View Single Post
Old 19th February 2019, 09:35 AM   #960
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Black wool fibers with no known source around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon is not household debris to my mind and to a lot of other people as well. It's all very well getting emotional about injuries sustained by the victims but there needs to be a calm and cool presentation of the facts instead of just blaming the wrong man. Tell me where and give me a reference where the MacDonald defense were ever informed about the evidence in the case, including the fiber evidence and the hair evidence. They had to find it out for themselves, mostly after the trial. I agree the defense were able to guess about the Stombaugh and Shirley Green blood evidence and pajama folding evidence strategy from the Grand Jury testimony but they were taken by surprise when the jury were informed that there was supposed to be pajama fibers on the murder weapon as the so-called conclusive evidence.

The matter is discussed at this website:

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

Quote:
As a result of this investigation, following Dr. MacDonald's conviction, shocking discoveries as more fully described in Appellant's brief and have been made with regard to the apparent misconduct of the trial judge and Prosecutors, before, during and following the trial.

What is also disturbing is that the evidence of the familial relationship of the Trial Court to the prosecution team and numerous instances of suppressed evidence was discovered only by the attorneys for Dr. MacDonald as a result of a momentous battle, following the trial, for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Only a small percentage of requested documents have been provided to Appellant and already numerous instances of impropriety have been uncovered. One can only surmise what the tens of thousands of pages of documents, which the prosecutors steadfastly continue to refuse to turn over to appellant, might contain.

If this type of conduct: the appearance of, if not the reality of impropriety of a trial judge; the surreptitious interrogation of an accused by an investigative agent of the government during trial; ongoing intentional suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence; and the refusal of an apparently tainted trial judge to consider volumes of after-discovered evidence; is condoned by this Court, the rights of all of our citizens to a fair trial are in serious jeopardy.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th February 2019 at 09:37 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top