International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Continuation Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327578)

BStrong 1st March 2018 06:08 PM

Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II
 
Mod Info Continued from here.
As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and posters are free to quote from the previous thread.
Posted By:Agatha






Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12201238)
That's a load of bollocks, if you pardon my French. The matter is explained at this website, and it was demolished by MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick at the McGinniss trial in 1987:

http://dingeengoete.blogspot.co.uk/2...macdonald.html

Your man crush wasn't drug free.

Long before there was any serious issues with amphetamines in the general population, amphetamines were commonly available in the military, even as late as when I was in 74-80.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...oldier/477183/

One of the "perks" of being a military physician was the nearly uncontrolled availability of controlled substance pharmaceuticals. The uncontested fact is that your man crush had a ******** of pharmaceuticals in hand in his home.

Henri McPhee 2nd March 2018 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12202237)
One of the "perks" of being a military physician was the nearly uncontrolled availability of controlled substance pharmaceuticals. The uncontested fact is that your man crush had a ******** of pharmaceuticals in hand in his home.

The matter of diet pills in the MacDonald case is explained at this website. It was another invention by Kassab.:

https://www.sfgate.com/books/article...is-3042069.php

Quote:

Their debunking is helped along by an unlikely source: McGinniss himself, responding under oath to a civil lawsuit filed by MacDonald alleging fraud and breach of contract pertaining to "Fatal Vision." When asked whether he believed the theory advanced in his book -- that diet pills caused a psychotic snap in MacDonald -- McGinniss explained that he had to give his readers more than a "rehash" of the trial, the authors write. He then replied: "I'm not convinced that it actually happened."

JTF 2nd March 2018 11:17 PM

Cognitive Sheep
 
The Eskatrol issue is another example of the landlord being unable to think for himself. He simply hears or sees an advocacy piece for inmate and his thought process is set in stone. He clearly doesn't consider the distinct possibility that the authors of said pieces have not taken the time to read the documented record. At the Article 32 hearing, inmate admits that he has used Amphetamines, he repeats this admission on the very 1st page of his case journal, and it is a medical fact that Amphetamine use can cause a rage reaction. As if the landlord needed a reminder, this case is a classic example of a rage killing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Henri McPhee 5th March 2018 03:52 AM

In the Joe McGinniss Fatal Vision book, somewhere in the 600s pages, he wrote that the Army CID lab at Ford Gordon was not capable of detecting amphetamines, and that supposedly was why the amphetamine psychosis theory without facts was never detected. That is patently untrue. No traces of amphetamines were ever found in MacDonald's body. It was manufactured evidence, and a strange delusion by Kassab, which McGinniss swallowed, like Kassab's theory without facts that there had been child abuse of the two little girls by MacDonald. There was never a shred of medical evidence, or any other evidence to back that up, and only a very bad judge would believe it.

byn63 5th March 2018 06:08 AM

Once again henri is ignoring FACT.
Fact 1: The CID was NOT the one who would have tested for drug use, that is the provenance of the HOSPITAL.
Fact 2: There WAS NOT a test available to identify amphetamines use by a person at the time the testing would have been done.
Fact 3: INMATE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE'D BEEN TAKING THE ESKATROL. IT WAS THE VERY FIRST ITEM LISTED ON HIS 'NOTES' FOR HIS LAWYERS. THE LIST OF THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW.
Fact 4: Joe M said amphetamine psychosis was HIS theory YEARS AFTER inmate was convicted. It was NOT a part of the trial, it had NOTHING to do with his rightful convictions, and it was part of an epilogue of FV reprint several years AFTER inmate's conviction (FV was first published 4 years after conviction and the epilogue was in a reprint done a few years later - JTF probably knows the exact dates).

Henri McPhee 5th March 2018 10:00 AM

McGinniss was looking for a motive for Jeff MacDonald for his publisher and he came up with some lame theory that MacDonald seemed to be agitated about the death of his family, according to Dr. Bronstein at the military hospital, which 'could be' due to amphetamines from diet pills. That was after talking personally to MacDonald about the "pseudo-science" of Stombaugh of the FBI. That is something only a bad judge would believe. McGinniss was a con artist.

byn63 5th March 2018 12:54 PM

Once again HENRI is ignoring FACTS.

FACT #1 - INMATE HIMSELF ADMITTED TO USING AMPHETAMINES. IT WAS THE VERY FIRST ITEM ON HIS HANDWRITTEN "THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW" LIST FOR HIS LAWYERS.

FACT #2 - Fatal Vision had already been published at least 4 years prior to Joe McG adding the epilogue where he postulated the POSSIBLE amphetamine psychosis theory.

FACT # 3 - Dr. Bronstein stated under oath that he had medicated inmate HEAVILY with enough meds that he should have been down for the count but inmate never got even so much as sleepy.

The FACT that Joe McG said himself it was a THEORY seems to be lost on henri as is the FACT that the theory and its being postulated HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON INMATE'S CONVICTION. INMATE WAS CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE. Fatal Vision was not published for the first time until FOUR YEARS after inmate's conviction and the amphetamine theory was not postulated for another couple of years. I know henri hates it when we insist on clouding the issues with FACTS, but the FACTS show that inmate brutally and savagely slaughtered his family like the coward that he is, he has yet to admit it.

desmirelle 5th March 2018 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12205688)
In the Joe McGinniss Fatal Vision book, somewhere in the 600s pages, he wrote that the Army CID lab at Ford Gordon was not capable of detecting amphetamines, and that supposedly was why the amphetamine psychosis theory without facts was never detected. That is patently untrue. No traces of amphetamines were ever found in MacDonald's body. It was manufactured evidence, and a strange delusion by Kassab, which McGinniss swallowed, like Kassab's theory without facts that there had been child abuse of the two little girls by MacDonald. There was never a shred of medical evidence, or any other evidence to back that up, and only a very bad judge would believe it.

Wait, are you calling your man crush a liar? Because he's the one who brought up amphetamines and wrote that he was taking them, had lost some weight taking them.

JTF 5th March 2018 06:36 PM

Role Model
 
Considering that inmate is a serial fabricator, it makes sense that his fellow con artists would use similar tactics to defend his, ahem, innocence. The landlord is unable to produce a single piece of SOURCED exculpatory evidence, so he jumps to case issues that have NOTHING to do with the evidence that led to conviction of his role model.

After a brief mention of inmate's amphetamine use at the Article 32 hearing, the issue NEVER came up again at either the Grand Jury Hearing or at the 1979 trial. It's important to remember that inmate was indicted AND convicted of murdering his family without a single mention of his admitted use of amphetamines.

Shortly after inmate was returned (e.g., Spring of 1982) to his concrete domicile, McGinniss was provided access to inmate's written notes and guess what inmate wrote about on the FIRST PAGE of those notes? Yup, his potential ingestion of Eskatrol.

The interesting thing about this discovery is that it is unlikely that Joe knew about inmate's testimony at the Article 32 hearing. If he was aware of inmate's admission, he most certainly would have included it in Fatal Vision.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Henri McPhee 6th March 2018 10:10 AM

All that stuff about diet pills was something MacDonald provided to his lawyers early on, and it was in confidence, as is normal. It was not something MacDonald intended to be published in a book or newspaper to be used as so-called evidence against him.

There was some legal waffle about diet pills and amphetamines and amphetamine psychosis at the McGinniss trial in 1987:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...niss3-081.html

desmirelle 6th March 2018 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12207298)
All that stuff about diet pills was something MacDonald provided to his lawyers early on, and it was in confidence, as is normal. It was not something MacDonald intended to be published in a book or newspaper to be used as so-called evidence against him.

<snip of henri waffle >

Uh, guess again. Jeffrey Macdonald himself gave that information to Joe for use in the book, which was published literally years after the trial. So, whine all you want, but your man crush is the one who made his amphetamine usage available for publication in a book Macdonald wanted published (at the time).

byn63 9th March 2018 05:48 AM

The Fourth Circuit Court is taking too damned long to render its decision....

Henri McPhee 10th March 2018 09:33 AM

Jeff MacDonald is innocent. He is only in prison because of very bad judges, like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox, who were clearly in error and the poor quality of journalists in America. It looks as though the original MacDonald case thread on this forum will now vanish into oblivion so that the public can remain in sheer ignorance of the facts. It's a subtle form of censorship, like any mention of Rhodesia.

Border Reiver 10th March 2018 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12212482)
Jeff MacDonald is innocent. He is only in prison because of very bad judges, like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox, who were clearly in error and the poor quality of journalists in America. It looks as though the original MacDonald case thread on this forum will now vanish into oblivion so that the public can remain in sheer ignorance of the facts. It's a subtle form of censorship, like any mention of Rhodesia.

MacDonald was properly convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers. He has been allowed to appeal his conviction more than anyone else has. He has gone up to the Supreme Court and failed.

Rhodesia can be mentioned at any time, except as a nation it has not existed for over 30 years and has less relevance to modern life than your opinion on the MacDonald trial.

Loss Leader 10th March 2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12212482)
Jeff MacDonald is innocent. He is only in prison because of very bad judges, like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox, who were clearly in error and the poor quality of journalists in America. It looks as though the original MacDonald case thread on this forum will now vanish into oblivion so that the public can remain in sheer ignorance of the facts. It's a subtle form of censorship, like any mention of Rhodesia.


The original thread is linked to right at the top of this page. It was closed and a new thread opened due to its length. You can find it by clicking right here.

byn63 12th March 2018 04:49 AM

The FACTS of this case will remain available to the public via this continuation thread as well as at:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com"

"www.macdonaldcasefacts.com"

"www.themacdonaldcase.com"

there are, of course, sites that have fantasy and fiction rather than FACT but we have henri for that here.....

ScottPletcher 15th March 2018 01:28 PM

McGinnis's theory was well chosen
 
McGinnis's theory was well chosen: it matched the facts of the case and was logical and reasonable. I think that's one of the main reasons inmate was so upset about it, because McG had uncovered the truth, providing the missing element the prosecution couldn't. Inmate -- narcissist that he was -- thought that no one would be able to see past his various lies and ruses.

Henri McPhee 16th March 2018 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottPletcher (Post 12219432)
McGinnis's theory was well chosen: it matched the facts of the case and was logical and reasonable. I think that's one of the main reasons inmate was so upset about it, because McG had uncovered the truth, providing the missing element the prosecution couldn't. Inmate -- narcissist that he was -- thought that no one would be able to see past his various lies and ruses.

I flatly disagree. The MacDonald lawyer, Gary Bostwick said the McGinniss book Fatal Vision was truly outrageous. This is what MacDonald himself thought about it all:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...vil-trial.html

byn63 16th March 2018 04:45 AM

Of course, certain people (including inmate) will believe that just because inmate or one of his PAID advocates say "poo-poo" to something it should be taken as fact. The PROBLEM with this is that the EVIDENCE AND FACTS back up the veracity of Fatal Vision. The FACT that the book was not published until 4 years after inmate was convicted always seems to escape the few misguided (giving benefit of the doubt) believers in inmate. It also seems to escape their attention that the amphetamine psychosis theory (which fits the evidence and facts) wasn't brought out until at least 2 years AFTER Fatal Vision was published. Like the ostrich, macolites are forever sticking their heads in the sand.....or like little kids that don't want to hear something they won't like they stick their fingers in their ears and say "na-na-na-na-na-na-na" as loud as they can manage.

BStrong 17th March 2018 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12220137)
I flatly disagree. The MacDonald lawyer, Gary Bostwick said the McGinniss book Fatal Vision was truly outrageous. This is what MacDonald himself thought about it all:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...vil-trial.html

Murdering ******* didn't like being exposed? Stop The Presses!

Your man crush is guilty and will live out his days in exactly the right environment.

byn63 28th March 2018 05:02 AM

Wow! it appears that BStrong has rendered henri speechless (at least temporarily)! Way to go!

Garrison 28th March 2018 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by byn63 (Post 12235789)
Wow! it appears that BStrong has rendered henri speechless (at least temporarily)! Way to go!

No, he has just temporarily abandoned Jeffery MacDonald in favour of Neville Chamberlain...

byn63 9th April 2018 05:57 AM

it is like waiting for the other shoe to drop......ominous, to say the least......

wasapi 14th April 2018 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12236386)
No, he has just temporarily abandoned Jeffery MacDonald in favour of Neville Chamberlain...

Last seen on the Darlie Routier thread where he continues to ignore evidence.

As to the murderer, Jeffrey McDonald, is anyone aware if he has any visitors in prison that still support him? (Not counting Henri).

JTF 14th April 2018 11:59 PM

Known Visitors
 
WASAPI: Considering that inmate has stolen his brother's rightful piece of their mother's estate, the only consistent visitor is his wife. Oh, he'll get the occasional wide-eyed "journalist" to visit him, but that is about it.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

wasapi 15th April 2018 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTF (Post 12258103)
WASAPI: Considering that inmate has stolen his brother's rightful piece of their mother's estate, the only consistent visitor is his wife. Oh, he'll get the occasional wide-eyed "journalist" to visit him, but that is about it.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Thanks. I wasn't aware he remarried. It isn't surprising really, it seems many prisoners can find women if they want.

JTF 16th April 2018 03:47 AM

Strip Mall Queen
 
WASAPI: From 1982-1997, inmate was being visited by various female groupies (e.g., single/married) and professionals (e.g., media types). Inmate received "services" from these women ranging from pawing one another to a few agreeing to secretly audiotape members of the prosecution team. Inmate was apparently hoping to catch James Blackburn and/or Paul Stombaugh in a "gotcha" moment.

A visitor in the mid-late 90's decided to weed the herd and by 2000, she was inmate's lone female confidant. Inmate and Kathryn MacDonald married in 2002, and she has periodically made the media rounds in the past 16 years. She is notorious for spreading falsehoods about this case and has even made attempts to get certain individuals (e.g., proponents of inmate's guilt) fired from their jobs.

In the past several years, however, the worm has turned as evidenced by Kathryn's continual run-ins with the law. It seems she has been before a Judge more times than she has appeared on radio/television talk shows. Kathryn's behaviors also led to her closing her drama school for children.

In my opinion, the seminal moment of Kathryn's bizarre inclusion in this case occurred at her husband's 2005 parole hearing. After Brian Murtagh destroyed inmate's ridiculous attempt to garner freedom, Colette's brother was granted the opportunity to speak directly to inmate and his wife. At one point, Bob Stevenson told Kathryn that she was nothing more than a "Strip Mall Queen." Classic.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Henri McPhee 21st April 2018 08:43 AM

There is an article on the internet about the MacDonald case which may have been written by Fred Bost:

https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ0...0MacDonald.pdf

Quote:

Jeffery MacDonald- The Crime Scene

It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.

Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.
The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to determine the original position of the bodies.

They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.

They also allowed the trash to be picked up without being checked for evidence!

JTF 21st April 2018 04:16 PM

Shell Game
 
In order to avoid addressing the mountain of inculpatory physical evidence, all of inmate's most outspoken advocates (e.g., Bost, Morris, Silverglate) played the crime scene preservation shell game. They were all aware of the impossible task of rebutting the mass of evidence pointing to inmate as being the lone perp, so they simply stated that the evidence was contaminated. O.J. Simpson's defense team played the same shell game, but unlike the jurors at inmate's trial, the jurors at the Simpson trial were swayed by this con game.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

byn63 23rd April 2018 04:36 AM

the shell game includes bringing up "possible" evidence (anything in the trash that was picked up before being investigated or the hospital disposing of inmate's pj trousers) as if that MEANS something. the trouble with that premise is that inmate was not convicted using evidence that WAS NOT FOUND.....he was convicted on evidence that WAS FOUND.

Henri McPhee 23rd April 2018 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by byn63 (Post 12267590)
..he was convicted on evidence that WAS FOUND.

Manufactured evidence more like, and disregarding leads and suspects.

Ygraine 23rd April 2018 06:39 PM

Well, shoot, Henri. I had hoped that you were researching new and convincing evidence during your absence here. Alas....

Henri McPhee 24th April 2018 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ygraine (Post 12268551)
Well, shoot, Henri. I had hoped that you were researching new and convincing evidence during your absence here. Alas....

Blackburn in his closing argument to the jury at the 1979 trial said the conclusive evidence was that there were pajama fibers on the murder weapon. Fred Bost said that there were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon. It was manufactured evidence.

There is a bit about all this sort of thing in a letter Fred Bost sent to JTF when he was alive:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._callahan.html

byn63 24th April 2018 04:13 AM

henri it has been proven REPEAT PROVEN that your comments on manufactured evidence is the only manufactured evidence in this case. 2 pajama fibers were found on the murder club, adhered to it in blood, they were removed by the CID and placed in a pill container, and all properly documented in lab notes etc. Inmate was convicted on actual evidence that was found at the scene not "hypothetical evidence" that got away.

JTF 25th April 2018 05:04 AM

Rinse And Repeat
 
After taking a brake from his usual rinse and repeat routine, Henriboy is back in full carnival barker mode. Despite his history of ignoring the following rebuttal...

In 1979, co-lead prosecutor Brian Murtagh requested an FBI re-analysis of the fibers found at the crime scene. Two dark woolen fibers were found on the club during this re-analysis. Considering the fact that these dark woolen fibers were not listed in the 1970 CID lab reports or the 1974 FBI lab reports, advocates for MacDonald felt that something was amiss.

They ultimately concluded that the two fibers listed in the initial lab reports as coming from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas, were actually the two dark woolen fibers listed in the 1979 FBI fiber re-analysis. In essence, advocates for MacDonald claimed that this was a classic case of fiber misidentification. The documented record says otherwise. In 1970, CID chemist Dillard Browning labeled the debris found on the club as CID Exhibit E-205.

Browning noted that two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood and he subsequently placed the two fibers in a vial. In 1974, FBI physical science technician Shirley Green labeled the debris from the club as FBI Exhibit Q89. Green placed the pajama fibers in a pillbox, and Paul Stombaugh later matched the fibers to the seam threads from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top.

In 1989, the FBI took two color photographs of the seam threads in the pillbox and the photographs were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. The documented record clearly indicates that both pajama fibers and dark woolen fibers were found on the club. Dark woolen fibers were also found on Colette MacDonald's bicep and near her mouth.

In 1990, FBI hair and fibers expert Michael Malone found that these fibers differed in optical properties which meant that the fibers came from different source materials. This conclusion mirrored the chemical composition analysis of the two dark woolen fibers found on the club. The two dark woolen fibers also differed in optical properties.

Henriboy also leaves out the fact that Fred Bost admitted (e.g., Fatal Justice endnotes) that lab notes indicate the distinct possibility that BOTH dark woolen fibers and pajama fibers were found on the club.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Henri McPhee 25th April 2018 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by byn63 (Post 12268888)
henri it has been proven REPEAT PROVEN that your comments on manufactured evidence is the only manufactured evidence in this case. 2 pajama fibers were found on the murder club, adhered to it in blood, they were removed by the CID and placed in a pill container, and all properly documented in lab notes etc. Inmate was convicted on actual evidence that was found at the scene not "hypothetical evidence" that got away.

That's a lie. It was forensic fraud fabricated out of whole cloth.

JTF 26th April 2018 04:17 PM

It Is What It Is
 
The following excerpt can be found on page 433 of the hardback addition of FATAL JUSTICE. Notice how Bost and Potter couldn't even get the little details (e.g., Shirley Green inventoried the fiber evidence in question, not Kathy Bond) right?

"The debris from the club had been presented to Frier and Bond in three forms: in a vial, in a pillbox, and on a slide. Apparently the two threads thought to be from the pajama top were residing in the pillbox, because Kathy Bond's initial inventory note, before any actual analyses took place, stated: "(2) Pillbox contains 2 short pc's sew thr (like blue PJ top)". An element that causes further confusion is her following notation, "(left as is)." Did this mean that Frier and Bond ignored the fibers in the pillbox, and never examined them, choosing only to examine the other materials? Perhaps. And if this is what happened, then the two "pajama" fibers were still in existence, still serving as thorns gouging the defense."

Once the FBI's color photographs of the fibers in the pillbox were published for public consumption, I realized that Bost and Potter had NEVER viewed the photographs. Adding to their incompetence is the FACT that FATAL JUSTICE was published 6 years AFTER these photographs were taken. Classic.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Henri McPhee 27th April 2018 03:58 AM

Frier of the FBI lab was the expert examiner concerning alleged pajama fibers on the murder weapon and he said they were black wool fibers, as well as some other fibers. Stombaugh and Kathy Bond and Shirley Green, and JTF and Byn, were pseudo experts.

Logan made a sensible comment about all this on the Google Groups forum in 1999:

Quote:

Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps,and on the murder club found out back.

In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact Black wool fibers that were similiar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top.

The FBI tried to match these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
witheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-examined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debris" and were not
forensically significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps the fibers are simply household debris.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it.
Any comment Mirse? Anybody?
Logan

JTF 27th April 2018 01:21 PM

Ah, What?
 
HENRIBOY: I always get a kick out of your disjointed talking points. Please keep being yourself, you intellectual child, you.

No loyalty to Fred Bost, eh? I provided you with an entire paragraph from his work of fiction, yet he goes from a reliable source to a "pseudo-expert?" Hilarious. When you use a 20 year old opinion presented on a forum as your main talking point, you're dealing in weak sauce. Heck, your boy Logan simply regurgitated information contained in the work of a "pseudo-expert." Logan makes no mention of...

- Inmate discarding most of the family clothing items.
- Two pajama fibers were placed in a pillbox and then photographed by the FBI.
- Animal hair was also found on the club.
- A significant number of pajama fibers were sourced to a specific portion or section of the garment.
- The two pajama seam threads found on the club were adhering to the club in Colette's blood.
- Three of the five dark woolen fibers found on Colette's body differed in chemical composition indicating multiple source materials.
- The two dark woolen fibers found on the club differed in chemical composition indicating separate source materials.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

byn63 1st May 2018 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee (Post 12270614)
That's a lie. It was forensic fraud fabricated out of whole cloth.

No it is not henri and you KNOW it! You are the one who gets on the boards year after year spouting disproven and/or misleading nonsense. YOU are the one who advocates for a lying sociopathic narcissistic familial slaughterer.

You want to take me on? FINE! Do it with ACTUAL FACTS not the nonsense you keep spouting! Until you can do so, don't come after me!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.