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)
-   -   Merged: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249368)

Bob001 11th December 2012 10:59 AM

Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
 
The case of Jeffrey MacDonald, the Green Beret doctor who was convicted in the '70s of murdering his wife and his two young daughters and who has mounted numerous appeals ever since, has gotten renewed attention recently after famed documentarian Errol Morris wrote a book arguing for MacDonald's innocence and disparaging "Fatal Vision," Joe McGinniss' compelling case for MacDonald's guilt.
http://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Err...s=errol+morris
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Vision-J...s=fatal+vision

Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten eviscerates Morris' book in a long article and an online chat:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...02a_story.html
http://live.washingtonpost.com/chato...or-121211.html

Any thoughts? Does anyone really think Doc MacDonald isn't a vicious, remorseless baby killer?

Monketi Ghost 11th December 2012 11:30 AM

I'll sift through it. Until then, could you tell me if you've reached any conclusions?

Bob001 11th December 2012 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost (Post 8836750)
I'll sift through it. Until then, could you tell me if you've reached any conclusions?

I have never had any doubt about the guy's guilt. His own statements never made much sense and they contradicted the physical evidence. McGinniss' "Fatal Vision" is totally persuasive. And of course, a jury found him guilty and multiple appeals courts have affirmed that verdict for decades. I mention it only because Errol Morris and his book have gotten a lot of attention and some favorable reviews recently by writers who apparently aren't very familiar with the case.

Charlie Wilkes 11th December 2012 12:24 PM

I want to re-read Fatal Vision and read this new book.

In the classic "bushy haired stranger" scenario, the killer(s) pop in out of the blue, do the crime for no reason, and then vanish into thin air, killing all but one person, who is injured, but not seriously.

The cops are skeptical in these cases, and so am I. When the police first got a call about Diane Downs and her kids at the ER, a veteran homicide detective said, "let me guess - mom's got a gunshot wound in her arm." And he was right.

In MacDonald's case, he says he lost consciousness during the attack. If that is so, he was at the mercy of these homicidal maniacs. Why didn't they finish him off, as they most certainly did everyone else?

Another controversial BHS case is that of Darlie Routier, whose two kids were fatally stabbed in the chest and torso while she escaped with a non-fatal stab wound in her neck. Lots of people think she is innocent. I don't.

As for Stoeckley, her role in the MacDonald case is like that of Peter Alphon in the A6 murder. In both cases, a group of people were determined to believe the man convicted was innocent, so they latched onto a flake who would say anything to get attention. After 40 years, DNA tests finally put the A6 case to rest, and there was no miscarriage of justice. James Hanratty did it. He really did. I think MacDonald did, too.

calebprime 11th December 2012 12:54 PM

When I skimmed Morris' book recently, I was persuaded that mistakes had been made in the investigation. But I trusted Morris too much. For instance, I simply believed the claim that MacDonald had a wound close to his heart. That may not be accurate at all.

Morris left too much stuff out. He never took a hard look at MacDonald in the book.

I've since learned about the blood evidence, the pajama-top evidence, and that MacDonald used to hit Colette, according to her diary.

Add that to telling Kassab that huge lie that he and his Special Forces friends tortured and killed one of the "intruders", and add that to the basic absurdity of MacDonald's version, and I've got to think he did it.

He doesn't have to be a total psychopath to have done it, nor did he have to be overdosing on Eskatrol. He only needs to be a really selfish bastard who was stressed out and sleep-deprived. Maybe that's a distinction without much of a difference, except that he was capable of behaving normally most of the time.

I think a fight got out of control, and then he tried to cover it up with murder and by concocting a story.

He may have got the idea of his intruders from seeing Stoeckley & friends around the base. He may have got the idea of Manson-like murders from the Esquire article found in his house. Also, he may have gotten the idea of writing on the mirror from a break-in at the next-door neighbor's house a month before, where something was written on a mirror.

I think the Morris book is engagingly written but misleading, now that I've read a little more.

_Fatal Vision_ may have some bad psychiatric speculation or other bad speculation, but I think it's on the right track, whatever its flaws are.

But I admit I don't really understand the blood evidence -- the exact details of who was where. This is partly because I don't really want to think too closely about a father killing his family. It's too awful.

AnimalFriendly 11th December 2012 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8836909)
I want to re-read Fatal Vision and read this new book.

In the classic "bushy haired stranger" scenario, the killer(s) pop in out of the blue, do the crime for no reason, and then vanish into thin air, killing all but one person, who is injured, but not seriously.

The cops are skeptical in these cases, and so am I. When the police first got a call about Diane Downs and her kids at the ER, a veteran homicide detective said, "let me guess - mom's got a gunshot wound in her arm." And he was right.

In MacDonald's case, he says he lost consciousness during the attack. If that is so, he was at the mercy of these homicidal maniacs. Why didn't they finish him off, as they most certainly did everyone else?

Another controversial BHS case is that of Darlie Routier, whose two kids were fatally stabbed in the chest and torso while she escaped with a non-fatal stab wound in her neck. Lots of people think she is innocent. I don't.

As for Stoeckley, her role in the MacDonald case is like that of Peter Alphon in the A6 murder. In both cases, a group of people were determined to believe the man convicted was innocent, so they latched onto a flake who would say anything to get attention. After 40 years, DNA tests finally put the A6 case to rest, and there was no miscarriage of justice. James Hanratty did it. He really did. I think MacDonald did, too.

Hi Charlie - re: the Routier case, which I've been sort of on the fence about, if she's guilty - why do you think she didn't also kill her third son, still a baby at the time I think and in the house upstairs? It sort of seems like the same reasoning would apply here regarding the fact that the hippies MacDonald claimed murdered his family also didn't go ahead and kill him.

BTW, I've also read your many posts on the Meredith Kercher murder - they are fantastic! I started out thinking Knox/Sollecito were probably guilty - back in 2009 - but now realize they are undoubtedly innocent.

Skeptic Ginger 11th December 2012 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly (Post 8837100)
....

BTW, I've also read your many posts on the Meredith Kercher murder - they are fantastic! I started out thinking Knox/Sollecito were probably guilty - back in 2009 - but now realize they are undoubtedly innocent.

:welcome4

Welcome to the rational side, and the forum. :D

leftysergeant 11th December 2012 03:03 PM

I was stationed at Pope AFB at the time and hung out a lot at the club where McDonald claimed the killers did.

Never saw them.

I knew a few people in McDonald's unit. They all thought he was nuts.

I'm pretty sure he did it.

desertgal 11th December 2012 03:15 PM

I believe he did it.

Charlie Wilkes 11th December 2012 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly (Post 8837100)
Hi Charlie - re: the Routier case, which I've been sort of on the fence about, if she's guilty - why do you think she didn't also kill her third son, still a baby at the time I think and in the house upstairs? It sort of seems like the same reasoning would apply here regarding the fact that the hippies MacDonald claimed murdered his family also didn't go ahead and kill him.

BTW, I've also read your many posts on the Meredith Kercher murder - they are fantastic! I started out thinking Knox/Sollecito were probably guilty - back in 2009 - but now realize they are undoubtedly innocent.

Thank you, I'm flattered.

Darlie Routier's husband was upstairs with the baby, so she'd have had to kill him too.

Beyond that, I don't know. One would have to understand the reason why she killed her two sons, and I don't. I think it's glib to speculate that she wanted to get rid of the expense, but it is true that she and her husband, who maintained the trappings of an affluent lifestyle, were about to face the humiliation of bankruptcy. Also, she had been struggling with her weight and taking diet pills.

Debora Green killed two of her three children when she burned down her own house. She also poisoned her husband and almost killed him. She had no obvious motive, but she had a lot of problems. I can speculate that she might have seen the fire as a way of arming herself with an excuse for why her life was such a mess, and the same might go for Routier.

AnimalFriendly 11th December 2012 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8837442)
Thank you, I'm flattered.

Darlie Routier's husband was upstairs with the baby, so she'd have had to kill him too.

Beyond that, I don't know. One would have to understand the reason why she killed her two sons, and I don't. I think it's glib to speculate that she wanted to get rid of the expense, but it is true that she and her husband, who maintained the trappings of an affluent lifestyle, were about to face the humiliation of bankruptcy. Also, she had been struggling with her weight and taking diet pills.

Debora Green killed two of her three children when she burned down her own house. She also poisoned her husband and almost killed him. She had no obvious motive, but she had a lot of problems. I can speculate that she might have seen the fire as a way of arming herself with an excuse for why her life was such a mess, and the same might go for Routier.

Thanks - for some reason I was thinking her husband wasn't home at the time but I must be thinking of another case. I guess one reason I've always thought she might be innocent was that her husband had seemingly stood by her for so long. But maybe they're divorced now since she's been incarcerated for so long. I never really bought into the notion that she'd kill her boys like that due to financial difficulties. With the right help, sometimes bankruptcy doesn't even mean losing one's house.

Forgot to mention that I've always been interested in the MacDonald case having grown up in N.C. in the 70s and read Fatal Vision...Stoekley's statements, which changed so much over so much time, utterly lacked credibility due to her various addiction disorders.

Ampulla of Vater 11th December 2012 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8836909)
I want to re-read Fatal Vision and read this new book.

In the classic "bushy haired stranger" scenario, the killer(s) pop in out of the blue, do the crime for no reason, and then vanish into thin air, killing all but one person, who is injured, but not seriously.

The cops are skeptical in these cases, and so am I. When the police first got a call about Diane Downs and her kids at the ER, a veteran homicide detective said, "let me guess - mom's got a gunshot wound in her arm." And he was right.

In MacDonald's case, he says he lost consciousness during the attack. If that is so, he was at the mercy of these homicidal maniacs. Why didn't they finish him off, as they most certainly did everyone else?

Another controversial BHS case is that of Darlie Routier, whose two kids were fatally stabbed in the chest and torso while she escaped with a non-fatal stab wound in her neck. Lots of people think she is innocent. I don't.

As for Stoeckley, her role in the MacDonald case is like that of Peter Alphon in the A6 murder. In both cases, a group of people were determined to believe the man convicted was innocent, so they latched onto a flake who would say anything to get attention. After 40 years, DNA tests finally put the A6 case to rest, and there was no miscarriage of justice. James Hanratty did it. He really did. I think MacDonald did, too.

I've always thought MacDonald was guilty. I am glad to hear you feel the same about Darlie Routier. I know one the innocence project-type groups elsewhere which of which we are both members has latched onto Darlie's case and I've made it known that I completely disagree. Same with the Lobato case. I read every single word of the Lobato trial transcripts from the second trial and I am convinved she is also guilty.

With MacDonald, there is little doubt he is guilty but there will always be those who point to Helena's drugged up musings and try to claim she was involved and he wasn't. No way.

Charlie Wilkes 11th December 2012 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8837581)
I've always thought MacDonald was guilty. I am glad to hear you feel the same about Darlie Routier. I know one the innocence project-type groups elsewhere which of which we are both members has latched onto Darlie's case and I've made it known that I completely disagree. Same with the Lobato case. I read every single word of the Lobato trial transcripts from the second trial and I am convinved she is also guilty.

With MacDonald, there is little doubt he is guilty but there will always be those who point to Helena's drugged up musings and try to claim she was involved and he wasn't. No way.

I don't agree about Lobato. I think she is obviously innocent. What convinces you she is guilty?

BStrong 11th December 2012 05:28 PM

MacDonald is a great case study in meglomania.

He lied his way through just about everything in his life successfully. and believed he could lie his way through the murder.

He almost did, and people like Morris simply fell victim to a con artist.

In this instance, instead of cash, Morris lost a bit of credibility.

BenBurch 11th December 2012 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly (Post 8837100)
Hi Charlie - re: the Routier case, which I've been sort of on the fence about, if she's guilty - why do you think she didn't also kill her third son, still a baby at the time I think and in the house upstairs? It sort of seems like the same reasoning would apply here regarding the fact that the hippies MacDonald claimed murdered his family also didn't go ahead and kill him.

BTW, I've also read your many posts on the Meredith Kercher murder - they are fantastic! I started out thinking Knox/Sollecito were probably guilty - back in 2009 - but now realize they are undoubtedly innocent.

Welcome to JREF!

I'll put on coffee.

Caper 11th December 2012 05:42 PM

Ok this is off topic and I was thinking about starting a topic about this. My last name is MacInnis. The authors is McGinniss... It's the same thing, spelled different. Is there any last name with more spellings then MacInnis?

lane99 11th December 2012 06:16 PM

It's happened before
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8836909)
..In MacDonald's case, he says he lost consciousness during the attack. If that is so, he was at the mercy of these homicidal maniacs. Why didn't they finish him off, as they most certainly did everyone else?...

Who knows? But there's any number of possible reasons consistent with MacDonald being innocent. Perhaps it was an escalating situation that was not a premeditated mass murder. And even if it was, perhaps, after he was beaten and stabbed, they mistook his being unconscious for his being dead.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8837581)
...I know one the innocence project-type groups elsewhere which of which we are both members has latched onto Darlie's case...

And the mother of all innocence project type groups- the original ""Innocence" Project" itself- has latched onto the Macdonald case.
.
.

.

Ampulla of Vater 11th December 2012 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8837592)
I don't agree about Lobato. I think she is obviously innocent. What convinces you she is guilty?

Oh Charlie, there are so many things. She told several people she cut off a guy's penis within days of the crime. She specifically told people she did not know if the guy was alive when she left him. Her story later became that she was attacked by someone and slashed at his penis but left him very much alive. The first thing she said when they came to arrest her was “I didn’t think anybody would miss him.” This means she knew her victim was dead, not alive as she later claimed. She lied about going to the church after she was attacked which was proven because the church wasn’t even open when she claimed to have gone there. The murder occurred in a dumpster area, enclosed on 3 sides and with a curb running around the enclosed sides. The jail cell holding area was also enclosed on 3 sides and the floor paint color continued up the sides of the walls for several inches, mimicking a curb. Upon seeing the holding area in the jail she said “This looks like where it happened.” This is a completely different visual description from where she later claimed the attack-where-she-didn’t-kill-the guy happened. Dixie repeatedly lied on the stand and was caught changing her testimony, as were several of the friends.

I really delved into this case when I was researching it. I even had the phone records spread out and went through them highlighting who was calling who when. It took me weeks to read through all the testimony. I have very little doubt she is guilty. Have you read any of the transcripts? If you haven’t, read Dixie’s testimony. It reveals the deception going on among the family and friends who change their testimony to match the attack-where-she-didn’t-kill-the-guy scenario.

Charlie Wilkes 11th December 2012 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8837693)
Oh Charlie, there are so many things. She told several people she cut off a guy's penis within days of the crime. She specifically told people she did not know if the guy was alive when she left him. Her story later became that she was attacked by someone and slashed at his penis but left him very much alive. The first thing she said when they came to arrest her was “I didn’t think anybody would miss him.” This means she knew her victim was dead, not alive as she later claimed. She lied about going to the church after she was attacked which was proven because the church wasn’t even open when she claimed to have gone there. The murder occurred in a dumpster area, enclosed on 3 sides and with a curb running around the enclosed sides. The jail cell holding area was also enclosed on 3 sides and the floor paint color continued up the sides of the walls for several inches, mimicking a curb. Upon seeing the holding area in the jail she said “This looks like where it happened.” This is a completely different visual description from where she later claimed the attack-where-she-didn’t-kill-the guy happened. Dixie repeatedly lied on the stand and was caught changing her testimony, as were several of the friends.

I really delved into this case when I was researching it. I even had the phone records spread out and went through them highlighting who was calling who when. It took me weeks to read through all the testimony. I have very little doubt she is guilty. Have you read any of the transcripts? If you haven’t, read Dixie’s testimony. It reveals the deception going on among the family and friends who change their testimony to match the attack-where-she-didn’t-kill-the-guy scenario.

I don't buy it.

She told people about the guy who attacked her weeks before the murder, but the judge kept the jury from hearing that testimony.

But, beyond that, why, if she was admitting to the crime when the police talked to her, did she describe a completely different scenario in a different part of town? Why would she admit to anything? There was no physical evidence against her. If she hadn't said anything, she'd have never been a suspect.

And why would she kill this guy in the first place?

Twiggett 11th December 2012 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lane99 (Post 8837688)
Who knows? But there's any number of possible reasons consistent with MacDonald being innocent. Perhaps it was an escalating situation that was not a premeditated mass murder. And even if it was, perhaps, after he was beaten and stabbed, they mistook his being unconscious for his being dead.
.
.

.

If you were to completely ignore his unchanging version of events I suppose one could view the damage done to his wife and children compared to the wounds he suffered and think of possible scenarios that make sense. However, his version makes no sense whatsoever in context with just the very basic facts of the wounds suffered by each person in the house.

According to him, some hippies break in and there is a struggle where he suffers some facial cuts and bruising, he also sustained a mild concussion and they stab him one time, puncturing his lung. Oh and manage to not wreck the living room during the struggle. He loses consciousness and they then proceed to repeatedly club his wife (both of her arms were broken) and then stab her 37 times. His 5 year old daughter was clubbed and stabbed in the neck 8-10 times and his 2 year old daughter was stabbed 33 times with a knife along with 15 times with an ice-pick.

Those facts plus the rest of the crime scene evidence taken along with his defense resting largely on the ramblings of a known drug addict leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the man, for reasons we will never know or understand if we did, murdered his entire family. The only thing I find unfathomable in this case is how anyone can look at the facts and conclude that this man is innocent.

paiute 11th December 2012 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 8836683)
Any thoughts? Does anyone really think Doc MacDonald isn't a vicious, remorseless baby killer?

1. The story in the article designed to be answered by a sociopath is readily answered by anyone who reads mysteries.

2. A Green Beret does not let his family get killed by intruders without dying himself.

3. "Acid is groovy - kill the pigs" ? Come on. That is something that a square Army doctor imagines that hippies would say and is so obviously contrived that it stands pretty much alone as proof of guilt.

4. The whole thing was weirdly echoed in the Chuck Stuart case here in Boston. As soon as I heard that his wife had been killed but himself only shot in the side, I knew what had happened.

Monketi Ghost 11th December 2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 8836864)
I have never had any doubt about the guy's guilt. His own statements never made much sense and they contradicted the physical evidence. McGinniss' "Fatal Vision" is totally persuasive. And of course, a jury found him guilty and multiple appeals courts have affirmed that verdict for decades. I mention it only because Errol Morris and his book have gotten a lot of attention and some favorable reviews recently by writers who apparently aren't very familiar with the case.

Sarcasm missed target: no joy. I say again, no joy.

desertgal 12th December 2012 04:26 AM

Having read most of the comments of the reviews of Morris' book on Amazon, there doesn't appear to be much doubt about MacDonald's guilt among the commenters. The big question being bandied about there is not whether he was guilty, but whether he received a fair trial. The consensus there is that he did not.

It's been a few years since I last reread Fatal Vision, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details of the trial, but if I recall correctly, Murtagh prosecuted to the best of his ability, and MacDonald was convicted on the evidence (and the lack of evidence supporting his defense), not on the basis of railroading by the prosecution.

I'll put the question here: Even with his guilt established, was Jeffrey MacDonald convicted unfairly?

Course, that also begs the question: If a person is guilty-and there's little doubt MacDonald is-how does a guilty verdict qualify as "unfair"?

Strawberry 12th December 2012 04:38 AM

No, I don't think so.

Its sad to see the Innocence Project and Errol Morris waste their time with this case. There are real miscarriages of justice they could be worrying about, McDonald is as guilty as sin.

Ampulla of Vater 12th December 2012 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8837766)
I don't buy it.

She told people about the guy who attacked her weeks before the murder, but the judge kept the jury from hearing that testimony.

But, beyond that, why, if she was admitting to the crime when the police talked to her, did she describe a completely different scenario in a different part of town? Why would she admit to anything? There was no physical evidence against her. If she hadn't said anything, she'd have never been a suspect.

And why would she kill this guy in the first place?

I am not asking this to be difficult, I swear. What are your sources for your statements? If you have believable sources for those 2 statements, I would love to see them.

Ampulla of Vater 12th December 2012 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strawberry (Post 8838536)
No, I don't think so.

Its sad to see the Innocence Project and Errol Morris waste their time with this case. There are real miscarriages of justice they could be worrying about, McDonald is as guilty as sin.

I think it tarnishes the Innocence Project and other such groups to throw their weight behind such cases. It makes people wonder if other cases with which they have been involved had a guilty accused as well. One can no longer rely on such an innocence group to exhibit good judgment. It becomes a credibility problem.

Charlie Wilkes 12th December 2012 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8838721)
I am not asking this to be difficult, I swear. What are your sources for your statements? If you have believable sources for those 2 statements, I would love to see them.

Here's a good starting point:

http://justicedenied.org/lobato_habeas.pdf

Lobato's supporters have gathered affidavits from multiple people who were prepared to testify at her trial that Lobato described her incident weeks before Bailey was murdered. The judge kept that testimony out of the courtroom on a hearsay objection, even though the entire case against Lobato is hearsay - testimony about incriminating statements she supposedly made. There is:

- no physical evidence
- no witnesses who saw her at or near the crime scene
- no motive

Finally... the victim in this case was a nasty guy with real enemies, but Lobato wasn't one of them. She didn't know him, and no one has ever put forth any evidence that she did.

paiute 12th December 2012 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8838726)
I think it tarnishes the Innocence Project and other such groups to throw their weight behind such cases. It makes people wonder if other cases with which they have been involved had a guilty accused as well. One can no longer rely on such an innocence group to exhibit good judgment. It becomes a credibility problem.

NY Senator Volker agrees with you:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/06...roject-is.aspx

Matthew Best 12th December 2012 08:21 AM

Oh dear. I don't know who Senator Volker is, but that quote makes him seem pretty daft.

Babbylonian 12th December 2012 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8838726)
I think it tarnishes the Innocence Project and other such groups to throw their weight behind such cases. It makes people wonder if other cases with which they have been involved had a guilty accused as well. One can no longer rely on such an innocence group to exhibit good judgment. It becomes a credibility problem.

A person can be guilty and still be wrongfully convicted.

wasapi 12th December 2012 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paiute (Post 8837923)
1. The story in the article designed to be answered by a sociopath is readily answered by anyone who reads mysteries.

2. A Green Beret does not let his family get killed by intruders without dying himself.

3. "Acid is groovy - kill the pigs" ? Come on. That is something that a square Army doctor imagines that hippies would say and is so obviously contrived that it stands pretty much alone as proof of guilt.

4. The whole thing was weirdly echoed in the Chuck Stuart case here in Boston. As soon as I heard that his wife had been killed but himself only shot in the side, I knew what had happened.

Good post. I recall that as soon as I heard about the ridiculous writing on the wall about acid-is-groovy, I knew what happened. Chuck Stuart too. At least he took himself out before a trial where the family twisted in even more pain.

Darlie Routier. If pure evil exists, it is Darlie. I doubt she will ever make it to death row, but she is where she belongs. Her husband, who divorced her, I find suspect as well. With his kids slashed and stabbed to death he felt it appropriate to tell the paramedic what great boobs his wife has. WHO does that?

Charlie Wilkes 12th December 2012 11:32 AM

I think MacDonald and Routier are where they belong, but I am also aware of cases where the bushy-haired stranger turned out to be real. One is the Christine Morton murder. Her husband spent more than two decades in prison, until DNA testing showed that he was innocent and that another man, a compete stranger, broke into the house and killed Christine while Michael was at work.

When Stephanie Crowe was murdered in California, the cops believed an intruder could not possibly have gotten in without waking up the entire household, so they decided it was an inside job and put Stephanie's brother through a hellish interrogation. The murderer turned out to be a paranoid schizophrenic named Richard Tuite.

I'm trying to think if I know of any cases where a real BHS injured someone who then became a suspect... nothing comes to mind, but I'll bet there's a case out there somewhere.

Strawberry 12th December 2012 11:43 AM

Julie Rea Harper...

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/cwc/...erSummary.html

Charlie Wilkes 12th December 2012 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strawberry (Post 8839486)

Excellent. Thank you.

Ampulla of Vater 12th December 2012 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strawberry (Post 8839486)

That is exactly the one I thought of, but I couldn't remember her last name. Perfect!

Ampulla of Vater 12th December 2012 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes (Post 8838822)
Here's a good starting point:

http://justicedenied.org/lobato_habeas.pdf

Lobato's supporters have gathered affidavits from multiple people who were prepared to testify at her trial that Lobato described her incident weeks before Bailey was murdered. The judge kept that testimony out of the courtroom on a hearsay objection, even though the entire case against Lobato is hearsay - testimony about incriminating statements she supposedly made. There is:

- no physical evidence
- no witnesses who saw her at or near the crime scene
- no motive

Finally... the victim in this case was a nasty guy with real enemies, but Lobato wasn't one of them. She didn't know him, and no one has ever put forth any evidence that she did.

Nearly every one of those affidavits contradicts the original testimony. That is why reading the 2002 transcripts is so important. Also the 2005 transcripts show how they started backpedaling, especially Dixie. Yes, the most incriminating evidence is Blaise's statements but they are very damning, including lying low with her car because she was afraid it hd been seen at the scene. The enemies that the defense wants you to believe were after the victim turn out to be not all that impressive either. Diane didn't even know the "Mexicans" the defense wants everyone to suspect of the crime. I will take this private so as not to derail the original topic.

Charlie Wilkes 12th December 2012 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 8840253)
Nearly every one of those affidavits contradicts the original testimony. That is why reading the 2002 transcripts is so important. Also the 2005 transcripts show how they started backpedaling, especially Dixie. Yes, the most incriminating evidence is Blaise's statements but they are very damning, including lying low with her car because she was afraid it hd been seen at the scene. The enemies that the defense wants you to believe were after the victim turn out to be not all that impressive either. Diane didn't even know the "Mexicans" the defense wants everyone to suspect of the crime. I will take this private so as not to derail the original topic.

OK, I just downloaded the transcripts and I'll take a look.

BenBurch 12th December 2012 05:48 PM

You want to see a miscarriage of justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Richey

The fire evidence was laid out on the tarmac where they fueled vehicles, and the evidence they found was traces of gasoline... And the prosecution theory had a man in a cast climbing a trellis that would not support the weight of a man.

Chris_Halkides 13th December 2012 08:06 AM

junk science
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BenBurch (Post 8840489)
You want to see a miscarriage of justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Richey

The fire evidence was laid out on the tarmac where they fueled vehicles, and the evidence they found was traces of gasoline... And the prosecution theory had a man in a cast climbing a trellis that would not support the weight of a man.

Wiki: "At the original trial, the judges accepted that, 'Other evidence established that the arsonist had used accelerants, including dominant pour patterns in the burning on the wood deck and living room concrete. An accelerant was also found in wood chips from the deck floor. Thus, even if the rug had been wrongfully admitted, other evidence of arson rendered any error harmless.'" and "It was a fast, hot, intense fire because of the accelerant."

Pour patterns and the notion that accelerant causes a fire to burn fast and hot are discredited arson pseudo-science.

calebprime 13th December 2012 09:13 AM

Here's another tangent: MacDonald's guilt or innocence aside, what do people think of "statement analysis"?

Is it the same thing as "content analysis"?

What do people think of the "statement analysis" here?

(I read something somewhere about this, and this is what I eventually found on Google. If there is a better, more worthy example of such analysis, let's look at that instead.)

I'm a little skeptical of this kind of close reading, but maybe it has more validity than I know. How, where is it used?

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

excerpt:
Quote:

His Statement

"Let's see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading. And I went to bed about, somewhere around 2:00. I really don't know. I was reading on the couch and my little girl Kristy had gone into bed with my wife. And I went in to go to bed, and the bed was wet. She had wet the bed on my side, so I brought her in her own room. And I don't remember if I changed her or not; gave her a bottle and went out to the couch 'cause my bed was wet."


MacDonald does not introduce his wife by name. If you are with a friend and you meet another friend, it would be considered rude if you do not introduce them to each other. The same thing applies when writing. It is impolite not to introduce a character. He introduces his kids but not his wife. This is an indication of tension in their relationship.

He mentions 2:00 but tells us "I really don't know." The word "really" is a word that indicates untruthfulness. It is like saying "honestly" or "truthfully." Deceptive people will try to convince you they are telling the truth. Perhaps he does know what time it was.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.