MovieChat Forums > Fatal Vision (1984) Discussion > Did anyone watch Colette's brother on Ha...

Did anyone watch Colette's brother on Hardball the other night?

posted 20 years ago by HalfBloodPrincess1967
10 replies | jump to latest

Interesting. I just wondered what other people thought of it if they saw it, and if they believe the brothers theory. BTW, if anyone is interested, Jeff MacDonald was denied parole again just the other day, that's why Colette's brother (Robert Stevenson) was on Hardball. Here is a link to the transcript of the show.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7819270/

Spike: Yeah, I could do that, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much.

[–] cami2 19 years ago

I did. I don't buy the molestion theory at all. I am just pleased to know he didn't get and will never get paroled.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog

[–] linguist1967 19 years ago

"I don't buy the molestion theory at all."

cami, do you have a theory of your own???

Learn a new language, explore a new world.

[–] cami2 19 years ago

Are you sure you want me to answer that question, LOL? I'll give you the Cole's notes version.

I believe that Colette MacDonald was fed up with a husband that left her alone all the time with two small children. He was either working or cheating on her with other women. When he was home he was tired/sleeping or he was inviting friends and colleagues in to drink wine and watch tv. He was the king of the castle type who expected his word to be law, his wishes and his needs always to come first.

We will never know what caused the argument that night as Mac will never tell but I believe that Colette was packing her bags and was intending to leave him. I think it's safe to say they may have argued about his philandering as well as how to parent the children. MacDonald was/is a control freak who couldnt'stand criticism, who stifled Colette's growth, and who probably often put her and the children down with cutting and snide remarks. Colette was trapped in that marriage. Had she left she would have been a single mother with three small children and no job. I think she stayed out of desperation and fear of taking that final step--until February 17th.

Macdonald couldn't have that so he killed her. The perfect image of himself he had always wanted to present to the world would be demolished. Nobody was going to do that to him, the great Jeffrey MacDonald.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog

[–] linguist1967 19 years ago

You're certainly right about his cheating. I do think that Colette would have eventually left him. (Sadly, she's not here to tell us if that's true or not.) My doubts as to his guilt were NOT based on his charismatic personality. I don't think he is, or ever was, a particularly nice person. But on what other occasion have you ever heard of people (Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell in this case.) confessing to horrible crimes that they never committed? (Yes, I know you posted earlier that Greg Mitchell never confessed, but somebody wrote I KILLED MACDONALD'S WIFE AND CHILDREN in blood on the wall and it wasn't Jeffrey.)

Perhaps I'm being gullible. I'm hoping and praying that these upcoming DNA tests, scheduled to be completed by the end of 2005, will either eliminate any remaining doubt that he is, as you say, GUILTY of the murder of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen, in which case I will apologize to you publicly online or that they will say decisively that the wrong man is in prison, depending on objective fact.

I am christian so I believe in an omniscient God who knows who did what to whom at 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. If the DNA tests say what you think they're going to say, MacDonald should be thankful that he's not going to be executed because that is CERTAINLY what he would deserve.

Learn a new language, explore a new world.

[–] cami2 19 years ago

You know what. You will not ever need to apologize to me. I don't fault anyone for their beliefs. I have researched this case for years. There's no doubt in my mind that MacDonald and MacDonald alone murdered his family. The dna tests are not going to exonerate MacDonald. They will be inconclusive at best.

Did you read my post on the other thread about Stoeckley/Mitchell?

It looks as if my post disappeared so here it is again

Greg Mitchell: No fingerprints from Mitchell were found at the crime scene and he passed a polygraph exam with flying colors. The exam was administered by the CID's best examiner, Robert Brisentine. This seemed to have ended any speculation that Mitchell was involved in these murders until Stoeckley mentioned his name to Ted Gunderson in 1980. Gunderson knew where Mitchell lived, yet despite being paid a handsome sum of money by MacDonald, Gunderson made no effort to interview Mitchell. The FBI did contact Mitchell in 1981 and Mitchell agree to a face-to-face interview at the FBI offices in North Carolina. Mitchell denied involvement in the murders and was cleared by the FBI.

Mitchell died in 1982, but he continued to be an important figure among MacDonald advocates. From 1984-1989, stories of Mitchell possibly being an individual who allegedly admitted to killing the MacDonald family and writing a cryptic message on a barn wall, surfaced in various media forms. The problem with all of these stories is that none of them are consistent (e.g., early versions the message written in paint, subsequent versions in blood) nor is there a shred of documented evidence linking the events to Mitchell.

As always links to Mitchell can be found at www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com under the "scanned documents" section.

I am a christian as well and yes there is one person MacDonald cannot hide his guilt from on judgement day. What will he say when the Lord asks him what he did with the beautiful wife and children he was blessed with.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog

[–] HalfBloodPrincess1967 19 years ago

MacDonald was/is a control freak who couldnt'stand criticism, who stifled Colette's growth

Hmmmm. Colette was taking college courses at the time of her death so I don't know about him stifling her growth, she was at least going to college. All depends on whether or not it was her idea to go back (which I believe it was) or whether or not he fought her on it (don't know). I'm not in any way saying he was a saint, not at all, but just because a man cheats on his wife doesn't mean he is capable of killing her. We saw that in the Dr Sam Shepherd case which is/was almost similar. Of course some people would still argue that he's guilty also. I don't know, I'm still on the fence about MacDonald. What gets me is the claim that he collapsed his own lung. I told that part to a friend of mine who had never followed the case and she was skeptical about that part. Did anyone watch 48 Hours tonight? I did.

I'm a Harry & Ginny shipper.

Harry & Ginny

[–] cami2 19 years ago

Colette was taking college courses at the time of her death so I don't know about him stifling her growth, she was at least going to college.

He so uninterested in her growth that when questioned by the CID on April 6, he thought she was taking classes in "something literature." She was taking child psychology. He also stated that once that she would "piddle with teaching." In other words he wanted her in the home with the children where he could control her. IMO anyway.

All depends on whether or not it was her idea to go back (which I believe it was) or whether or not he fought her on it (don't know).

Me too. True we don't know.

I'm not in any way saying he was a saint, not at all, but just because a man cheats on his wife doesn't mean he is capable of killing her.

????? Why oh why did you have to make this statement. Do you think MacDonald was arrested, tried and convicted because he cheated on his wife? It shows a lack of commitment to his wife and the marriage. It shows a lack of commitment to fatherhood. It therefore makes it easier for him to objectify them and hence get rid of them wouldn't you say?

We saw that in the Dr Sam Shepherd case which is/was almost similar. Of course some people would still argue that he's guilty also.

I used to think he was innocent but now I am not so sure. I haven't researched his case as I have MacDonalds. Gregg McCrary's profile based on the blood was an eye opener. Here's a link if you are interested:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/sheppard2/index_1.html

I don't know, I'm still on the fence about MacDonald. What gets me is the claim that he collapsed his own lung. I told that part to a friend of mine who had never followed the case and she was skeptical about that part. Did anyone watch 48 Hours tonight? I did.

Not too hard for a doctor with an interest in surgery. He knew exactly where to stab himself so as to partially collapse his own lung. He also had assisted with similar surgery just days before the murders. Scalpels were found in his apt. The blood evidence is what leads to him as the killer. The physical evidence, the forensics has always been at the core of the MacDonald case and it all points straight to him as the killer.

Yes, I watched 48 hours. Nothing new same tired old claims by the defense.
Tim Junkin's alluding that the saran fibres, the candle wax and the piece of skin from under Colette's fingernail as "new evidence."

Stating these "evidentiary items" never saw the light of day until after the 1979 trial. The candle wax drippings were discussed in the Article 32, the Grand Jury and the 1979 trial. The saran fibres were analyzed in 1974 by Paul Stombaugh. His notes were given to the defense prior to the 1979 trial.

Mr. Junkin should have done his homework prior to this program. He looked totally foolish bringing out these old tired items and claiming them "new evidence."

There's a new website that contains all the legal documents. You can research to your heart's content if you desire. It has everything, the Article 32 transcripts, the Grand Jury, the 1979 Trial trancripts. The trial transcrips are extensive but boy oh boy when you read Stombaugh's testimony and compare it with the two defense experts, Morton and Thornton, well there's just no comparison. Thornton even agrees with Stombaugh on what I believe to be the one true smoking gun, the blue bedsheet.

Here's the link: www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog

[–] linguist1967 19 years ago

cami, you were right. I'm now convinced that MacDonald is as guilty as sin.

Learn a new language, explore a new world.

[–] debums 19 years ago

My mom sat on the Federal grand jury for the case. She didn't believe he was guilty at first, either, but by the time the hearing was over, she was completely convinced of his guilt. Hands down. She read Fatal Vision and said that it was VERY close to what they were presented. I've read some stuff from MacDonald's site and it really is easy to take that warped information in, and put it with your own desire to believe that a husband and father would be incapable of it, but my mom thinks he just snapped that night - Colette had revealed in her child psych class that night that Kimberly (not Kristen) was still wetting the bed, and that was an embarrassment to him and shed doubt on the perfection of his life and family that he tried so hard to present. He wasn't sleeping enough and was on drugs a lot of times to stay awake to work, and he just lost control.

Probably the biggest shame to me is that he didn't love them enough to go ahead and own up to it, feeling regret and shame for what he did and stop the lying and fighting. But, that would go against his nature. He is practically a celebrity, now, has a following, etc. He doesn't want to sacrifice that - he's getting too much attention as a victim and it works his ego tremendously.

My mom used to think that on his death bed, he may actually own up to it, but she's pretty conviced, now, that he's probably convinced himself that Colette deserved it and brought it all on, and that it's really her fault that any of it took place at all.

Sad...........I'm sure he's brilliant and at least with getting his ego fed, he's helping with medical stuff and encouraging other inmates to get educated or whatever else they say he's doing so well in captive. Maybe someone is benefitting from the tragedy that he denies.

Glad you came around to see the truth, linguist1967. I'm sure it was hard to accept. It was for my mom and she had to see all the evidence in person - the clothes, the house, the icepicks, etc.

[–] fastdriver1171 19 years ago

Hey debums,
You say your mother was on the Federal grand jury...I was wondering if anyone knows...have any of the jurors ever been interviewed as to their thoughts/opinions on the case? I can't find anything on the internet about that, and it would certainly be interesting to know how they came to their decision. It certainly must have been a terrible thing to sit through.