Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
- See also: Talk:Jeffrey R. MacDonald/Archive 1. knoodelhed 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Merge discussion
Of course, this article should be merged with Jeffrey MacDonald. Why are we even discussing it? Madman 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Isn't this statement loaded?
"The "Fire Island Four," a group whom MacDonald had previously come in contact with in an innocent way long before the murders, were most likely the persons MacDonald drew upon when making up his descriptions of the so-called "intruders."" - CS
[edit] Fine tuning needed
I had never heard of MacDonald and these murders, so this wikipedia entry was my introduction. Presumably Colette was MacDonald's wife, but she is not introduced and not identified as such. Also, towards the end of the article, there is mention of a military hearing. That is the first time the military hearing is referenced. Where does the hearing fit into the timeline and is that where MacDonald's double jeopardy claims come into play? - Friends Forever? 15:54, 06 March 2006
[edit] Overly Contentious
This article seems overly contentious, especially in the discussion of the book "Fatal Justice," where every claim supposedly made by the book is followed immediately by an arm-waving sentence in refutation. Perhaps the book should be allowed its own section, and the refutations should be collected in a subsequent section ... ?
[edit] Biased inclusions.
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)
[edit] MacDonald's Alleged Motive?
What's the motive that MacDonald had to commit these horrific acts?Tom Cod 07:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
- For an example of a case, leaving aside Charles Manson, that supports the credibility of MacDonald's defense see Richard Mattingly Murder Case. Tom Cod 05:48, 16 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".
[edit] Biased
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).
