make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Witness' brother testifies in MacDonald hearing

READ MORE:
jmacdonald.jpg

WILMINGTON, NC (AP) -- The brother of a deceased witness in the murders of the family of former Green Beret doctor Jeffrey MacDonald is testifying that his sister said she was in the MacDonald home the morning of the killings.

The Fayetteville Observer reported Eugene Stoeckley testified Tuesday in US District Court in Wilmington. He said his mother told him that his sister, Helena Stoeckley, was in the home at Fort Bragg when the family was killed.

MacDonald's pregnant wife and two young daughters were killed Feb 17, 1970. He was convicted in 1979.

Stoeckley told several people she was in the MacDonald home, but testified she didn't remember where she was.

MacDonald said intruders killed his family. He wants a judge to order a new trial based on new evidence.

(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

He did not hear it firsthand

thus it would be considered "hearsay" and the DA should have no problem excluding this from the evidence to be considered.

Unfortunately for McDonald, it would take the Mother's testimony, and then only if the Daughter was giving a death bed statement.

Not certain that is the case here.

Sarah Palin neighbor of MacDonald's book author Joe McGinnis ?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/17/Did-Joe-McGinniss-Con...

"Forget the fact that a racist good old boy judge was openly contemptuous and hostile to MacDonald’s Jewish lead defense attorney and his opinion seeped into his decisions. Forget the fact that the prosecution withheld evidence and lab reports (and, according to new evidence, actually threatened the key defense witness to make her change her testimony). Forget the fact that the crime scene itself was badly mishandled – with evidence moved, destroyed, contaminated, and even stolen. Forget the fact that MacDonald had no motive for the crime, and that the in-laws who testified against his character had previously testified under oath praising his character. And most of all, forget the fact that MacDonald gave the police who arrived at the crime scene detailed descriptions of four suspects, and the police had spotted a woman who fit his description wandering around his neighborhood at 3 a.m. while they were on their way to the crime scene. Forget the fact that this same suspect also coincidentally confessed to multiple people that she and three men who fit MacDonald’s descriptions were involved in the murder of his family. Forget the fact that she was spotted that night with these three men by multiple witnesses – including by a witness who saw blood on her boots. Forget the fact that one of the men also confessed to the murders. Forget the fact that they even confessed to having a clear motive for wanting to commit the crime specifically against MacDonald and his family.
So, how was the public convinced that MacDonald was guilty despite all of these “reasonable doubts”?
Enter my old neighbor Joe McGinniss."

How is what you stated

relevant in any way shape or form to my post?

My post concerned second hand, hear say testimony which any competent DA should be able to have thrown out.

His chance will rest on the DNA for the hair strands which were found.

And frankly if you read the book, there was a better than even chance he would have walked had he followed Wade Smith's advice and been a bit contrite and less arrogant in the courtroom. Couple that with his overbearing NY attorney trying to steal the show and using most of Wade Smith's alloted time to lambast the judicial system. It's in the book, had Wade Smith been allowed to speak, McDonald may well have walked then.

So what was your point?