Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina; July 24, 2014; Federal District Court
Jeffrey MacDonald’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been denied by the court following a remand from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the previous denial. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing and extensive supplementary briefing, ultimately concluding that MacDonald did not provide clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted him for the murders of his wife and two daughters. Additionally, he failed to sufficiently establish the merits of his claims.
The procedural background reveals that on February 17, 1970, MacDonald’s pregnant wife and two young daughters were murdered in their home, while MacDonald himself sustained non-life-threatening injuries. Initially, he claimed that a group of drug-crazed intruders attacked them. However, subsequent investigations uncovered evidence that contradicted his account, leading authorities to suspect MacDonald of the murders. Although the Army charged him, those charges were dismissed, prompting a grand jury indictment just before the statute of limitations expired.
MacDonald’s trial took place in July and August 1979, presided over by Judge Franklin T. Dupree, Jr. The prosecution presented its case, while MacDonald’s defense included prominent attorneys. Key testimony came from Helena Stoeckley, who contradicted MacDonald’s claims of her involvement in the murders. The jury deliberated for only six hours before finding MacDonald guilty of second-degree murder for his wife and daughter Kimberly, and first-degree murder for daughter Kristen, resulting in three consecutive life sentences. Following the trial, MacDonald appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on various grounds.
In United States v. MacDonald, 632 F.2d 258 (4th Cir. 1980), a divided panel reversed MacDonald's convictions due to a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed this decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 1982). On remand, the Fourth Circuit reviewed MacDonald's remaining appellate arguments, found no errors, and affirmed his convictions (United States v. MacDonald II, 688 F.2d 224, 1982). MacDonald later filed multiple motions for post-conviction relief, with initial motions being denied (United States v. MacDonald III, 640 F.Supp. 286, 1985; United States v. MacDonald IV, 779 F.2d 962, 1985). Further denials occurred for subsequent motions (MacDonald V, 778 F.Supp. 1342, 1991; MacDonald VI, 966 F.2d 854, 1992). In 1997, MacDonald sought to reopen proceedings on a 1990 post-conviction motion, alleging government fraud and requesting new DNA testing. The court denied the reopening but transferred the request for DNA testing to the Fourth Circuit (MacDonald VII, 979 F.Supp. 1057, 1997). The Fourth Circuit denied authorization for a successive 2255 motion but remanded for DNA testing oversight, which took nine years to finalize, with results reported in March 2006. Before the report, MacDonald obtained pre-filing authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file a successive 2255 motion, which he submitted on January 17, 2006. This motion, known as the "Britt claim," argued for vacating his convictions based on newly discovered evidence, specifically an affidavit from former Deputy U.S. Marshal Jim Britt, who stated that witness Stoeckley confessed to being present at the crime scene and that she was threatened by an AUSA if she testified.
MacDonald argues that Britt’s affidavit indicates AUSA Blackburn's intimidation led Stoeckley to alter her trial testimony. He claims Blackburn misled Judge Dupree during the trial by stating that Stoeckley had denied involvement in the MacDonald murders. MacDonald attributes the nearly 30-year delay in revealing this evidence to government misconduct, asserting that this suppression warrants vacating his conviction. The motion includes other exhibits, notably affidavits from witnesses who claim Stoeckley's boyfriend, Greg Mitchell, confessed to the murders.
Following new DNA test results on March 22, 2006, MacDonald filed a motion to incorporate a "DNA claim" into his ongoing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, asserting actual innocence based on the DNA evidence and requesting it be considered alongside the Britt claim. He subsequently filed a motion to expand the record with specific authenticated evidence, including previously excluded trial testimony and evidence of hair fibers found at the crime scene.
The Government responded by moving to strike the affidavits regarding Mitchell's confessions. Later, MacDonald sought to supplement his evidence with an affidavit from Helena Stoeckley’s mother, stating her daughter had confessed to being present during the murders. On November 4, 2008, the court ruled to strike the Mitchell confession affidavits, denied the DNA motion, rejected MacDonald’s requests to expand the record, and denied him leave to file the 2255 motion concerning the Britt claim. The court agreed with the Government that the Mitchell confession evidence was previously considered and untimely, and viewed the DNA motion and the attempt to supplement the record as attempts to add factual bases to the Britt claim.
The court determined that MacDonald's motions regarding the DNA and elder Stoeckley affidavits were attempts to leverage previous claims, leading to a finding that these were untimely, successive, and independent, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. MacDonald was permitted to seek authorization from the Fourth Circuit for another successive 2255 motion. The court also reviewed MacDonald's motion to expand the record, which aimed to consolidate his case theory into a concise statement of evidence. However, the court rejected this motion, stating it was not obligated to consider all supplementary materials he deemed relevant.
In addressing MacDonald's proposed successive 2255 motion concerning the Britt claim, the court referenced the necessity of passing through two "gates" as established in Bennett v. United States. MacDonald successfully navigated the first gate by obtaining pre-filing authorization but failed at the second gate. Although the court assumed he exercised due diligence in discovering Britt's assertions, it found that he did not meet the standard of proving that, if the Britt affidavit were accepted as true, it could convincingly demonstrate that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted him but for a constitutional error.
Consequently, MacDonald's request to file a successive 2255 petition was denied. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the court's prior order, concluding that the lower court applied the incorrect standard for the Britt claim, mistakenly using 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B) applicable to state prisoners instead of 2255(h)(1) for federal prisoners. Despite this error, the Fourth Circuit deemed it "probably harmless" due to the similarities between the two standards.
The Fourth Circuit determined that the lower court made a prejudicial error by adopting an overly narrow interpretation of the "evidence as a whole" when denying MacDonald’s motions to expand the record. The Fourth Circuit clarified that "the evidence as a whole" includes all relevant evidence presented during the evaluation under 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) or 2255(h)(1), without being constrained by trial admissibility rules. This encompasses all evidence, including that which may have been improperly admitted or excluded. However, the court noted that while all evidence must be considered, it does not imply that the movant receives the benefit of every doubt; credibility and reliability assessments of the evidence are still necessary.
The Fourth Circuit remanded the case for a fresh analysis of whether the Britt claim meets the 2255(h)(1) standard, specifically instructing the lower court to include DNA test results, affidavits from elder Stoeckley, evidence of blond synthetic hair-like fibers, and confessions by Greg Mitchell, among other relevant evidence. The court emphasized that this assessment must evaluate the cumulative evidence's credibility and reliability to determine if it could lead a reasonable juror to doubt MacDonald's guilt. If successful, MacDonald would clear the procedural barrier to have the Britt claim examined on its merits, but he would still need to prove the alleged constitutional violation to obtain relief under 2255.
The document also outlines the crime scene details from February 17, 1970, when military police responded to a report at MacDonald’s residence in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Upon entry, they found MacDonald injured and initially believed he was dead. After regaining consciousness, MacDonald claimed that intruders, described as a group of four hippies, had broken into his home.
MacDonald reported being stabbed and potentially going into shock, prompting military police (MPs) to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and check on his children. MacDonald’s daughter, Kimberly, aged 5, was found in her bed, and his 2-year-old daughter, Kristen, was located in another bedroom. MP Mica observed a woman with a wide-brimmed hat near the residence but could not investigate due to the emergency. After MacDonald was taken to Womack Army Medical Center, investigators found significant evidence at the crime scene. Colette’s body was partially covered by MacDonald’s pajama top and a bath mat, with blood splatter matching her Type A blood on the walls and ceiling. The word “PIG” was written in Type A blood on the headboard. Bloodstains were also found on the bedding and a blood-stained pocket from MacDonald’s pajama top was discovered near Colette. In Kristen's room, blood stains and a piece of yarn matching Colette's hair ties were found, along with bloody footprints identified as MacDonald’s. Investigators collected numerous threads from the scene, including 79 pieces potentially from MacDonald’s pajama top, which was made of a polyester-cotton blend and had been torn in several places.
Twelve purple cotton sewing threads and one blue-black two-ply Z twist sewing thread were found near Colette's left hand and arm. In the debris outlining her trunk and legs, there were fifteen purple cotton sewing threads and three blue polyester warp yarns. Three purple cotton threads and four blue polyester-cotton warp yarns were located on the underside of a throw rug adjacent to her foot, where a torn, stained pocket was also found atop the rug. In the master bedroom, three matching purple cotton seam threads were discovered near the largest bloodstain. Two matching purple cotton threads were located in the debris from the north corner of the footboard of the master bed. The bottom sheet of the master bed contained fifteen matching purple cotton threads and seven matching blue polyester cotton yarns, while the pillowcase had four matching purple cotton threads and two blue polyester cotton yarns. On a multicolored bedspread on the floor of the master bedroom, there were two matching purple cotton seam threads and one blue polyester cotton yarn. One purple cotton sewing thread was found on the eastern wall of the master bedroom floor. In Kristen's bedroom, one purple cotton thread and one blue polyester yarn potentially linked to MacDonald’s pajama top were found on a green bedspread. Kimberly's bedroom contained nineteen pieces matching MacDonald’s pajama top, including fourteen threads and five yarns, with additional matching threads found in the bedding and on her purple bed cover. An extensive search of the living room yielded no fibers, threads, or bloodstains, but tangled blue fibers were found in the hallway. Outside, investigators discovered a piece of wood with red stains, hair, and fibers that tested positive for blood from both Colette (Type A) and Kimberly (Type AB). The wood bore purple cotton seam threads matching those from MacDonald’s pajama top and rayon fibers similar to the master bedroom's throw rug. A bent “Geneva Forge” paring knife was found inside the master bedroom, while an “Old Hickory” paring knife was located under a bush outside. A large splinter with Colette's Type A blood was found near where her head had lain, and it matched the club, from which other splinters were also recovered in various locations, including Kristen's bed, although no evidence indicated she was struck with the club.
Deep soaking stains of Type AB blood, consistent with Kimberly's blood type, were discovered on various items including a rug at the hall entrance to the master bedroom, a top sheet, and MacDonald’s pajama top. A piece of bloodstained latex was located on the rug near Colette MacDonald's left elbow, along with a finger section of a latex glove stained with Type A blood found within bedding on the floor. Packages of Perry brand disposable latex gloves were identified in a kitchen cabinet, which was linked to a trail of Type B blood droplets, matching Jeffrey MacDonald’s type. Type B blood was also present on the sliding door of a linen closet containing medical supplies and on the sink rim in the hall bath.
In the living room, blood was found on an Esquire magazine, showing a mixture of Types A and AB, indicating Colette and Kimberly's blood. MacDonald’s eyeglasses were located on the floor near a window with a red speck, presumed to be blood. A blood stain at the hall entrance to the living room was either Type B or Type O. No additional blood evidence was noted in the living room. Forensic examination yielded forty-four usable latent fingerprints and twenty-nine usable palm prints, with twenty-six fingerprints and eleven palm prints matched to family members or known individuals. A fingerprint on a drinking glass could not be matched to any known prints.
Physical evidence also included wax drippings from three locations, which did not match each other or the candles in the home. CID examiner Hilyard Medlin noted that the wax samples were brittle and dry, indicating they were several weeks old when collected, approximately three weeks post-murders.
MacDonald received treatment in the Emergency Room at Womack Army Hospital, where he was assessed by Senior Clinical Technician Michael Newman. MacDonald exhibited stable vital signs and had wounds on his chest, upper left arm, and abdomen, along with a non-bleeding lump on his forehead. No wounds were observed on his back or icepick wounds on his body.
MacDonald suffered a laceration on the right side of his chest at the seventh intercostal space and a bruise on his head, as confirmed by a surgical resident and an X-ray. Dr. Merril Bronstein, who treated him in the Intensive Care Unit, described a wound on his upper left abdomen that penetrated through the skin and fat but did not affect the fascia. MacDonald was treated for a punctured lung and multiple stab wounds, experiencing a 20% to possibly 40% collapse of his right lung, leading to a nine-day hospital stay.
During interviews with CID agent Paul Connolly and FBI Special Agent Robert Caverly, MacDonald reported being attacked by four intruders, one wielding a club resembling a baseball bat. He described the club as slippery, suggesting it had blood on it. He recounted pushing two intruders into the hallway and awakening on the floor, his pajama top torn and bloodied. In a subsequent interview, he mentioned not checking the doors and speculated that one of the assailants, using an icepick, might have worn surgical gloves.
Colette, MacDonald’s wife, was autopsied by Dr. George E. Gammel, who determined her death resulted from blood loss due to stab wounds, compounded by significant blunt force trauma that could have been survivable without the stabs. Her injuries included two broken arms and multiple lacerations, consistent with a frontal assault from a blunt instrument like the club. Some injuries were identified as defensive wounds. Colette sustained sixteen deep stab wounds to her neck and chest, inflicted perpendicularly while she was on her back, likely caused by a single-edged knife corresponding to an Old Hickory paring knife found outside the residence.
Colette suffered twenty-one puncture wounds to her chest, indicative of an icepick attack. Kimberly experienced blunt trauma consistent with a club, alongside lethal stab wounds, including a skull fracture from two blows to her head. She had eight to ten incisional wounds to her throat and neck, likely inflicted by an Old Hickory knife. Kristen did not have blunt trauma but had five significant stab wounds to her chest and twelve to her back, some penetrating her heart, also consistent with the Old Hickory knife. She had additional superficial puncture wounds to her chest from an icepick, with evidence suggesting her pajama top was lifted before these wounds were inflicted. Kristen's injuries included minor lacerations on her hands, with one significant wound classified as either defensive or incidental.
On April 6, 1970, MacDonald voluntarily visited the Ft. Bragg CID Field Office, waiving his rights against self-incrimination and counsel presence. During the recorded interview, he recounted events from February 16, 1970, stating that Colette returned home from class, they watched TV, and she went to bed first. At around 2:00 a.m., he found his daughter Kristen in his bed, wetting it, and he returned her to her own bed before sleeping on the couch. He was awakened by Colette and Kimberly's screams, followed by seeing four individuals, one of whom was a girl chanting about killing. MacDonald described a struggle in the living room, noting that his pajama top became entangled during the altercation as he was attacked.
MacDonald described his actions during a critical incident in his apartment, detailing his struggle to free his hands while dealing with a knife and attending to his wife's injuries. After losing consciousness in the living room, he regained awareness in the master bedroom, where he removed a knife from his wife's chest and attempted artificial resuscitation, covering her with his pajama top. He checked on his daughters and made multiple calls to emergency services from different locations in the apartment. During the interview, he mentioned washing his hands in the bathroom and noted the open back door. When questioned about blood evidence on his pajama pocket, he suggested he had blood on him from checking for pulses on his family members and hypothesized that intruders may have tracked blood into the bedroom. He denied owning specific knives and claimed not to recognize a club found at the scene.
An Article 32 hearing held on May 1, 1970, resulted in murder charges against MacDonald, leading to a formal investigation that included 27 government witnesses and 29 defense witnesses, including MacDonald himself. The investigating officer, Colonel Warren V. Rock, ultimately recommended dropping the charges, citing conflicting evidence regarding the crime scene's preservation and the actions of military personnel present. Following the hearing, MacDonald remained at Fort Bragg until his discharge in December 1970, during which he communicated with his wife’s step-father.
MacDonald claimed to have captured and killed one of the alleged assailants, which he later admitted was a significant lie intended to create distance from the situation and alleviate pressure from individuals named Freddie and Mildred. Following MacDonald’s discharge, forensic examinations by the Army CID and FBI revealed critical details regarding the physical evidence. One alleged weapon, a club, was identified as part of a 2x4 used for Kimberly's bed. Blood tests on a bath mat indicated the presence of Type AB blood (matching Kimberly) and Type A blood (matching Colette). Subsequent analysis suggested that blood on the mat could have originated from the Old Hickory knife, and that another stained area resembled the shape of an icepick. Although no blood was found on the blades of the Old Hickory knife and icepick, blood was detected underneath their handles.
In June 1971, further examinations of the MacDonald family clothing revealed multiple punctures and cuts. FBI analyst Paul M. Stombaugh assessed the knives used in the crime, determining that the dull Geneve Forge knife was unlikely to have caused the cuts on Colette’s pajama top, which exhibited thirty puncture holes likely made by the icepick and eighteen clean cuts consistent with the sharp Old Hickory knife. Stombaugh found two cuts on MacDonald’s pajama top that could have been made by the Geneve Forge knife. His examination indicated a total of forty-eight puncture holes in MacDonald’s garment, predominantly on the back and right shoulder, all consistent with icepick usage. In 1974, Stombaugh, with a technician, concluded that puncture wounds on Colette's chest could align with holes found in MacDonald's pajama top, demonstrating a direct connection between the clothing and the crime scene.
The analysis of the probe’s reconstruction through puncture holes matched the pattern of twenty-one icepick wounds on Colette's chest as shown in the autopsy photo, leading Stombaugh to conclude that the injuries could have been inflicted while her pajama top was on her body. On August 14, 1974, FBI agents photographed MacDonald from the waist up, documenting fourteen injury locations, but he did not report any back injuries. On January 24, 1975, a grand jury indicted MacDonald for murdering his family, and a subsequent seven-week trial began in July 1979. The Government's case included evidence from the crime scene, hospital events, MacDonald’s pretrial statements, and expert witness analyses. The prosecution argued that MacDonald's account of the murders was a false exculpatory statement indicating guilt, suggesting he staged the crime scene to fit his narrative. The evidence presented was extensive, showing that the club, two knives, and an icepick were the murder weapons, with indications that these items originated from MacDonald's home. Additionally, the Government posited that MacDonald had stabbed Colette while she was in her pajama top to lend credibility to his claims. Evidence included latex glove fragments found in the master bedroom, suggesting MacDonald wore gloves during the murders to avoid leaving fingerprints, and blood from Colette found on gloves that matched the blood type of the victims. Further evidence included blood from Kristen on MacDonald’s eyeglasses and a footprint in blood outside Kristen's bedroom, alongside detailed testimony about blood splatter and crime scene reconstruction.
Physical evidence collected from the MacDonald apartment provided minimal support for his account of the events surrounding the murders. Notably, no threads, yarns, splinters, or blood were found in the struggle area, except for blood on an Esquire magazine. Despite the presence of approximately seventy medications in the linen closet, none were taken, and the family’s closets remained undisturbed, contradicting MacDonald's claims of an intruder attack. MacDonald, who alleged he was assaulted by multiple assailants, had only minor injuries and no head or icepick wounds on his hands. Furthermore, despite specifying four attackers, none of their fingerprints were found at the scene.
MacDonald's defense relied mainly on his testimony, character witnesses, and challenging the integrity of the prosecution's evidence. Testimony from neighbor James Milne indicated he saw three individuals in white sheets carrying candles near MacDonald’s home around the time of the murders, but they were unarmed and Milne did not report this to authorities after learning of the crime.
During the trial, Judge Dupree issued a material witness warrant for Helena Stoeckley, who was located with FBI assistance. The trial was suspended to allow for her interviews with both the defense and prosecution. Prior to her testimony, an Assistant U.S. Attorney inquired about the necessity of legal representation for Stoeckley, to which the defense counsel indicated they preferred to proceed without an attorney present.
Stoeckley did not have legal counsel prior to or during her interviews and trial testimony, receiving appointed counsel only after her testimony concluded. Defense attorney Bernie Segal began examining her and showed her crime scene photographs, highlighting discrepancies between her in-court responses and her previous statements to the defense. During a bench conference, Judge Dupree noted that Stoeckley's demeanor did not indicate hostility toward Segal's questioning. Segal was instructed to avoid leading questions. Stoeckley testified about wearing a blond wig as a joke, owning specific pairs of boots, and discarding the wig because she believed it connected her to the murders. She also mentioned placing funeral wreaths near her home but dismissed any significance, attributing it to her habit of collecting discarded florals. Segal established that Stoeckley was a heavy user of drugs during the relevant period and sought to clarify her prior statements, expressing concern about receiving contradictory answers in subsequent questioning. He referenced her recollection of standing over a body while holding a candle and riding a rocking horse when viewing a specific photograph, indicating a plea of surprise regarding her current responses.
The witness recalled standing at the end of a sofa with a candle and recognized a photograph of Kristen MacDonald, noting its familiarity due to a baby bottle in the image. She also recognized a photo of Colette MacDonald, although she noted a distortion due to a broken chin. The witness described being at the corner of Honeycutt across from Melony Village during the early morning hours of February 17, 1970, and expressed horror at the blood she saw outside the house. There were witnesses present during her interview. Defense attorney Segal indicated an intention to further question the witness about her statements, planning to impeach her if she denied previous admissions. AUSA Blackburn countered that the witness had not made those statements during her interview with the government, asserting she denied recognition of the photographs and had never been in the house. Judge Dupree questioned the witness about whether she had told both parties the same story, to which she affirmed she believed she had. Under further questioning, the witness denied recognizing the crime scene photographs and stated she had not used a rocking horse depicted in one of them. During cross-examination, she maintained her stance of not recalling certain details, including not wearing a blond wig while speaking with her boyfriend on February 16, 1970.
A witness testified about her lack of memory regarding her whereabouts on the night of the murders, which led her to worry about her potential involvement after multiple interrogations. Segal sought to call several witnesses, referred to as the “Stoeckley Witnesses,” to impeach Helena Stoeckley’s credibility by sharing her previous confessions about the murders. Segal argued that their hearsay testimony was admissible due to its nature as statements against her penal interests. Judge Dupree allowed a voir dire for these witnesses before deciding on their testimony's admissibility in front of the jury.
Jane Zillioux, the first witness, recounted a conversation from November 1970, where Stoeckley, suffering from hepatitis, mentioned being involved in "some murders" but was uncertain about her role due to drug use impairing her memory. Zillioux described how Stoeckley recalled being in the rain, feeling terrified, and seeing blood on her hands before disposing of her clothing. Zillioux admitted Stoeckley appeared shaky and incoherent and did not explicitly confess to committing the murders, only to being "involved."
James Gaddis, a narcotics detective, testified about multiple occasions where Stoeckley expressed confusion about her involvement, claiming she might have been present but was under the influence of drugs. His cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in Stoeckley’s statements about witnessing the murders and her knowledge of the perpetrators, including a claim that Dr. MacDonald himself was involved.
Red Underhill also testified about an encounter with Stoeckley in December 1970.
Helena was found in a distressed state, claiming, "they killed her and the two children." Robert A. Brisenstine, an Army polygrapher, conducted two interviews with her in April 1970 regarding the MacDonald murders. During these sessions, Stoeckley fluctuated between admitting to involvement and denying it. On April 23, she expressed a belief that she participated in the murders but later retracted, stating she had been hospitalized for drug addiction and was not fully oriented. She attributed her disturbing dreams, including visions related to the murders, to her drug use. Stoeckley identified her attire around the time of the murders and later claimed knowledge of the killers, only to recant, citing the implausibility of their entrance without detection. She named several individuals as possible suspects. Brisenstine noted that she was under the influence of drugs during their discussions and that she provided no new information about the case. He concluded that she genuinely believed her statements were true. Following Brisenstine, retired narcotics detective Prince Beasley testified about visiting Helena the night after the murders, where she expressed a hazy recollection of the events, attributing her confusion to drug use. Beasley later interviewed her again in Nashville, receiving similar statements, but the prosecution highlighted discrepancies in his written account from that visit.
Beasley, in a statement from March 1, 1971, indicated that she had no recollection of events on the night of the murders except for getting into a blue car, believed to be a Mustang owned by Bruce Fowler. She claimed her memory was limited after 12:30 a.m., expressing uncertainty about the night's events. Beasley suggested that Helena Stoeckley might be involved in the MacDonald case or was seeking attention.
William Posey, a neighbor of Helena in Fayetteville, testified that he saw her return home in a blue Mustang on the night of the murders and noted her distinctive attire, including white boots and a floppy hat. He recounted that Stoeckley stated she merely “held the light” and mentioned a “kid’s horse thing.” Posey also claimed she was involved in witchcraft but portrayed herself as a “good witch.” It was revealed during cross-examination that he sought out Bernie Segal, MacDonald’s attorney, to share his story. Following his testimony, Posey received $150 from MacDonald’s lawyer for moving expenses due to feeling unsafe.
On August 20, 1979, Judge Dupree denied Segal’s motion to admit Stoeckley’s out-of-court statements through the Stoeckley Witnesses, citing insufficient trustworthiness and potential jury confusion as reasons based on Federal Rules of Evidence. Although the three witnesses later testified about their relationships with Stoeckley, they were not allowed to recount her statements related to the MacDonald case. Despite these restrictions, the defense was able to frame questions in a way that circumvented some of the government's objections. Judge Dupree also conducted additional voir dire testimony related to statements made by Stoeckley during a recess in the trial.
After Stoeckley’s testimony on August 17, 1979, the defense team subpoenaed her to facilitate her release from a bench warrant and arranged accommodations for her at a motel, instructing her to return to court on Monday. On August 19, Segal sent Rouder to check on Stoeckley after management reported a disturbance. Rouder learned that Stoeckley had been beaten and possibly drowned by her fiancé, prompting him to ensure her safety by separating her from him. Stoeckley, who had visibly sustained injuries, expressed fear and requested someone to stay with her. Rouder assisted her in relocating to the Hilton and discussed her trial testimony, wherein she indicated a belief that she could have been present during the crime and recalled specific memories related to it. She expressed feelings of guilt and suggested she wanted to undergo sodium pentothal or hypnosis to alleviate it, stating she couldn't disclose this in court due to the presence of prosecutors. Despite Rouder and Underhill's insights, the defense did not recall Stoeckley as a witness. Judge Dupree barred Rouder and Underhill from testifying about the weekend’s events in front of the jury. Following closing arguments on August 28-29, the jury convicted MacDonald of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder. In 1984, MacDonald filed a motion for a new trial based on alleged confessions Stoeckley made to others between 1980 and 1982.
MacDonald submitted statements from Greg Mitchell and Cathy Perry, along with affidavits from other witnesses, claiming they supported the involvement of Stoeckley, Mitchell, and Perry in the murders. However, Judge Dupree rejected MacDonald’s motion for a new trial, determining that the new evidence would not likely alter the trial's outcome. The evidence presented included Stoeckley’s confessions, which Judge Dupree summarized favorably for MacDonald. Stoeckley alleged she was part of a satanic cult that targeted military physicians, including MacDonald, for not assisting drug users. She was tasked with locating Colette MacDonald on the night of February 16, 1970, and made a phone call to learn Colette would be at a university class that evening.
Later that night, Stoeckley and several cult members gathered at her apartment to plan an approach to MacDonald. After taking mescaline, they visited local restaurants before arriving at the MacDonald residence around 2:00 a.m. Upon entering the dark house using a candle for light, they found MacDonald asleep on the couch. When awakened, MacDonald resisted, leading to a struggle during which Stoeckley chanted phrases about drugs and violence. The group eventually overpowered MacDonald, who attempted to call military police instead of a friend for drugs. After overhearing this, the group assaulted him again. Stoeckley then heard Colette calling for help from the master bedroom, where she witnessed Colette being assaulted by Mitchell and another cult member, while one of the MacDonald children was also in the bedroom, seemingly asleep. Stoeckley later observed the children's room, noting various items, including a broken hobby horse.
Stoeckley observed Greg Mitchell washing his hands and later answered a phone call for "Dr. MacDonald," which prompted laughter until another group member told her to hang up. The group, frightened, left the scene hastily, abandoning all murder weapons except a pair of scissors. Afterward, they visited a Dunkin Donuts, where Stoeckley washed her hands. She was returned home at about 4:30 a.m. A few days later, she told her roommate that the MacDonalds "deserved to die." Stoeckley disposed of a floppy hat worn during the crimes and gave blood-stained clothes and boots to a friend, Cathy Perry, instructing her to dispose of them. The cult members later dispersed and lost contact. Nine years later, during MacDonald’s trial, Stoeckley committed perjury to avoid prosecution but later confessed to clear her conscience. Judge Dupree noted that her statements were inconsistent, indicating contradictions regarding the intruders’ group size, the events' occurrence, and other details, such as the presence of Allen Mazerolle, who was confirmed to be in jail during the murders. Dupree highlighted the conditions of her confessions, suggesting they were influenced by intense interrogation tactics. Additionally, declarations from individuals at The Manor, a ministry in Fayetteville, revealed that a man resembling Greg Mitchell claimed involvement in the MacDonald murders during a prayer session before leaving under suspicious circumstances.
Phillips, Cannady, and another individual inspected a farmhouse owned by The Manor after a man’s departure. They witnessed the man who had confessed fleeing with another person into the woods. Inside the farmhouse, Cannady discovered a message stating, “I killed MacDonald’s wife and children,” written in red paint on a bedroom wall. Upon returning later, they found the walls painted over. Anne Sutton Cannady identified Greg Mitchell in a photo array as the confessing individual. Judge Dupree, in ruling on a 1984 motion, deemed this evidence as “speculative and circumstantial,” noting Cannady and Phillips did not personally know Mitchell and that Cannady only heard a vague confession. He dismissed the statement and the sighting of two unidentified men as weakly connected to Mitchell.
Additionally, Norma and Bryant Lane, friends of Mitchell in the 1970s, recalled an incident where Mitchell expressed inability to share a “horrible” secret and later sought money from them in 1982, claiming guilt over a crime at Fort Bragg. However, Judge Dupree found their declarations unpersuasive as they lacked specific references to the MacDonald murders, especially given that Mitchell had voluntarily denied knowledge of the murders to the FBI in 1981.
Cathy Perry, a resident of Fayetteville diagnosed with schizophrenia, provided a statement to the FBI on November 17, 1984. She described being coerced into a group that broke into a house, where they attacked a man, resulting in his drugging. Perry recounted witnessing and participating in the violent deaths of a baby and the children’s mother, claiming she wrote a message in blood on the wall before leaving the scene. Her account detailed the timeline and conditions of the event.
MacDonald presented declarations from over 20 witnesses and testimonies from several individuals to support claims of Stoeckley, Perry, and Mitchell's involvement in the murders. Key witnesses included:
- **Keith Bowen**: Declared that Stoeckley was part of a group with Perry, Harris, Mitchell, Wolverton, and a man known as "Moses," all of whom regularly used LSD.
- **Mable Campbell**: Observed four people (two white males, one black male, and one white female) by a dark vehicle at a drive-in shortly before February 17, 1970. She identified Greg Mitchell in a photo array and noted the female resembled a sketch of a woman in a floppy hat.
- **John Humphries**: A former military policeman who owned a rock shop, reported three men visiting his store on February 16, 1970, who appeared high. He noticed a woman in a white floppy hat in an eggshell white van parked outside and reported the incident to the FBI and CID without a response.
- **Frankie Bushey**: At Dunkin’ Donuts around midnight on February 17, 1970, she saw a group of four "hippies," including a blond female in a light floppy hat who appeared under the influence.
- **Marion Campbell**: Arrived at the same Dunkin’ Donuts shortly after Bushey. She described a group of three (a white man, a black man, and a white woman) leaving the restaurant, with the woman in a white mini-skirt and floppy hat, who appeared dazed. She noted a van where the white woman was the passenger, and a black man was driving. The van departed toward Fort Bragg around 1:30 a.m.
- **Joan Sonderson**: Worked as a waitress at a drive-in on Fort Bragg, further corroborating the context of the events.
These accounts collectively aim to establish the presence and actions of the suspects around the time of the murders.
On February 17, 1970, between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., an individual observed a two-tone car in her service area with three occupants, including a white woman with long hair and a black male in an army fatigue jacket. The white woman inquired about the recent murders of the MacDonald family. Later that day, Addie Willis Johnstone MacDonald reported seeing four individuals at the intersection of Hillsborough and Western Boulevards, including a similar-looking white woman and the black man in an army jacket, along with two white males.
Edith Boushey, an educator at North Carolina State University Extension, recalled seeing Greg Mitchell speaking with a woman she identified as Colette MacDonald around 9:40 p.m. on February 16, 1970. Boushey overheard a part of their conversation, where Mitchell suggested that everything would be alright, and Colette expressed dread. However, this account was contradicted by Elizabeth Ramage, who stated she was with Colette from 9:20 to 9:30 p.m., indicating that Colette could not have been with Mitchell at that time. Judge Dupree deemed Boushey's testimony as lacking corroborative value due to these inconsistencies.
Carlos Torres, stationed at Fort Bragg, testified he witnessed a blue Volkswagen station wagon with four individuals near Castle Drive around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the murders. However, Judge Dupree found Torres’ testimony unreliable, as it conflicted with Stoeckley’s claims that her group was in a Ford Mustang, not a Volkswagen. Torres’ personal circumstances at the time, including returning from Vietnam and undergoing a divorce, further diminished the credibility of his testimony.
Dorothy Averitt provided testimony about an incident on February 17, 1970, at a grocery store in Fayetteville, where she observed two men in a dark car and a woman with a disheveled blond wig, a wide-brimmed hat, a light cream plastic coat, a dark skirt, and white boots. The woman emitted a foul odor and appeared incoherent. A black man in an Army jacket then directed her to leave with him.
Prince Beasley, a Fayetteville police detective, corroborated Helena Stoeckley’s confessions, stating he saw her and a black male exit a blue Ford Mustang near the Village Shoppe restaurant around 10:50 p.m. on February 16, 1970. Stoeckley was similarly dressed as described by Averitt. Beasley stopped Stoeckley and her companions around 2:15 a.m. on February 18, believing they matched suspect descriptions. After contacting the police dispatcher and waiting for assistance from Army CID, he released them when they became confrontational.
Blane O’Brian, a deputy sheriff, confirmed he heard Beasley report the suspect sighting and the dispatcher’s response regarding Army CID’s inability to meet. Judge Dupree noted Beasley’s significant role in MacDonald’s motion for a new trial, highlighting his long-standing relationship with Stoeckley, who had been his informant. The court observed that Beasley's statements regarding Stoeckley’s involvement in the murders were often inaccurate, raising concerns about his credibility as a witness.
Officer Beasley’s testimony is deemed unreliable due to the implausibility of a competent officer allowing suspects to leave while awaiting Army investigators. The court's assessment of Beasley’s credibility from 1979 remains unchanged despite his recent statements and demeanor during the evidentiary hearing, although he is not considered to be lying. Medical records indicate he struggles to differentiate fact from fiction.
Ernest Davis, who was engaged to Stoeckley during the MacDonald trial, provided a declaration in 1983 wherein Stoeckley claimed she was in the MacDonald home on the night of the murders. She recounted washing blood off her hands at Dunkin’ Donuts, taking drugs with Greg Mitchell, and witnessing chaotic events during the murders, including holding a candle with blood on her hand. Stoeckley reportedly feigned confusion during the trial to mislead the judge.
Additionally, Greg Mitchell's widow, Pat, confirmed that he was left-handed. Expert testimony from Dr. Ronald K. Wright suggested that Colette MacDonald’s skull injury was consistent with a left-handed blow. However, Dr. Wright later cautioned that under the influence of drugs or in a fit of rage, individuals cannot be reliably assumed to strike with their dominant hand.
Lastly, Jimmy Friar, a patient at Womack Army Hospital in February 1970, shared that he had previously been treated at Walter Reed Hospital by Dr. Richard MacDonald, with whom he formed a friendship. Friar recounted instances of calling Dr. MacDonald for assistance after drinking too much.
Friar recounted that on February 16, 1970, he convinced an orderly to let him leave the hospital to go to Fayetteville for drinking and pool. When he sought to return to Fort Bragg, he found himself without money for a taxi and with no bus service. Disoriented and mistakenly believing he was still in Washington, D.C., Friar attempted to contact Dr. Richard MacDonald. While at the Wade Hampton Hotel, he called the base operator, misrepresenting himself as a doctor acquainted with MacDonald, and obtained a phone number. During the call at approximately 2:00 a.m., a woman answered, but the conversation was abruptly cut off after someone in the background told him to "hang up the God-damned phone."
On August 20, 1970, Lynne Markstein, following a traffic accident in Raleigh, was in a hospital where she met Helena Stoeckley. Stoeckley claimed she was in town to testify in the MacDonald trial and recalled being present during the murders, even mentioning seeing a bloody child. Stoeckley expressed disbelief that someone like her could commit such acts and stated she had been under the influence of drugs at the time of the murders, which hindered her memory until trial.
Richard Comisky, a Fayetteville resident in 1970, provided a declaration about a conversation with Stoeckley in a park. She claimed, "we did the MacDonald thing," implying involvement in the murders, and mentioned wearing the same clothes during the crimes, which she later burned. Stoeckley inquired about the possibility of obtaining fingerprints from wax.
In 1984, MacDonald filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction, alleging the government had suppressed exculpatory evidence that could have led to his acquittal. This evidence included a half-filled bloody syringe, bloody clothing, skin under Colette MacDonald’s fingernail, and photographs of a letter “G” found in Stoeckley’s apartment. Judge Dupree denied the motion, stating that the government did not deliberately withhold evidence and that the evidence did not meet the materiality standards set by Brady v. Maryland. MacDonald presented a document summarizing FBI agents' debriefings regarding the investigation into the MacDonald crime scene.
Both men were debriefed on February 21, 1970, regarding evidence related to a crime scene. Mr. Medlin reported finding a half-filled syringe with an unknown fluid and blood evidence in a hall closet. However, Judge Dupree determined there was insufficient evidence to confirm the existence of this syringe, noting that Medlin's statement lacked firsthand knowledge and likely stemmed from a misunderstanding of what other investigators had communicated. Investigative agents with firsthand knowledge confirmed that no "bloody half-filled syringe" or any syringe was found in the closet, contradicting Medlin's claims.
Additionally, MacDonald claimed that bloody clothes or boots belonging to Stoeckley or Cathy Perry were possessed by the CID in early 1971. Evidence indicated that Perry, after stabbing her roommate, had moved in with Betty Garcia, who later collected Perry's belongings. Among these items, Garcia found a pair of beige boots, which led her to suspect Perry's involvement in the MacDonald murders. On January 6, 1971, the boots and other items were transferred to CID agents, but the receipt did not indicate any bloodstains. Subsequent laboratory analysis found no link between the boots and the case, leading to their return to Garcia. Judge Dupree concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to support MacDonald's assertions regarding the existence of the syringe or the blood-stained items.
The court found insufficient evidence to establish that any items beyond those specified on the military property receipt were given to CID Agents Ivory and Kearns. Judge Dupree determined the boots in question were not blood-stained, supporting this conclusion with affidavits from Agents Kearns and Ivory, particularly contrasting their statements with those of witnesses Nance and Garcia regarding a possible stain.
Additionally, during Colette's autopsy, a small skin fragment was discovered under her fingernail, but it was lost sometime between February and December 1970. CID photographer Frank M. Toledo provided evidence of photographs taken in December 1970 at Stoeckley’s former apartment, noting that palm and fingerprints had been left on the walls, which included the letter 'G' resembling one found in blood at the MacDonald crime scene. Toledo claimed these 'G's' also resembled those in MacDonald's military notebooks. However, FBI analysis indicated the letters lacked sufficient distinguishing features to confirm they were made by the same hand.
In 1990, MacDonald filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging the prosecution failed to disclose key witness statements and laboratory notes which could have supported his defense. His claims were based on findings from laboratory notes indicating the presence of synthetic hairs on a brush in his home, and various fibers from Colette's pajama top and the murder weapon that were not matched to known sources in his home. MacDonald contended that these findings corroborated his account of intruders being responsible for the murders of his wife and children.
In response to MacDonald’s motion, the Government submitted two affidavits from Michael P. Malone, a senior examiner at the FBI's Hairs and Fibers Unit, regarding the analysis of hairs and fibers relevant to MacDonald’s 1990 petition. In his initial affidavit dated February 14, 1991, Malone identified that the saran fibers were likely from a doll rather than a wig, noting their consistency with fibers typically used in doll hair and their dissimilarity to any wig fibers in the FBI's reference collection. He also examined a blue handheld hairbrush and found a grey delustered modacrylic fiber that matched fibers from a hairpiece owned by Colette MacDonald.
In a supplemental affidavit dated May 21, 1991, Malone rebutted claims that 22-inch blond synthetic fibers possibly originated from a cosmetic wig owned by Helena Stoeckley, stating there was no factual or scientific support for such a conclusion. He confirmed that one saran fiber matched the FBI's known saran doll hair reference, while others did not match any wig exemplars. He concluded that the only fibers over 22 inches in length removed from the hairbrush were saran, which does not mimic human hair, as opposed to modacrylic fibers, which do. Furthermore, Malone cited standard references indicating saran fibers are not used in cosmetic wigs, but rather in applications like doll wigs and manikins. He explained that saran's physical characteristics—straightness, continuous monofilament form, lack of draping capability, and excessive shine—render it unsuitable for cosmetic wig production, where a natural appearance is desired.
Saran fiber cannot be produced as a "tow" fiber, which is crucial for making cosmetic wigs. Fiber evidence analyzed by Malone revealed that most sources were unknown due to a lack of comparison standards. He identified white wool fibers on Colette's pajama top and a wooden club that likely originated from a shag rug in the MacDonald master bedroom. The Government presented an affidavit from FBI technician Shirley S. Green, confirming her laboratory notes and detailing a fiber comparison from debris on the club with two throw rugs from the MacDonald home. Green's examination included fibers from the club and previous analyses performed by technician Mr. Stombaugh in 1974, who identified purple sewing threads that might have come from MacDonald’s pajama top. Judge Dupree denied MacDonald’s 1990 petition based on three grounds: the new evidence was not material, there was no Brady violation, and the petition was barred by the abuse of the writ doctrine. The Fourth Circuit upheld this decision, affirming the abuse of the writ without addressing the petition's merits. In 1997, MacDonald sought to reopen the 1990 petition, claiming Malone's affidavits were materially false and requested new DNA testing on certain evidence, citing reference texts indicating saran could be made in "tow" form and was utilized in wig manufacturing.
MacDonald presented evidence from interviews conducted by both the Government and his defense team, focusing on a synthetic fiber manufacturer and two Mattel Toys employees. He submitted an FBI interview summary (Form 302) of A. Edward Oberhaus, Jr., an executive at Kanecka America Corporation, who indicated familiarity with saran fibers prior to 1969-70 but refused to sign an affidavit drafted by the FBI, stating he did not consider himself an expert on saran uses. Oberhaus did provide his own affidavit, noting that wigs and hairpieces made after 1960 typically used human hair, modacrylic fibers, or combinations thereof.
Additionally, MacDonald included affidavits from Judith Schizas and Mellie Phillips, Mattel employees who asserted a lack of knowledge about any dolls with 22 or 24-inch hair, although Schizas acknowledged the possibility of such fibers if doubled over during manufacturing. Phillips mentioned that saran could be produced in tow form. MacDonald also introduced evidence of alleged deception by Malone in other cases, referencing a Department of Justice Inspector General report and a Wall Street Journal article.
The court denied MacDonald’s 1997 motion to reopen the 1990 petition, determining that Malone’s testimony was not material to the earlier case and found insufficient evidence of fraud upon the court. However, it transferred MacDonald's claim regarding the use of saran fibers in human wigs prior to 1970 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit granted the motion for DNA testing but denied the request for a successive application in all other respects. It separately affirmed the denial to reopen the case.
On remand, the court established parameters for DNA testing, which took nine years to finalize from protocol agreement to result submission. In 2006, MacDonald obtained pre-filing authorization from the Fourth Circuit to submit a successive 2255 motion asserting newly discovered evidence of a constitutional error. He claimed that an affidavit from former Deputy U.S. Marshal Jimmy Britt indicated that witness Helena Stoeckley was prepared to testify that she and her accomplices committed the murders, but was coerced by prosecutor James Blackburn to change her testimony. MacDonald subsequently sought to add a "DNA claim" based on mitochondrial DNA test results from March 10, 2006, and requested the court to evaluate the DNA findings within the broader context of the evidence. Additionally, over a year later, he requested consideration of an affidavit from Stoeckley’s mother as part of the evidence.
The first piece of evidence in MacDonald's 2006 motion was Britt's November 3, 2005 affidavit, where he described his role in the MacDonald trial and recounted Stoeckley’s statements during transport, mentioning her presence in the MacDonald home during the murders, including details about a hobby horse. Britt detailed his escort of Stoeckley to meet MacDonald’s attorneys and Blackburn, where she reiterated her claims. Britt alleged that Blackburn threatened Stoeckley with murder charges if she testified as she had previously stated.
Britt disclosed to friends Cecil Goins and Lee Tart that he had information relevant to the case but withheld it from the court out of respect for Judge Dupree. He underwent a polygraph test which indicated no deception. Tart's affidavit confirmed that Britt informed him in 2002 about Stoeckley’s claims of being in the MacDonald home during the murders and expressed belief in Britt’s truthfulness. Wendy Rouder, a law clerk, recounted Stoeckley admitting her involvement in the murders during a private conversation in 1979, despite publicly denying this at trial. Stoeckley expressed fear of prosecutors, stating they would "fry" her if she testified. Rouder noted an unusual phone call from Judge Dupree warning her not to question Stoeckley. Additionally, Everett Morse provided an affidavit recounting an incident with Greg Mitchell, where Mitchell threatened him and acknowledged involvement in the MacDonald murders. Finally, MacDonald submitted a third affidavit from Bryant Lane, which the court will review alongside previous statements made by Lane in earlier motions.
The 1988 declaration elaborates on Greg Mitchell's admissions regarding the MacDonald family murders, significantly expanding upon Lane's earlier statements from 1984. Lane recounts that after leaving his job, Mitchell expressed feelings of depression and guilt, claiming, “I personally know MacDonald is innocent, because I was the one that killed the MacDonald family.” Lane assured Mitchell that he would keep this confession confidential. Mitchell later expressed fear of FBI harassment and, during a conversation with Lane's wife present, tearfully admitted guilt, stating, “I did do it, I am guilty.”
In the months leading to his death in 1982, Mitchell told Lane's wife about a crime he committed at Fort Bragg and expressed a need to potentially flee. Following Lane's wife's reading of "Fatal Vision," she reported Mitchell's statements to the FBI. After unsatisfactory responses from them, Lane reached out to MacDonald’s lawyer, leading to statements being taken by Ray Shedlick. Lane only disclosed limited information to Shedlick and later to the FBI due to discomfort with the agents.
The 2005 affidavit from Lane reiterates many points from the 1988 declaration, adding that Mitchell claimed he was addicted to heroin in 1970 and believed MacDonald could have helped him with his addiction. Mitchell admitted to being under the influence of multiple drugs during the murders and characterized Jeff MacDonald's survival as a matter of luck, stating they “didn’t know what they were doing.” Lane also mentioned that Mitchell had attempted to turn himself in multiple times and that Mitchell's former business partner noted Mitchell had confessed his involvement in the murders on several occasions.
Additionally, Donald Buffkin, who met Mitchell at the Hull Bar, corroborated that Mitchell had admitted involvement in the MacDonald murders, asserting that the government’s claims against MacDonald were false.
Gregory Mitchell claimed his involvement in the murders stemmed from Jeffrey MacDonald’s refusal to comply with demands from him and his friends. Mitchell expressed anger towards MacDonald, believing he was involved in drug trafficking by receiving heroin sent back from Vietnam. He went to MacDonald's residence to demand money or drugs. Initially dismissing Mitchell's statements as "bar talk," Buffkin later contacted MacDonald's attorneys in 2003 after reconsidering the veracity of Mitchell's claims following media coverage of the case.
MacDonald presented evidence including hospital records detailing patients he treated the day before the murders, with at least five having Type O blood. He also submitted a Judgment and Commitment Order for James Blackburn related to a 1993 conviction for embezzlement and obstruction of justice. Additionally, MacDonald provided FBI reports indicating the presence of Type B blood in areas where he claimed to have struggled with his attackers, including a preliminary laboratory report that identified human blood stains.
In 2006, DNA testing by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology revealed three hair specimens that could not be matched to known samples. The first specimen was found beneath Colette’s body, suggesting it belonged to an unknown intruder. The second specimen, found with intact roots and blood residue under Kristen MacDonald's fingernail, indicated a struggle with an attacker. These findings support the theory of intruders being present during the crime, as indicated by the nature and location of the hair samples.
MacDonald submitted laboratory reports indicating that hair labeled 91A, identified as human with the root intact, was found under Kristen MacDonald’s fingernail. Additionally, hair 58A(1), also with the root intact and approximately 5mm long, was discovered on the bedspread where Kristen was murdered. MacDonald also included an affidavit from the elder Stoeckley, who recounted her daughter Helena's claims of being present during the murders. Helena confided on two occasions—after the trial and shortly before her death in 1983—that she and others had gone to the MacDonald home to intimidate him due to his stance on drug users. She described witnessing violence during the incident while under the influence of drugs and expressed fear of repercussions from law enforcement regarding her knowledge of the murders.
In September 2012, following remand from the Fourth Circuit, an evidentiary hearing was held where MacDonald presented his evidence. Wade Smith, one of MacDonald's trial attorneys, testified about the defense strategy that posited MacDonald was asleep during the intrusion. He also recounted a conversation from January 2005 with Jimmy Britt, who revealed that during Stoeckley’s transport, she had made unsolicited comments about being in the MacDonald home during the murders. Britt noted that during an interview with the government, Stoeckley was warned by a prosecutor that her testimony could lead to murder charges against her.
Smith acknowledged the significance of Britt's information and subsequently arranged for a court reporter to take Britt's sworn statement. In this statement, Britt explained his delay in coming forward regarding the MacDonald trial, attributing it to respect for Judge Dupree, Rich Leonard, and John Edwards, who were involved in the case. Britt detailed that he was tasked with picking up Stoeckley in Charleston, South Carolina, where he took custody of her at the U.S. Marshals Office and transported her and Ernest Davis to Raleigh, checking them into a Holiday Inn. The following morning, he escorted them to court, where Stoeckley met with Blackburn, the U.S. Attorney, who allegedly warned her that testifying about being in the MacDonald home for drugs could lead to her indictment for murder.
After the meeting, Britt observed Blackburn entering Judge Dupree’s chambers, returning to the courtroom shortly thereafter. Smith also had Steve Davenport conduct a polygraph test on Britt, who showed no signs of deception, although Davenport later became unavailable due to health issues. Smith acquired two affidavits from Britt, which contained conflicting details about transporting Stoeckley, alternating between Charleston and Greenville. Britt's October affidavit raised ethical concerns about Judge Dupree receiving cakes from jurors during the trial. In February 2006, Britt added an addendum to his affidavit, providing further details, including that he and Holden transported Stoeckley for interviews on August 15, 1979, and reiterated that Blackburn had threatened her with indictment if she testified about her presence at the MacDonald residence. Following Stoeckley's testimony on August 17, 1979, Britt was instructed to move her from one motel to another.
On August 20, 1979, Judge Dupree declared that he would not allow Ms. Stoeckley to testify again, stating her mental state was compromised. He instructed jurors to disregard her previous testimony from August 17. Britt, a witness, relayed that U.S. Marshal Hugh Salter directed him to visit the U.S. Marshal’s Office to receive a check for Ms. Stoeckley’s subsistence, cash it, and purchase her a one-way bus ticket to Charleston, SC. Britt confirmed that he checked Stoeckley out of her hotel and ensured she boarded the bus, after which he had no further contact with her.
Additionally, Smith recounted events from the MacDonald trial, noting that Stoeckley had been detained under a material witness warrant and was to appear in South Carolina. He and Segal interviewed her in the presence of Joe McGinniss, who was part of the defense team, but Stoeckley maintained that she had not been in the MacDonald home. Despite Segal's various questioning techniques and confrontations with evidence, Stoeckley did not alter her statements. Smith mentioned that after Stoeckley’s release, she was to be subpoenaed by the defense. He also noted that Blackburn, after interviewing Stoeckley, conveyed that she had provided no substantial information.
When Segal asked to treat Stoeckley as a hostile witness during a bench conference, Smith expressed his commitment to the case but admitted that Stoeckley had not offered useful information during his observations. He clarified that any knowledge of Stoeckley’s potentially incriminating comments came from Wendy Rouder, not her attorney Jerry Leonard, who had not shared any relevant information with Smith. Mary Britt, the former wife of Jimmy Britt, was also mentioned as a second witness for MacDonald.
Mary married Jimmy in 1957, during which he worked as a deputy U.S. Marshal and was involved in the MacDonald trial. Mary recalled a specific instance when Jimmy expressed excitement about a witness he transported from South Carolina, who described details of the MacDonald apartment, including a broken child’s hobby horse. However, Jimmy later informed Mary that the witness's testimony could not be used due to her drug-related issues. He also mentioned witnessing the physical abuse of the witness, Stoeckley, by her boyfriend, and expressed discontent over jurors bringing cakes for Judge Dupree. While Jimmy discussed Stoeckley’s interviews, he never mentioned any threats made by Blackburn. After MacDonald was convicted, Jimmy refused to take him into custody. Following their separation and divorce, Mary viewed the mini-series "Fatal Vision" and confronted Jimmy about its accuracy, to which he responded negatively, insisting he had been present during critical moments but did not reference any threats from Blackburn.
Gene Stoeckley, Helena Stoeckley’s younger brother, testified that the MacDonald case severely affected him and his family, leading to harassment at school and threatening phone calls. He held his sister accountable for the harassment and confronted her about it during a visit, after which she warned him to be cautious due to her acquaintances. Gene noted that his family avoided discussing the MacDonald case, despite his parents attending the trial. Helena passed away in January 1983, with limited contact between them since the trial. Gene described a visit in fall 1982 when Helena appeared jaundiced but not seriously ill. Gene's father died in 2002, and his mother later moved to an assisted living facility due to health issues, with Gene managing her care. In summer 2006, she became critically ill and was hospitalized, with doctors indicating she would not survive.
Gene's mother, after recovering, returned to the assisted living facility where she engaged in intimate discussions with Gene about their family and specifically the MacDonald case. She disclosed that her daughter Helena was present on the night of the murders and had confided in her during a visit in Fayetteville, expressing her belief in MacDonald's innocence. Gene felt a moral obligation to share this information and, after deliberating, contacted Kathryn MacDonald through a website. On March 31, 2007, he met with Kathryn, establishing ground rules for communicating with his mother. During a visit to the facility, Gene's mother confirmed Helena's presence at the crime scene and mentioned intimidation by an FBI agent who advised her to keep Helena quiet. Kathryn then involved attorney Hart Miles, who, along with his paralegal, arrived to draft an affidavit based on the elder Stoeckley's statements. Gene read the affidavit to his mother before she signed it, assuring that she understood its content. On April 25, 2007, the elder Stoeckley was interviewed by the FBI, where she recounted an FBI agent's directive to discourage Helena from contacting them and expressed her internal conflict regarding MacDonald's guilt. Additionally, Wendy Rouder MacDonald, a former defense team member for MacDonald, was called as a witness.
A phone call was received at the defense team office on a weekend morning during the trial, initiated by the manager of The Journey’s End motel, requesting the removal of Stoeckley. Segal directed Rouder to investigate the situation. Upon arrival, Rouder and Red Underhill found Stoeckley with a bleeding nose, engaged in a confrontation with Ernie Davis. After Davis left, Stoeckley asked Rouder to stay with her, leading to several hours of conversation where Stoeckley expressed feelings of guilt regarding her involvement in the MacDonald murders, recalling specific details like a rocking horse. Faced with eviction from the motel, arrangements were made for Stoeckley to stay at the Hilton.
During their discussions, Rouder inquired why Stoeckley did not testify about her statements to Rouder, to which Stoeckley replied that she feared retaliation from the prosecutors. Rouder recalled Stoeckley mentioning phrases about being harmed if she testified. Although Rouder did not include these statements in her voir dire testimony during the MacDonald trial, she remembered them when contacted by Kathryn MacDonald in 2005. Kathryn informed Rouder about a marshal’s claims regarding threats made to Stoeckley by Blackburn, which helped explain Stoeckley’s reluctance to testify. Following this conversation, Rouder signed an affidavit detailing Stoeckley’s remarks.
Additionally, Rouder mentioned a call from Judge Dupree warning her not to question Stoeckley, which puzzled her for years until the 2005 conversation shed light on the situation. Laura Redd, a paralegal, testified about notarizing the elder Stoeckley’s affidavit on March 31, 2007, describing her as sharp and noting issues with the laptop used to compose the affidavit.
Redd and others had to re-type an affidavit on the facility's computer to print it, which was a lengthy and challenging process that took approximately six to seven hours from the initial phone call to the affidavit’s signing and notarization. Sara McMann testified about her experience with Helena Stoeckley, who lived with McMann’s family from October to December 1982. Upon recognizing Stoeckley as connected to the MacDonald case, McMann learned that Stoeckley had been involved with three men who planned to harm MacDonald, promising her membership in an occult group in exchange for her participation. Stoeckley claimed these men murdered the MacDonald family, and she fled the scene afterward. Both women believed in MacDonald's innocence and wanted him exonerated. After Stoeckley's death in January 1983, McMann and her husband became the legal guardians of Stoeckley’s infant son.
Following McMann's testimony, MacDonald called Jerry Leonard, Stoeckley’s trial attorney, leading to a bench conference where it was anticipated that Leonard would invoke attorney-client privilege. The court adjourned to review case law and ruled that the privilege continued after Stoeckley’s death. Subsequently, the Government began presenting evidence, starting with retired FBI Special Agent Frank Mills, who recounted events from August 1979 when he received a bench warrant for Stoeckley. Mills and another agent located and transported her to jail, where he interviewed her. Stoeckley admitted to being a heavy drug user and recalled the murder night only due to subsequent media coverage. She stated that she had used drugs that night, including a hit of mescaline from Greg Mitchell, and could not remember anything after that until the following morning. Additionally, she mentioned being contacted by Prince Beasley about the murders but had no recollection of the incident.
Mills and Donohue arrested Stoeckley at Pickens County Jail, where she was held overnight, and Mills communicated her arrest to the U.S. Attorney's office on August 15, 1979. The following day, Stoeckley was picked up by Deputy U.S. Marshal Vernoy Kennedy. Mills documented his interview with Stoeckley in a Form 302, noting her skepticism about a group of alleged hippies being able to access Fort Bragg due to heavy military police patrols. Stoeckley disclosed her involvement in witchcraft at the time of the murders and admitted to providing various alibis during her initial interrogation by Beasley, stating that she believed a lie would be more credible than the truth—her drug-induced memory lapse. She described a recurring dream associated with the incident, which she suggested might have been influenced by media reports. Mills later interviewed Stoeckley again on September 10, 1981, during which she expressed dissatisfaction with prior interrogators Beasley and Gunderson, whom she felt were harassing her. Mills also reported on Stoeckley’s death in January 1983, revealing that her body was discovered several days after her passing, alongside her surviving infant son. The cause of death was pneumonia, with cirrhosis of the liver as a contributing factor. The government introduced a sworn statement from Vernoy Kennedy, who confirmed transporting Stoeckley to a transfer point in Charlotte, North Carolina, without conducting an interview with her. The next government witness was Dennis Meehan, another former Deputy U.S. Marshal.
Meehan testified about his transportation of Stoeckley on August 15, 1979, following an assignment from Chief Deputy Eddie Sigmon. Due to the need for a female guard, his wife, Janice, was hired as a matron since the office lacked female deputies. They met a deputy marshal at a pre-arranged location near Interstate 85 and Interstate 77 to pick up Stoeckley, who was accompanied by two males. Meehan transported her to the Wake County Jail, arriving around 4:30 to 5:00 p.m., and noted the presence of news media, which later aired footage of their booking of Stoeckley. The following morning, Stoeckley was moved to the Federal Building by other deputies. Meehan expressed doubt about Stoeckley being at the Federal Building on August 15, as depicted in a published photo the next day. He also mentioned never having participated in witness interviews with an Assistant United States Attorney.
Janice Meehan corroborated her husband's account, recalling their pick-up of Stoeckley and noting the presence of a black male and a white male with her. She described Stoeckley as mumbling during the drive and confirmed media coverage during the booking process.
Eddie Sigmon, the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal at that time, explained the requirement for a female matron during the transport of female prisoners and noted the policy of preferring a deputy with a wife for such assignments due to the absence of female deputies. He also mentioned that he expected any deputy to report confessions related to the murder trial but confirmed that no confessions from Stoeckley were reported to him. Sigmon characterized Jimmy Britt as seeking attention.
Sigmon testified that once a material witness is released from custody and subpoenaed, the United States Marshal is no longer responsible for their transportation. He clarified that he did not instruct Jimmy Britt to retrieve Stoeckley from The Journey’s End Motel on August 19, 1979, as he lacked the authority to do so. Sigmon expressed his opinion that former United States Marshal Salter did not direct Britt to provide a subsistence check or purchase a bus ticket for Stoeckley, as such actions would violate Marshal Service regulations.
William Berryhill, a former United States Marshal, described Jimmy Britt as a "very marginal employee" with a large ego and questionable honesty. Maddie Reddick, a 30-year employee of the Marshal Service, testified as the disbursing officer responsible for issuing checks for federal employees, jurors, and witnesses. She did not recall writing a subsistence check for Stoeckley, noting that this would be unusual without a discharge form from the U.S. Attorney’s office. Reddick stated that jailed material witnesses do not receive payment, as fees go to the housing jail, and emphasized she would not issue checks to a defense witness unless the defendant was indigent. She also recounted a call from Britt in 2004 asking about Gerry Holder's whereabouts, which surprised her.
J. Rich Leonard, a United States Bankruptcy Judge and former law clerk for Judge Dupree, provided context about courtroom procedures during the MacDonald trial, specifically regarding the locking of the courtroom to maintain chain of custody for exhibits. Lastly, James Blackburn, a prosecuting attorney in the MacDonald trial, outlined the timeline of Stoeckley’s interview on August 16, 1979, confirming that only a small group of U.S. Attorneys were present. Blackburn recounted that Stoeckley clearly denied any involvement in the case when questioned.
Stoeckley claimed she was not present during the MacDonald murders, and Blackburn confirmed the Government lacked evidence of her presence beyond her own statements. Blackburn denied threatening to prosecute her. Following the Government's interview with Stoeckley, which lasted about an hour, he spoke with Wade Smith but did not recall details about the defense interview. Blackburn stated that Jimmy Britt was not present during Stoeckley’s interview and had not raised any concerns regarding the trial. He was unaware of Stoeckley’s potential testimony until the trial commenced on August 17, 1979, when he suggested appointing an attorney for her, though the defense opted to proceed without one. Blackburn also learned of Stoeckley’s weekend activities, including contacting Judge Dupree, during court on August 17.
Later, Blackburn faced scrutiny over his 1993 disbarment and convictions for multiple crimes, including embezzlement and forgery. He admitted to making false representations to clients in his private practice and forging judicial signatures to mislead them. Blackburn discussed a 2001 promissory note for $50,000 related to a book on the MacDonald trial, which he never completed or repaid. Wade Smith, Blackburn's attorney during state court proceedings, updated him on the MacDonald case in 2005. Blackburn signed a conflict of interest waiver but denied any wrongdoing regarding Stoeckley. Following a heated discussion with Smith about Britt's affidavit, Smith withdrew from representing MacDonald, and Blackburn agreed to let Smith's partner, Hill Allen, take over.
Jack Crawley, an Assistant United States Attorney during the MacDonald trial, provided testimony regarding his role as an advisor on trial procedure and evidence. He confirmed his presence during an interview with witness Stoeckley, alongside other team members, and recalled that Stoeckley denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders. Crawley emphasized that had Stoeckley confessed, the prosecution would have been obligated to disclose that information in accordance with Brady v. Maryland. Additionally, Crawley disclosed a past grievance filed against him with the state bar for failing to act with reasonable diligence in two cases, leading to a disciplinary hearing that resulted in a suspension and subsequent transfer to disability inactive status in 1997.
William "Bill" Ivory, the original Army CID Investigator, testified about the crime scene investigation at the MacDonald residence. He detailed the collection of evidence, emphasizing the search around the living room couch where MacDonald alleged the attack occurred. Ivory noted that no evidence, including blue threads found in other rooms, was discovered in that area, and the room appeared undisturbed. He also described the significance of fibers linked to MacDonald’s pajama top and presented photographic evidence from the crime scene, including a rocking horse in Kristen’s room with no visible damage. During continued investigations, Ivory recounted interviewing Greg Mitchell, who denied involvement in the murders and expressed disbelief in Stoeckley’s involvement. He also explained the role of polygraph examinations in the investigation, specifically mentioning that Mitchell was deemed truthful in denying any connection to the murders.
Ivory testified that Brisenstine conducted a polygraph examination of William Posey, a witness in the Stoeckley case, concluding that Posey was untruthful regarding his statements in the Article 32 proceeding and to CID investigators. Posey later admitted he did not witness Stoeckley dismount from a vehicle on February 17, 1970, and was uncertain if his sighting of her walking to her residence coincided with the date of the murders. Ivory reported that upon his arrival at the MacDonald crime scene, at least six individuals were present. He noted the presence of candle wax on various items in the residence, with none matching other candles found in the house; the wax appeared to have been burned for some time and contained household debris. Ivory also stated that an Esquire magazine contained fingerprints from two investigators and one unidentified print, while the crime scene processing revealed 17 unidentified fingerprints and 14 unidentified palm prints, none of which matched those of Mitchell.
Following Ivory, former FBI Special Agent Raymond "Butch" Madden testified about his investigation into claims made by the MacDonald defense team during post-conviction proceedings. This investigation included interviewing Helena Stoeckley and her mother, as well as defense investigators. In a two-day interview with Stoeckley in September 1981, she claimed that defense investigator Beasley had promised to help her fiancé Ernest Davis in exchange for her cooperation in providing a statement. Stoeckley also reported undergoing extensive interviews in California, which Madden described as potentially unethical and illegal interrogation practices.
Stoeckley signed a statement affirming that her earlier statements to Gunderson and Beasley were "basically accurate," but clarified that those statements reflected her perceptions or dreams rather than a clear memory of the events from February 16-17, 1970. She expressed uncertainty about her whereabouts during the early hours of February 17 and whether she was involved in the MacDonald murders. The following day, Stoeckley provided a second interview to Madden, seeking to amend her first statement. She disclosed that Beasley had introduced her to Fred Bost, who was writing a book on the MacDonald case, and that Beasley instructed her to communicate only through him, cautioning her against speaking with the FBI or other authorities. Stoeckley noted that she and Beasley were to receive 20% of the book's profits, while the remainder would go to Bost and the publisher. Additionally, she recalled seeing MacDonald before the trial but remained unclear about her actions during the murders. Stoeckley accused Gunderson of coercing her into a confession and felt exploited by both him and Beasley. She provided Madden with a letter to Gunderson expressing her feelings of being manipulated. Madden also recorded and transcribed interviews with Gunderson and Beasley, where Gunderson admitted to spending extensive time with Stoeckley to obtain her statement, which he later reorganized due to its disjointed nature. Gunderson mentioned discussions about a potential book or movie deal related to the murders, while Beasley confirmed the profit-sharing details Stoeckley had relayed. The interviews yielded seventy-eight pages of transcripts, but neither Gunderson nor Beasley indicated that Stoeckley had reported any threats from Jim Blackburn. Gunderson provided names of individuals Stoeckley implicated in the murders but admitted he did not pursue those leads due to lack of payment. Madden conducted his own investigation and found that one implicated individual, Allen Mazerolle, was incarcerated during the time of the murders.
Dwight Edwin Smith denied any involvement in the murders during an interview with Madden, claiming no knowledge of other named individuals. Shelby Don Harris acknowledged knowing Helena Stoeckley but also denied involvement and offered to take a polygraph test. Madden interviewed Helena Stoeckley’s mother, who stated that her daughter had told them she did not know anything about the murders and believed Helena was nonviolent and loved children. The elder Stoeckley expressed concerns about her daughter's treatment by Gunderson and Beasley and remarked that Helena's mental state was impaired, particularly when under the influence of drugs. Despite these concerns, she maintained that Helena was not involved in the murders. Mrs. Stoeckley had saved newspaper clippings from the trial and mentioned that Helena enjoyed the attention from the MacDonald case. She noted that Helena once claimed to think she was present at the murder scene. At the time of the interview, Mrs. Stoeckley appeared to be in good health and did not mention any threats to Helena from Jim Blackburn.
Joe McGinniss, the author of "Fatal Vision," testified for the Government, revealing that he was approached by MacDonald to write about the trial in exchange for a share of royalties. McGinniss had extensive access to trial events and lived with the trial team during the proceedings. He also participated in interviews with witnesses, including Helena Stoeckley’s parents, who reported not knowing her whereabouts and mentioned her plans to relocate to South Carolina. The elder Stoeckley believed her daughter would likely not provide valuable testimony if found, citing a past incident where Helena, after suffering a stroke, was left in a severely impaired state.
After a strict diet and rest for three weeks, Stoeekley's condition showed improvement, but she remained unwell, having undergone gallbladder removal and multiple liver biopsies. She exhibited severe physical and mental distress, often speaking nonsensically. The elder Stoeekley noted her daughter's reaction to the MacDonald murders, suggesting that influential figures like Prince Beasley led her to question her whereabouts that night, implying manipulation regarding her potential involvement in the crime.
McGinniss, present during Stoeekley's defense interview, reported that she consistently denied memory of the murders. He later contradicted claims made by co-counsel Segal regarding Stoeekley's statements, asserting he did not hear her make those statements. Moreover, McGinniss received trial transcripts that omitted critical bench conference discussions.
Post-conviction, McGinniss was invited by MacDonald to stay at his California condominium, where he accessed MacDonald's files. Among these files were handwritten notes from MacDonald, indicating he had possibly taken a diet pill during dinner on the night of the murders and had lost significant weight in the weeks prior using specific diet capsules. The notes lacked clarity on the dosage timeline, leaving open questions about the frequency of use leading up to the incident.
McGinniss reported that MacDonald, in handwritten notes, claimed the CID was unaware of a potential diet pill's effects. He speculated that if he had taken the pill, traces might remain in his urine and blood from 11:30 A.M. Tuesday, necessitating research into the pill's breakdown and whether its excretion differed from adrenaline breakdown products heightened by the attack's stress. MacDonald expressed uncertainty about identifying Dex-tramphetamine in blood and urine and mentioned telling the CID that he only took aspirin, occasional cold pills, and Tetracycline. He referenced a previous surgeon, Dr. Henry Ashton, who could testify about a bottle of Eskatrol left at his residence. MacDonald indicated he might have discarded Colette's diet pills, though some could remain in the medicine cabinet.
The document also details a court ruling on attorney-client privilege surviving the death of a witness, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Swidler Berlin v. United States. The Government sought to reconsider this ruling concerning attorney Jerry Leonard's testimony, citing exceptional circumstances that might justify breaching the privilege. The court required Leonard to submit an affidavit for in-camera review, leading to a decision that allowed him to testify. Leonard, who had experience as a law clerk and in private practice, was appointed to represent Stoeckley as a material witness and was tasked with ensuring her court attendance during proceedings. Although aware of her prior testimony, he could not recall if it was before the jury or during voir dire.
Leonard believed that Stoeckley had previously testified under oath to a judge outside the jury's presence. He recounted picking her up, potentially from the Federal Building, and expressed a need to establish trust with her while also securing her lodging. He took her to his home where she spent the night on his recliner, and the following day checked her into the Hilton before court. At the courthouse, they had a private room where Leonard reassured her about attorney-client confidentiality and discussed her potential testimony. Stoeckley claimed she had no recollection of the night of the murders, explaining that she learned this from investigators shortly after the event. Later, she asked Leonard what he would do if she admitted to being present during the murders, to which he affirmed his continued representation and the importance of the truth. Stoeckley then revealed she was indeed present but did not participate in the murders, attributing the violence to members of a cult she belonged to, which had beliefs about newborns and a confrontation over drug treatment biases. Leonard advised her against testifying further and helped her invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Throughout the week, Stoeckley recounted various details about the murders, including a phone call in the MacDonald home and unrelated observations about broken items in the house. Leonard was later cross-examined regarding details of Stoeckley’s interactions with other individuals prior to her lodging at the Hilton.
The individual reviewed notes from a 2006 FBI interview, confirming he initially paid for Stoeckley’s hotel stay but was later reimbursed by the court. Although he acknowledged that trial transcripts suggested no need for lodging on a Sunday evening, he maintained a personal memory of arranging it. He mentioned viewing crime scene photographs during his representation of Stoeckley. During cross-examination, he discussed statements made to author Errol Morris regarding Judge Dupree's alleged decision to prevent Stoeckley from testifying due to her past drug use, admitting he might have communicated this but noted the difficulty in distinguishing what he knew at the time versus what he learned later. Leonard expressed uncertainty about whether he knew Stoeckley had testified at all during his initial appointment, acknowledging the challenge of separating past knowledge from subsequent information. He stated he had not communicated with anyone about the case, including Wade Smith, and sent a poem from Stoeckley to Blackburn without recollection. He did not recall any threats made to Stoeckley by the Government or defense and was unaware of Jim Britt's involvement in her interview. Leonard felt no obligation to report Stoeckley’s statements to the State Bar, believing her conflicting accounts did not necessitate such action, as they seemed related to her prior testimony.
The Government presented evidence, including a 1995 North Carolina Supreme Court opinion that censured Leonard for conduct damaging to the judicial office. The Fourth Circuit instructed the court to consider DNA test results from AFDIL for evaluating the Britt claim and as support for a separate freestanding claim. During the September 2012 evidentiary hearing, neither MacDonald nor the Government called witnesses regarding the DNA evidence; instead, they agreed to stipulations about the evidence, which were documented in the Corrected Joint Pre-Hearing Order. Key stipulations included AFDIL's testing of 29 questioned hair and vial specimens, the qualifications of the DNA test results, and photographic documentation from Master Sergeant Grant D. Graham, Sr.
The court noted the parties' consensus that certain hairs found on a bedspread and in the body outline of Colette did not come from Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, or any MacDonald family member, referred to as "unsourced hairs." Conversely, some hairs found in Colette's hand and on the bedspread were consistent with Jeffrey MacDonald. A forcibly removed hair from bedding was linked to Colette, while Kimberly and Kristen were excluded as sources. Additionally, blond hairs found on Colette were consistent with the mtDNA of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen. However, there was disagreement regarding the significance of these findings and the collection location of one unsourced hair, specimen 91A.
MacDonald argued that Dr. William Franklin Hancock, who performed the autopsies on the victims, testified about the collection of fingernail scrapings, which were given to CID agents present at the autopsy. CID agent Bennie Hawkins confirmed his role in collecting evidence from the bodies, indicating that these items were placed into plastic vials by the pathologist.
Possession of vials containing evidence was taken from Dr. Hancock, marked with the notation "BJH, 17 February '70." Janice Glisson's July 27, 1970, bench notes indicate she received 13 vials containing fingernail scrapings, hair samples, fibers, and vaginal smears from the victims. Each vial was labeled with the date and contents, including Vial number 7, which contained fingernail scrapings from Kristen MacDonald, identified as "one light brown narrow hair, no medulla, intact root." MacDonald’s legal team argued that this hair, later marked 91A, serves as positive circumstantial evidence of an intruder, particularly in light of Kristen’s defensive wounds. The Government countered with testimony from Drs. Gammel and Hancock, who confirmed the collection process of the scrapings and noted that some of Kristen’s wounds could be classified as defensive, including multiple lacerations on her hands and a significant wound down to the bone on her finger.
Defensive wounds were identified in the context of the case, with specific attention to fingernail scrapings from victim Christine McDonald. CID Agent Bennie Hawkins did not testify about his presence during the victims' autopsies. On February 21, 1970, Hawkins transferred custody of autopsy items to chemist Craig S. Chamberlain for analysis, as evidenced by a military property receipt (GX 6001). This receipt included hair samples from Christine McDonald, and Chamberlain noted his responsibility for distributing items for testing at USACIL.
For inventory purposes, suspected blood stains were labeled with a prefix “D” followed by a number, while non-serological hairs and fibers were labeled with an “E.” Chamberlain’s inventory on February 26, 1970, included D-237, which contained fingernail scrapings marked “L. Hand Chris.” He clarified that this marking referred to writing associated with the vial, not the vial itself. Chamberlain had no personal knowledge of the contents of D-237 beyond his notes and could not confirm details on the serological or chemical analysis performed.
Chemist Dillard O. Browning examined D-237 on March 9, 1970, noting fingernail scrapings from Christine's left hand and identifying a fiber consistent with her pajama top. Browning asserted that what he extracted was a fiber, not a hair, and that it was destroyed during further analysis. He transferred the remaining fingernail scrapings to Glisson for blood typing.
Glisson's affidavit and supporting materials indicate that she conducted serology tests on evidence from Kristin's left hand, noting the presence of blood but not identifying any hair or performing chemical analysis on it. She stated that any such findings would have been recorded in her notes. The designation "D-237" was added later, likely by Chamberlain. During the Article 32 hearings, Glisson compared hair samples from Jeffrey MacDonald with those recovered from Colette's hands, having received thirteen vials of evidence on July 27, 1970, which she labeled and documented. Notably, Vial 7 contained fingernail scrapings and one hair fragment from a smaller female. Glisson confirmed that the descriptions in her notes matched the original documentation, asserting she hadn't previously examined the contents of Vial 7. She concluded that a container described by Chamberlain as containing fingernail scrapings was not present on July 27, 1970. After mounting a hair on a slide, Glisson found no bloodstains and had not conducted any blood analysis prior to this examination. She clarified that her mention of an "intact root" did not suggest the hair was forcibly removed. The Government later identified this hair specimen, known as 91A, as a naturally shed hair following expert analysis.
The Government contended that MacDonald failed to demonstrate that Specimen 91A originated from Kristen’s left hand or was removed from under her fingernail, nor did he prove it was bloody or forcibly extracted. They maintained that the origin of the hair in Vial 7 was undetermined until Glisson documented it on July 27, 1970, and argued that the absence of blood on Specimen 91A suggests it was likely an artifact rather than a hair from Kristen's bloodied hands.
Regarding Specimen 58A(1), parties agreed it was an unsourced hair found on Kristen’s bedspread. MacDonald posited that it could have been shed by an intruder during the assault, presenting it as circumstantial evidence of his theory. However, the Government noted that both hairs collected from the bedspread were of Caucasian origin and naturally shed, as indicated by their "club" roots, and argued that Specimen 58A(1) lacked probative value compared to Specimen 58A(2), which matched MacDonald’s mtDNA.
For Specimen 75A, found on the master bedroom rug, both parties acknowledged it as unsourced. MacDonald claimed it had root and follicular tissue, suggesting it was forcibly pulled from skin, while asserting its relevance as potential evidence of an intruder. The Government countered that this hair was collected nearly a month post-murders and that naturally shed pubic hairs can also have follicular tissue. They highlighted that without knowing when Specimen 75A or related debris was deposited, the evidence's significance remained uncertain.
Finally, the Government argued that DNA testing results of sourced hairs further supported the case against MacDonald.
DNA testing revealed that Specimen 52A, a hair found in Colette’s right hand, matched the mtDNA sequence of Colette, Kristen, and Kimberly, confirming prior microscopic analysis linking it to Colette. A previously uncomparable hair, Specimen 51A(2, found in Colette’s left hand, was determined to possess Jeffrey MacDonald’s mtDNA, contradicting his defense of intruder involvement. This hair exhibited a rounded tip, a broken end, and tissue resembling blood, along with a fiber fragment. Specimen 46A, a hair found on the bedroom floor, was consistent with Colette's mtDNA, excluding Kristen and Kimberly as contributors, and was identified as being forcibly removed, contradicting MacDonald's claims of innocence regarding the hair's origin from a struggle. Additionally, a hair from the bedspread (Specimen Q112A(5) matched Kimberly’s mtDNA and was microscopically consistent with her known exemplar, raising questions about MacDonald's account since he stated neither he nor Kimberly had contact with the bedspread. Post-hearing, both parties submitted additional materials, with MacDonald presenting articles alleging government misconduct in evidence disclosure and suggesting issues with witness credibility, particularly regarding Michael Malone’s testimony.
MacDonald submitted affidavits from former attorneys Hart Miles and Wade Smith, as well as psychiatrist Robert L. Saddoff, M.D., who previously assessed MacDonald in 1970. Miles’ affidavit recounts the circumstances of the elder Stoeckley's affidavit, asserting her voluntary and informed participation. Smith’s affidavit clarifies that he does not believe Britt would have used him to deceive the court. Saddoff’s affidavit addresses McGinniss's claim that Saddoff's opinion of MacDonald would have changed had he known about MacDonald’s potential drug use on the night of the murders; Saddoff denies making such a statement and maintains that his opinion has not altered.
The Government submitted multiple exhibits in response, including a report from private investigator John Dolan Myers detailing his interview with Jerry Leonard, who claimed to have received permission from Ms. Stoeckley to share her statements with attorney Wade Smith. The report indicated Leonard discussed his impressions of Stoeckley with Smith but lacked permission to disclose these conversations to others. Additionally, the Government filed Myers' affidavit related to MacDonald’s habeas corpus motion, a summary report from FBI Agent Stephen P. White regarding an interview with Jimmy Friar, and an article from the News Observer concerning the writ for Friar’s testimony.
The court is tasked with evaluating whether MacDonald’s claims meet the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1), noting that the Fourth Circuit remanded for further consideration of both the Britt claim, asserting violations of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and the DNA claim, which posits actual innocence. Furthermore, MacDonald appears to reassert a claim from 1990 regarding the Government’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence prior to his trial.
MacDonald’s 1990 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging government suppression of exculpatory evidence, was denied. The court, interpreting MacDonald’s assertion—first raised in a footnote of a reply memorandum—as a motion to amend his petition to include a third claim, allowed this amendment. Despite the Fourth Circuit's directive for a thorough evaluation of the claims under § 2255(h)(1), there remains disagreement between the parties on the application of this standard. The Government insists that each of MacDonald’s claims should be assessed separately for gatekeeping purposes, although the evidence for each is considered collectively. It argues MacDonald must demonstrate a constitutional violation for each claim's merits. Conversely, MacDonald contends all new evidence should be evaluated in aggregate, independent of specific claims, and that this evidence should allow his claims to pass the gatekeeping stage. He further asserts that he need not establish a constitutional violation to succeed on the merits. The court agrees with MacDonald’s interpretation of the gatekeeping standard but ultimately finds that he has not met the required standard for any of his claims. Specifically, the court concludes that MacDonald failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted him of the murders of his wife and daughters. Even assuming the claims pass the gatekeeping inquiry, they are unsuccessful on the merits. The court references that § 2255(h)(1) serves as the foundation for this analysis, aligning its procedure with that for successive petitions under § 2254.
The Fourth Circuit acknowledged an error by the lower court but deemed it "probably harmless" due to the similarities between the relevant statutory provisions. MacDonald argues that significant differences exist between 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) and § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii), which affect the analysis used to evaluate his claims. Specifically, § 2255(h)(1) addresses "newly discovered evidence," while § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) focuses on "the facts underlying the claim," with the latter requiring a connection to a constitutional error. This distinction allows § 2255(h)(1) to establish a petitioner's innocence without needing to demonstrate constitutional error, unlike § 2244, which imposes that requirement.
The court does not see the necessity to assess MacDonald's claims individually, as he requests a collective evaluation of the four categories of newly discovered evidence: unsourced hairs, Britt’s allegations, and Stoeckley’s alleged confessions. The court will determine if this evidence, when considered as a whole, is sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would find him guilty.
MacDonald presented four categories of new evidence, but the court concluded that none would prevent a reasonable juror from finding him guilty based on the comprehensive evidence presented over the years. In particular, the analysis of the unsourced hairs indicated that they were neither forcibly removed nor bloody, undermining MacDonald's claims about their exculpatory value.
MacDonald’s recent arguments regarding unsourced hair evidence were contradicted by his counsel's concessions during the hearing. While this evidence could theoretically suggest an intruder to a juror, it could just as easily be interpreted as debris, especially since the jury considered other evidence presented by MacDonald but still found him guilty. Notably, DNA testing revealed that a hair found in the victim Colette's hand matched MacDonald’s mtDNA, undermining his claims of innocence. Additionally, DNA tests on other hairs did not match those of suspected intruders, further complicating his defense. The unsourced hair and fiber evidence is not exculpatory and does not convincingly support MacDonald's actual innocence. The fiber evidence, particularly black wool fibers, was previously deemed as potentially household debris. The court highlighted that the origins of the hair and fiber evidence remain speculative, with alternative explanations available. Furthermore, the court found little credible evidence regarding the alleged recovery of a bloody syringe from the crime scene, echoing earlier judicial findings. Overall, the evidence presented does not compel a conclusion of intruder involvement.
The presence of three unsourced hairs at the crime scene does not sufficiently challenge the Government’s evidence of MacDonald’s guilt, even when considered alongside other intruder-related evidence he has presented. A juror could reasonably interpret the presence of these hairs in a manner that does not exculpate MacDonald. The court concludes that the unsourced hairs do not qualify as exculpatory scientific evidence and, even if they did, would not negate the overall evidence supporting MacDonald’s conviction for the murders of his family.
Additionally, MacDonald relies on alleged confessions made by Stoeckley to Britt, Leonard, and her mother, but the court finds these claims lack reliability and credibility. Specifically, Britt's sworn statements about transporting Stoeckley contain inconsistencies regarding the locations of her pickup and custody arrangements, raising doubts about their accuracy. For instance, Britt's affidavits conflict with each other regarding whether he picked up Stoeckley in Greenville or Charleston and whether he checked her into a hotel or a jail upon arrival in Raleigh. Moreover, Britt's assertions are contradicted by testimony and documentary evidence from Frank Mills, who confirmed Stoeckley’s arrest and subsequent commitment to the Pickens County Jail, lending further support to the court’s view that Britt's statements are not credible.
Kennedy's August 23, 2006, sworn statement confirms that he transported Stoeckley to a designated location at the intersection of Interstate 85 and Interstate 77 in Charlotte, where he handed her over to a Deputy Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina, contradicting Britt's claim that he transported her to trial in South Carolina. Testimonies from former Deputy Marshal Dennis Meehan and his wife, Janice, further support this, as they assert they were responsible for picking up Stoeckley in Charlotte and transporting her to Raleigh, directly undermining Britt's narrative of a lengthy transport during which Stoeckley allegedly confessed. Britt's assertions regarding Stoeckley’s whereabouts and activities during this period conflict with other testimonies, including that of Wendy Rouder, who stated she checked Stoeckley into the Hilton instead of the Holiday Inn, as Britt claimed. Additionally, Britt's timeline is inconsistent with records indicating Stoeckley remained in Raleigh until at least August 24, 1979, making his account of arranging her bus ticket to Charleston on August 20 implausible. The court finds Britt's inconsistencies too significant to be attributed to fading memories, suggesting they are likely fabrications, rendering his statements unreliable. Leonard's testimony about Stoeckley’s confession is also deemed unreliable, as it follows a series of unusual events and indicates Stoeckley initially expressed memory loss regarding the murders but later claimed to have been present without participating.
During her time under subpoena at the federal courthouse, a witness provided details about a broken hobby horse in the MacDonald home and recounted an incident involving a telephone call she received, which she hung up after being prompted to do so by others present. Leonard's account of his interactions with this witness, Stoeckley, is contradicted by other evidence. He claimed to have picked her up and provided lodging at the Hilton before taking her to court, but records show she spent most of that Sunday with Rouder and Underhill before checking into the Hilton and later being taken to the hospital for a nose injury. Leonard's narrative conflicts with testimonies from Underhill and Rouder, raising doubts about his reliability. Furthermore, Leonard stated he advised Stoeckley to invoke the Fifth Amendment if called to testify and claimed not to have discussed her statements with anyone, including Wade Smith. However, evidence suggests he did confer with Smith about Stoeckley’s statements, contradicting his earlier assertions. These inconsistencies lead to significant questions regarding Leonard's credibility despite some corroboration of his account by a declaration from Jimmy Friar about a call he made to contact Dr. Richard MacDonald in 1970.
Friar received a phone number from the base operator, which he called, reporting that a laughing woman answered and someone instructed him to hang up. His account aligns with claims made by Stoeckley regarding her time in the MacDonald house. However, Friar's credibility is compromised due to his disorientation from alcohol consumption and psychiatric medications on the night of the call. He had sneaked out of Womack Army Hospital and, during an FBI interview, disclosed significant alcohol intake and a history of psychiatric treatment. His accounts of treatment were inconsistent; he initially denied mental health care but later admitted frequent stays in mental wards. Friar characterized himself as a “con man and manipulator” and has a criminal history involving fraud, rendering him an unreliable witness. Leonard's testimony, which suggests memory issues regarding events from August 1979, also lacks credibility. Even if Britt and Leonard's statements about Stoeckley's confessions were considered reliable, the court noted that these statements merely reiterate Stoeckley’s own claims, which have been deemed untrustworthy over the years.
The reliability of Helena Stoeckley’s confessions regarding the murders on February 17, 1970, is fundamentally questioned, regardless of time elapsed or her identity as a hearsay witness. Judge Dupree determined in 1985, after observing her testimony and reviewing various materials, that Stoeckley was not a reliable source. Her confessions do not necessarily reflect truth but stem from her inability to recall events due to drug use at the time. Investigations into drug culture led her to fear she might have been involved in the crimes, compounded by her drug-induced confusion and anxiety over the scrutiny she faced. This uncertainty and her subsequent substance abuse, which progressed to alcohol leading to her death in 1988, contributed to her belief that she might have participated in the crimes, forming a narrative that MacDonald interprets as a confession. However, it remains unclear whether this belief was genuine or a plea for attention. The court emphasizes that the inconsistencies in Stoeckley’s statements and her unreliability negate any claim of credibility, further reinforced by her alleged confessions to others, which do not alter the assessment of her trustworthiness. Thus, her statements cannot be considered credible evidence against MacDonald, and additional witness affidavits regarding Stoeckley’s activities do not change this conclusion.
Judge Dupree's findings are not binding, but the court concurs with his evaluation that witness statements contain factual inaccuracies and contradictions, thus failing to assist MacDonald in proving Stoeckley and her associates committed the murders. The court finds the latest affidavits regarding confessions by Greg Mitchell to lack reliability and credibility, particularly as these confessions were made after he previously denied involvement and passed a polygraph test. His later confessions also occurred under the influence of drugs, further undermining their reliability.
MacDonald's evidence includes Britt's claims that Stoeckley confessed to prosecutor Blackburn and was subsequently threatened with indictment if she testified. However, Britt's statements are inconsistent and contradict the accounts of two other witnesses present during the interview, Blackburn and Crawley. While MacDonald questions the credibility of Blackburn and Crawley, the court finds no witness inherently less credible than Britt. Notably, Blackburn has a history of fraudulent behavior, yet Britt himself is implicated in submitting potentially fraudulent documents, including an affidavit in a divorce case that contradicts evidence of continued cohabitation with his wife.
Britt claims to have escorted Stoeckley to the courtroom while Blackburn was in Judge Dupree's chambers, but records indicate that the court was in recess to allow for interviews, casting doubt on Britt's timeline.
Judge Dupree scheduled court to reconvene at 9 a.m. the following day, noting that neither Smith nor Blackburn returned to court that afternoon due to the adjournment. The court found Britt's assertions regarding the events to lack credibility, questioning whether they stemmed from faulty memory or intentional deception. The court evaluated new evidence, including unsourced hair samples and Stoeckley’s confessions, determining they were insufficient to convincingly demonstrate that no reasonable jury would have convicted MacDonald.
The government's case posited that MacDonald, driven by marital issues, killed his wife and daughters, then staged the scene to appear as though intruders were responsible. Key evidence included murder weapons found near the MacDonald home and inconsistencies in MacDonald’s account, such as fibers from his pajama top found throughout the apartment despite his claim of removing it. The government argued that MacDonald’s actions suggested he manipulated the crime scene to support his narrative.
MacDonald countered by challenging the integrity of the crime scene investigation, claiming that the CID’s mishandling compromised the evidence and allowed for speculative theories by the prosecution.
Key arguments presented include:
1. **Fiber Evidence**: It was contended that if the pajama top was torn without a seam, minimal fiber shedding would occur, and fibers were found near the hallway's south edge, which could have been disturbed by the ambulance's gurney and drivers.
2. **Crime Scene Preservation**: Criticism was directed at the CID for failing to recognize the living room's significance as a crime scene, leading to inadequate preservation of physical and trace evidence, making any conclusions drawn by the Government questionable.
3. **Fiber Distribution**: It was argued that fibers from MacDonald’s pajama top could reasonably be found on his body and in areas beyond the master bedroom, suggesting the pajama bottoms might also be the source of these fibers.
4. **Latex Glove Evidence**: The Government presented evidence of blood-stained latex glove pieces found in the master bedroom, positing that MacDonald wore gloves during the murders to avoid leaving fingerprints. However, MacDonald challenged the findings and the lack of fingerprint processing on the headboard where "PIG" was written.
5. **Expert Testimony**: MacDonald’s expert, a leading authority on neutron activation analysis, disputed the Government's claim that the gloves found in the house matched those from the crime scene.
6. **Footprint Evidence**: A footprint identified as MacDonald’s was found leading from Kristen’s bedroom, which the Government used to suggest Colette was assaulted in that room. They noted the absence of prints entering Kristen’s room as supporting evidence for their theory.
7. **Blood Evidence and Crime Scene Analysis**: The Government highlighted the lack of blood or splinters in the living room, except for a stain on an Esquire magazine featuring an article on the Manson murders, theorizing MacDonald staged the scene to suggest a cult killing. MacDonald countered this by challenging the thoroughness of the crime scene processing and noted his spectacles had blood on them, suggesting it resulted from a struggle in the living room.
Overall, the defense argued against the Government's theories regarding fiber, latex glove, and blood evidence, asserting that the investigation was compromised, leading to unjust conclusions.
Dr. MacDonald’s defense challenged the handling of the crime scene and the evidence evaluation by the government, while asserting that intruders, including a blond woman, were responsible for the murders of his family. Key pieces of evidence presented by the defense included a pink fiber on MacDonald’s glasses, unsourced hairs, unidentified fingerprints, and un-sourced candle wax. MacDonald called Stoeckley, a defense witness, who testified about her ownership of a blond wig and other items, as well as her drug use at the time of the murders. She recalled limited memories surrounding the night of the crimes, expressing concern about her lack of alibi despite stating she was not involved.
Ultimately, the jury found MacDonald guilty. The court concluded that new evidence presented by MacDonald was unreliable and insufficient to demonstrate that no reasonable jury would have convicted him, thus failing to meet the burden under 2255(h)(1)’s procedural gatekeeping bar. Even if MacDonald had met this procedural requirement, the court found that he did not prove any of his claims on their merits. The court emphasized that satisfying the gatekeeping requirements does not guarantee success on the merits of claims, and reiterated that the burden to prove any constitutional violations remains with MacDonald. The court noted notable differences between the gatekeeping statutes for federal and state prisoners, agreeing with MacDonald on this point but maintaining its stance on the merits of his claims.
The court finds that MacDonald has not demonstrated how the differences in gatekeeping statutes affect the merits of his claims. The court references Hatch and Ferranti to clarify that the gatekeeping standard for successive 2255 motions differs from that of 2244 claims, and declines to merge gatekeeping and merits analyses as suggested by MacDonald. The court concludes that MacDonald has not met his burden of proof for his constitutional claims, specifically his freestanding actual innocence claim.
MacDonald’s "Britt Claim" asserts that prosecution misconduct, including failure to disclose evidence and witness intimidation, violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. He contends that Helena Stoeckley admitted her involvement in the crime but was misled by Blackburn to remain silent. For a Brady violation, MacDonald must prove that the suppressed evidence was favorable, the government withheld it, and he suffered prejudice. The court reiterates that intimidating a witness or threatening prosecution infringes on a defendant’s right to present a defense, aligning with established legal precedents.
Intimidation of a witness can infringe upon a defendant’s rights if it constitutes significant government interference with the witness's decision to testify. A defendant must demonstrate that government actions led to the loss of testimony that was both material and favorable to their case. If substantial interference is established, the next step is to determine whether this interference resulted in prejudice or was a harmless error. In this case, MacDonald failed to prove that his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights were violated, as he did not provide sufficient evidence that Stoeckley confessed to Blackburn or that Blackburn intimidated her into changing her testimony. The court deemed Britt’s statements unreliable, particularly regarding claims of Stoeckley’s confession and intimidation by Blackburn. Testimonies from Rouder and the elder Stoeckley did not substantiate claims of intimidation; instead, they were speculative and lacked contextual support. The elder Stoeckley’s affidavit did not clarify the reasons for Stoeckley’s alleged fear of prosecutors, leaving ambiguity about whether it stemmed from alleged threats or her own recognition of potential prosecution. Gene Stoeckley’s testimony indicated that Stoeckley felt threatened with prosecution but did not confirm a direct threat from Blackburn. Ultimately, the court found Helena Stoeckley’s credibility questionable, noting that, despite claims of being "not allowed" to testify, she did testify at trial without obstruction. The absence of corroborating witnesses reporting threats further undermined the claim that Blackburn had intimidated Stoeckley into false testimony.
A list of individuals is provided, including Judge Du-pree and others. The court determined that MacDonald did not demonstrate that Stoeekley confessed to Blackburn or that Blackburn misrepresented the prosecution's interview with Stoeekley. The court referred to its 2008 Order, stating that MacDonald’s "fraud upon the court" theory relied on Segal’s claims to Judge Dupree that Stoeekley had exonerated MacDonald during a defense interview. However, the evidence from the September 2012 hearing indicated that Stoeekley did not make such statements during the interview. Testimony revealed that Stoeekley consistently claimed a lack of memory regarding her presence at the murders. Consequently, MacDonald failed to prove four key assertions regarding confessions and intimidation, leading to the denial of the "Britt claim."
Additionally, MacDonald asserted a constitutional violation in a footnote of his post-hearing memorandum, claiming the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence before his trial. This claim was based solely on an article by a former attorney, which reiterated earlier arguments from MacDonald's 1990 habeas corpus petition regarding the withholding of laboratory notes. These notes could have supported the defense by demonstrating critical evidence, such as the presence of blond synthetic hairs and black wool fibers at the crime scene.
The court assumes, without ruling, that MacDonald is not prevented from raising a successive claim regarding the suppression of exculpatory evidence. However, the court finds he is not entitled to relief, and thus, the claim is denied on the merits. MacDonald previously presented a similar claim in a 1990 § 2255 petition, alleging that the government violated Brady by suppressing evidence that consisted of forensic lab notes related to hairs and fibers found in connection with a murder case. Judge Dupree denied this petition for several reasons: he concluded that the evidence was not material enough to alter the trial's outcome, noted that the prosecution had complied with Brady by allowing MacDonald to examine all physical evidence, and determined that the petition was procedurally barred due to abuse of the writ.
The court reviewed Silverglate's article, which was offered as support for MacDonald's current claim, but found it did not lead to a different outcome than Judge Dupree’s findings. Even assuming the new evidence could affect materiality, the original conclusion about the prosecution's compliance with Brady remains unchanged. The court cites precedents indicating that a Brady violation does not occur if the defense had means to obtain the evidence, and reiterates that no evidence was presented showing the prosecution was aware of the lab notes. Consequently, any separate claims made by MacDonald are also denied on the merits.
MacDonald's claim of unsourced hairs is framed as an "actual innocence" claim, asserting entitlement to habeas corpus relief based on his alleged innocence of the murders of his family. The U.S. Supreme Court has not formally recognized a freestanding actual innocence claim but has acknowledged the theoretical possibility of such claims. In *Herrera v. Collins*, the Court suggested that a compelling demonstration of actual innocence post-trial could potentially render execution unconstitutional, yet established that the threshold for such a claim is "extraordinarily high." Lower courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have varied in their stance on the cognizability of freestanding actual innocence claims, with some acknowledging the possibility without decisively ruling on it. Despite this, the consensus remains that any claim must meet a stringent evidentiary standard. The court in this case assumes, for argument's sake, that a freestanding actual innocence claim is cognizable but ultimately concludes that MacDonald has failed to satisfy the required burden of proof to secure the relief he seeks. This situation leaves open the question of what constitutes the "extraordinarily high" burden necessary for such claims.
The Supreme Court has not defined the burden for evaluating freestanding innocence claims, but it has indicated that the threshold is exceptionally high. The Fourth Circuit has adopted a rigorous standard akin to the "clear and convincing" gatekeeping requirement under 2255(h)(1). In Hunt v. McDade, the Fourth Circuit stipulated that a petitioner must demonstrate, based on newly discovered evidence and the entire trial record, that no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that even if the standard for a freestanding actual innocence claim is similar to that for gatekeeping under 2255(h)(1), the petitioner, MacDonald, has not met this demanding burden.
MacDonald’s primary evidence includes unsourced hairs, saran fiber evidence, and alleged confessions from Stoeckley and Mitchell. However, the court found that the unsourced hairs and saran fibers do not provide compelling exculpatory evidence, as the former could be incidental household debris and the latter does not definitively link to Stoeckley. Regarding the alleged confessions, the court doubts the credibility of both Stoeckley and Mitchell, citing their inconsistent statements and past reliability issues. Ultimately, the court concluded that MacDonald did not provide clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him, drawing parallels to the Supreme Court's decision in House v. Bell.
House was charged with the murder of Carolyn Muncey, whose body was found in rural Tennessee. Key evidence against him included blood found on his jeans that matched Muncey’s, and semen on her nightgown and underwear that appeared to be consistent with House. The prosecution presented a narrative that House, who had a prior sexual assault conviction, committed the murder during a sexual assault. After losing in state court, House filed a late federal habeas petition, introducing new evidence indicating that the semen belonged to Muncey’s husband and that the blood evidence may have been deposited post-autopsy, raising doubts about its origin. Additionally, House provided testimony suggesting Muncey’s husband abused her and had confessed to the murder, along with actions indicating a potential cover-up.
The Supreme Court found this new evidence sufficient to allow federal review of House's claims, but not enough to meet the standard for a freestanding innocence claim. In contrast, MacDonald’s new evidence was deemed less compelling since it only raised speculative questions about the origin of unsourced hairs and fibers, did not exclude MacDonald as the perpetrator, nor strongly implicated another specific individual. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the new evidence presented by MacDonald failed to establish actual innocence, as he did not provide clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would find him guilty of the murders of his family. His claim of actual innocence was therefore denied.
MacDonald has not met the burden of proof required to demonstrate that a reasonable factfinder would have acquitted him of the murder of his wife and daughters, thus failing to meet the gatekeeping standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). Even if he could meet this standard, he has not substantiated any constitutional claims or an actual innocence claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, his Motion to Vacate is denied. The court then assesses whether to issue a certificate of appealability, which necessitates a substantial showing of a constitutional rights denial. Since MacDonald has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the court's decision on the constitutional claims debatable, a certificate of appealability is denied. The order also notes the procedural history of the case, including prior appeals and rulings, and specifies that a separate order regarding the Innocence Protection Act motion will follow. Additionally, the court acknowledges clerical revisions to previous opinions and refers to evidence regarding the differing blood types of the MacDonald family members.
Mildred Kassab is identified as the mother of Colette. Judge Dupree’s detailed summary of the trial is recommended for review. The “Stoeckley Witnesses” include Jane Zillioux, James Gaddis, Charles Red Underhill, Robert Brisenstine, Jr., Prince E. Beasley, and William Posey. Stoeckley was established as an informant for Beasley during his time with the Fayetteville Police Department. Notably, Stoeckley contacted Judge Dupree over the weekend, expressing fear for her life due to threats from Bernard Segal, the defendant's counsel, and requested legal representation. Underhill testified that Stoeckley had been assaulted by her boyfriend, Ernest Davis, and had visible injuries, including a black eye and a bloody nose. Stoeckley claimed she had fallen in the bathroom, but Underhill also reported her fear for her safety, stating that she believed her life was at risk. Judge Dupree characterized Stoeckley as a tragic figure whose drug addiction had severely impaired her mental state, rendering her testimony largely untrustworthy. He emphasized that regardless of the number of witnesses, the jury should have a clear understanding of Stoeckley’s reliability based on her performance in court. The court confirmed it had reviewed the complete record and noted that Judge Dupree had not received recordings or transcripts of Stoeckley’s statements, but rather declarations from Beasley and Gunderson.
Judge Dupree highlighted significant inconsistencies in Stoeckley’s statements, making it challenging to form a coherent narrative of the events surrounding the murders. However, to provide MacDonald the benefit of the doubt, Dupree opted to largely recount MacDonald's claims regarding Stoeckley’s statements. Dupree’s assessments and rulings are not binding on the current court. Cathy Perry, referred to in the order, was previously known as Cathy Perry Williams. Dupree remarked that Perry’s account starkly contradicts established facts and those MacDonald attributed to Stoeckley.
No declaration or affidavit from Johnstone was included in the recent court filings. The only additional evidence regarding bloody clothing came from Prince Beasley’s declaration, stating that Garcia was asked by Perry to hold a bundle of clothes that had blood on them. Although Garcia disposed of the clothing, she retained boots and a calendar marked with February 17, 1970. Beasley testified that Stoeckley acknowledged Perry had given some clothes to Garcia but did not specify ownership.
The FBI's fiber reference collection, maintained for over 40 years, did not contain known wig samples made of saran; all examined samples were of polyvinyl chloride, modacrylic, or human hair. Additionally, MacDonald presented a declaration from Bryant Lane concerning the 1990 petition, which the court considered in the 2006 Britt Claim filings.
Ms. Rouder did not testify in 1979 that Stoeckley could identify MacDonald’s killers; this claim was made by Red Underhill. Britt, who had connections to MacDonald’s case, submitted a notarized "Statement of Facts" detailing irregularities he observed during the trial, naming several individuals involved, including Judge Dupree and members of the jury. Smith was unaware of an addendum to the affidavit before the September 2012 hearing.
The record does not clarify what the elder Stoeckley communicated to Agent Cheroke during their April 25, 2007, interview. Gene Stoeckley, on cross-examination, could not recall specific statements made by his mother during the interview. No further evidence was presented regarding the content of the interview, and relevant notes from MacDonald do not include the quoted language in question. The court assumes the omission was an oversight by the Government and not a fabrication by McGinniss, as defense counsel would have likely challenged McGinniss if the quoted language was inaccurate. Leonard, in his affidavit, stated he believed he was appointed on August 19, 1979, although he contradicted himself in a prior interview, claiming initial contact was on the previous Saturday.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited solely from the mother, allowing maternal relatives to share the same mtDNA profile unless a mutation occurs. In contrast, nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents, resulting in unique profiles for almost all individuals. mtDNA is primarily used for exclusion rather than identification but can be advantageous in cases involving minute or degraded samples, as it can be extracted from sources without nuclei. Specimens analyzed in the case were identified with numerous designations. Importantly, neither party may use statements from the AFDIL Report of March 10, 2006, regarding the identity or testing of items examined before their delivery to the AFID on May 17, 1999, except as specified in an attached stipulation.
Paragraph 37 outlines the handling and identification of hair evidence linked to the case, specifically noting that hair removed from a vial by USACIL Chemist Janice Glisson in 1970 was subsequently marked and tested by the FBI and AFDIL. The court does not accept MacDonald's argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) changes his burden of proof regarding the merits of his claims. MacDonald seeks to amend his claims to incorporate evidence of Stoeckley’s alleged confessions to her mother and Leonard, arguing that this evidence, along with DNA findings, would likely lead to his acquittal if presented to a jury. The court acknowledges previous misinterpretations of the evidence and allows MacDonald to amend his claims under Rule 15(a). During arguments, defense counsel emphasized that unsourced hairs found at the crime scene could suggest the presence of intruders, though the court noted these hairs lacked blood or definitive forensic ties to the crime. The court also recognizes the government's view that Friar's testimony is inconsistent and lacks credible support, highlighting that MacDonald did not call Friar as a witness during his 1979 trial.
Defense attorneys filed a request to secure testimony from James E. Friar, a 30-year-old inmate serving a 10-year sentence for fraud at a state prison. Friar was convicted in 1977 for writing a fraudulent check and was recommended for psychiatric treatment by Superior Court Judge William Z. Wood. He claimed to have mistakenly called the MacDonald residence around 3 a.m. on February 17, 1970, looking for another doctor, during which a woman laughed at his inquiry, and a male voice told him to hang up. The Government challenges the credibility of elder Stoeckley’s 2007 statements regarding her daughter's confessions, noting her omission to inform the FBI in 1984 raises doubts. However, the court assumes a reasonable juror could find these statements credible. Stoeckley appears to have recanted prior confessions to Leonard and her mother, which undermines the reliability of her confession to Sara McMann. The Government argues that Britt’s relocation to Nevada for divorce was motivated by a provision in Nancy’s mother’s will, which tied land trust benefits to Nancy's divorce or death. The court recognized that the inquiries regarding actual innocence claims were conflated, emphasizing that a petitioner must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted them based on new evidence. This standard, as outlined in previous cases, requires showing that no rational trier of fact could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Stoeekley expressed fear for her life following an incident where she was punched at a motel during the weekend of August 18-19, 1979, mentioning various individuals, including prosecutors and her fiancé. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), state prisoners are barred from raising claims in a second or successive § 2254 petition that were previously presented. Such claims must be dismissed if already addressed in prior applications. The application of this statute to federal prisoners filing motions under § 2255 remains unsettled. Unlike § 2244(b)(1), § 2255 does not explicitly prohibit repeated claims, leading some to argue that a second or successive motion can be filed if certified by the appellate court under exceptions for newly discovered evidence or new constitutional rules. However, some courts interpret "prior application" in § 2244(b)(1) to include § 2255 motions, thus limiting repetitive filings. The Fourth Circuit has not ruled on this issue yet. The distinction between actual and legal innocence is critical; actual innocence pertains to the factual claim of having not committed the crime, while legal innocence refers to insufficient evidence to prove guilt. A freestanding actual innocence claim seeks to challenge only the factual basis of the conviction without accompanying constitutional claims.
Matthew Aglialoro's note highlights a case involving Matthew Royal, who argues that his actual innocence renders his conviction and execution unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the court ruled that actual innocence alone is insufficient for granting a habeas writ, emphasizing that federal habeas relief is intended to address constitutional defects rather than factual errors. The court referenced precedent indicating that claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence do not establish grounds for federal habeas relief unless accompanied by an independent constitutional violation in the state proceedings. The Royal court noted that, similar to the case of Herrera, the petitioner had access to state mechanisms, such as executive clemency, to pursue claims of actual innocence. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit's decision in Hunt, which considered new DNA test results, concluded that it could not determine that no rational jury would have convicted the defendant based on the totality of evidence. The Supreme Court case Schlup v. Delo established that prisoners must demonstrate that new evidence makes it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to use innocence as a gateway for defaulted claims.
