedwetting problem and it was she who had wet the bed that night, but this is not the case. It was Kimberley who wet the bed and she who wet the bed that night. I consider this a damning bit of evidence against MacDonald, because he surely could not have mistaken Kimberley for Kristen, yet it was not Kristen's urine. Why would he lie about that if he were innocent? On the other hand, if he is guilty, a motive for lying about it would have been that Kristen was two years old, while Kimberley was five years old, and a two-year-old wetting the bed is less likely to elicit frustration and anger than a five-year-old wetting the bed. When it's a five-year-old, it's a problem, when it's a two-year-old, not so much of a problem. It seems that he decided to state that it was Kristen so that investigators would be less likely to consider it a source of anger on his part. During the stressful moments of trying to cover up the crime, MacDonald did not stop to think that his daughters may have had different blood types and that if they did, that would pinpoint the source of the urine to Kimberley. 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:D19D:4676:54EF:5659 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)