Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Func (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 4 April 2005 (→Revisions: sorry for my manner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Func," actually, this article contains factual evidence drawn upon from the original trial transcripts, grand jury transcripts, and letters to and from Kassab and other principals in the case, as well as many other factual documents. I believe what you are protesting is that the truth does show MacDonald was the sole murderer. If nothing else, even putting all physical evidence aside, MacDonald has repeatedly demonstrated the consciousness of his own guilt.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why not study the documents and see the truth for yourself? You claim, for example, that Fatal Vision was "pretty much" shown to be a fabrication, when nothing could be further from the truth. Aren't you greatly misleading people about that, when you know as fact that the vast majority of the book is taken directly from court transcripts, polygraph exam results, grand jury testimonies, and MacDonald's own words? You also claim that the crimelibrary website has a "very complete" picture of the case, when in fact, it is completely one-sided, describing few, if any, of the very damaging items of evidence which proved MacDonald's guilt.

It was easy to tell by your original "article" that you were not familiar with many evidentiary items and rulings in the case. That's okay, but why not take the time to study what is known and proven before you put up an "article" so obviously biased towards innocence? In the revised article, for example, you talk about psychiatrists coming to the conclusion that MacDonald was "sane" and "normal," but you fail to say that all the doctors at Walter Reed, with the exception of Sadoff who was hired by the defense, concluded that MacDonald certainly did possess personality traits that could incline him to murder. You mention candle wax (that old, old standby of supporters), but fail to say that some of the wax was birthday-candle-type wax, and that the wax on the underside of the coffee table was found to be old and full of household debris. You praised Fatal Justice without telling the reader of the countless documented factual errors and misrepresentations in that book. How is that unbiased? The revised article is much more factual, and, by the way, contains many of your original statements as well as additional statements that show the other side of the story. You also noted in your link to The Jeffrey MacDonald Information Site that the site contained documents showing MacDonald's guilt, leading the reader to believe that that website is predisposed towards guilt. Yet if you had studied the site, you would see quite a few documents that are favorable to MacDonald. The goal of the owner of that website is to present the factual documents and let the reader make up his or her own mind. If you disagree with the truth, you need to be talking to Jeffrey MacDonald and the witnesses about it...not arguing with those who disagree with you, and not arguing about factual evidence.

To Rhobite: You wrote: "I am reverting due to the many POV issues with 68.230.42.210's version, such as claiming that the judge acted 'rightly', MacDonald was 'justly' convicted, offhand remarks like 'as many murderers do'." I understand you are not familiar with the case, so you may not realize that saying the judge acted "rightly" was not my opinion; it was fact, backed up by the Supreme Court and appeals courts. There has never been any proof that any of the jurors or the trial judge or the prosecution team acted inappropriately; therefore MacDonald can indeed be considered to be justly convicted. And, as I'm sure you know, many murderers who are certainly guilty do claim innocence. However, as a concession to you, I have removed the phrases you were concerned about.

As formerly written, the "article" here presented only one side of many of the issues; the revised article left those comments in but also showed facts pertaining to the other side of the issues. This should serve your readers much better than presenting only one side of the case.

WTF!!!

Who the hell wrote this article, government prosecutor Brian Murtagh??? This article is seriously biased, and needs a complete NPOV rewrite from top to bottom. The website www.crimelibrary.com, which Misplaced Pages frequently uses as a reliable source of information on crime cases, has a very complete picture of the case, and numerous news articles can be found with quick google searches.

There is no mention of the fact that Joe McGinniss's book "Fatal Vision" has been pretty much proven to be a complete fabrication and act of fraud on McGinniss's part, and the entire article literally sounds like it is speaking with the POV of the (very biased) prosecution. In particular, the article presents "facts" that have not only never been proven, but for which there was never any credible evidence in the first place. There is no mention of the obvious coverups of the Army investgators in the 1970s, of the mishandling of evidence by government officials in the 1980s, and of the FBI's refusal to turn over evidence to the defense team, including materials that can be tested for DNA evidence.

Jeeze... I hate sounding like a conspiracy nut... ;-) but here is a case of very possible judicial impropriately on a massive scale, and the article needs to better reflect this fact. I'll try some editing of it over the next few days, but I don't have as much time to devote to WP as I used to. :(

func(talk) 04:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's Talk, OK?

Anon User:68.230.42.210 has been repeatly:

• adding material that does not conform to WP:NPOV
• deleting other contributor's material, without explaination, here or on their edit summary
• refusing to discuss their changes, either here on the talk page, or on their on talk page, where I have left two messages.

I would like the anon to understand that this is an encyclopedia, and not a blog. While their opinions will be valued and are indeed requested here on the talk page, they have no place in the article itself. Please respond, so that we can begin to work together to resolve this issue. Thanks, func(talk) 18:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Reverting an article more than 3 times during any 24 hour period is against Misplaced Pages policy, and can result in your being temporarily banned from editing the encyclopedia at all. func(talk) 18:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I came here because Func asked me to. I read both versions of the article and while I'm not familiar with the case, I am reverting due to the many POV issues with 68.230.42.210's version, such as claiming that the judge acted "rightly", MacDonald was "justly" convicted, offhand remarks like "as many murderers do". Guilty or innocent, those types of remarks are inappropriate in any Misplaced Pages article. Rhobite 21:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

More POV problems

Please don't add these claims to the article again:

• "Unfortunately, Potter and Bost chose a "cut and paste" method..."
• "Potter and Bost also mislead the reader"
• "However, understandably, they chose not to tell the reader that the gloves were, in fact, oven mitts!"
• "Yet they do not tell the reader that the reinvestigation was handled flawlessly"
• "Nor would they want the reader to know that Jeffrey MacDonald..."
• "Moreover, holes in the pajama top matched holes in Colette's chest, showing that MacDonald stabbed through the top and into Colette as she lay dead or dying on the floor"
• "Not a single shred of any type of evidence ever surfaced to show that at least six intruders were in the apartment"
• "...maintains his innocence despite the overwhelming evidence against him and despite having already demonstrated numerous times the consciousness of his guilt."

Please read the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view policy before continuing to edit. Up to this point you have not followed it. Thanks. Rhobite 16:42, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

Rhobite, the phrases you referred to have been removed. Also, if I might, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I find it offensive to be told by "Func" that I "refused" to discuss the editing of this article. The fact is that I was not aware, since it is nowhere on the "edit" page that I could see, that it was a requirement that an editor discuss the changes. Additionally, the very first time I saw that there was a message waiting, I immediately clicked to read it and then had to try to figure out how to answer it, so it is wrong of "Func" to suggest that I refused to answer. I also resent the implication that editing an article should result in the editor being banned, since the original article contained virtually nothing but one side of the story and the only changes made were to show the other, factual side of the story, which came directly from trial and grand jury transcripts as well as many other factual documents. Therefore "Func" should have no problem with them. Yet he/she does, because obviously this person wants only one side of the case presented and is not interested in both sides being shown. For example, mistakes by the CID were listed, yet absolutely nothing was said about the reinvestigation which showed those mistakes to be of no consequence. For another example, candle wax was mentioned in the original article, meant to suggest to the reader that "intruders" were present with dripping candles, yet not a word was written showing that some of the wax was consistent with birthday candles, and other wax was found to be old and full of household debris. Actually, the revision left "Func's" statements almost entirely intact, and only contained additions to show the other side of the case. To suggest that someone be "banned" because they present factual evidence which is in opposition to someone else's POV is reprehensible and not what I think this encyclopedia intends to do. I hope the removal of the phrases you mentioned meets with your approval, and I do hope that "Func" can put aside his bias long enough to agree that the revised article does indeed now present both sides of the issues he raised.

Hi, I was away for the weekend. I would like to apologize, as I see my manner in approaching you was inappropriate, given that you are new to Misplaced Pages. I did not mean to suggest that you would be "banned", but rather, that continually changing, and in many cases deleting, other contributor's content without discussion can sometimes result in temporary protection of an article, and in other cases temporary "banning" of an editor. The article is being improved, and I very much appreciate the efforts you have made in this direction. Sorry for coming on so strong... (Misplaced Pages editing can make people mean, sometimes ;-). func(talk) 16:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)