View Single Post
Old 10th August 2018, 09:28 AM   #163
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Three hairs were found at the crime scene at strategic locations which were not MacDonald's.
So what? Every dwelling in the world, offices, apartments, trailers, vehicles, tents etc. would be found to have hairs that do not necessarily belong to the people who live in those places. FACT henri! Every day as we live our lives we pick up miscellany (hairs, fibers, skin cells, dirt, sand, etc) from one place and drop it else where. There is nothing shady or amazing or criminal or scary or even RELEVANT about such miscellany. UNSOURCED = FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Friends, family, and neighbors had all been in and out of the apartment. Colette let her neighbors use her dryer these facts alone make unknown hairs probable but they have no forensic value at all. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh then declared in 2006 that this was not significant!
That is because they are not significant they are IN FACT IRRELEVANT, INSIGNIFICANT, UNIMPORTANT. PERIOD!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Dupree always maintained in the MacDonald appeals that if the Brady violations had been disclosed it would not have changed the mind of an average juror.
Not exactly henri. What Judge Dupree found is that there WERE NO BRADY VIOLATIONS and EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN the evidence was of no significance and the average juror would not have changed their vote because of it. The part you keep skipping over is THAT NO BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND IN THIS CASE. PERIOD.

When you have graduated Law School, Clerked for various Judges at different levels of the American Legal System, been appointed to a District Judge position AND have as many years of experience as the EXCELLENT Jurist Judge Dupree then you can provide us with your curricula vitae and PERHAPS we will then consider your opinions on legal matters. Until that time - shut up. You know not of what you speak.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The trouble is that none of the judges at the Supreme Court have wide and practical experience of being a criminal attorney.
irrelevant even if it were true.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They don't sufficiently appreciate the practical difficulties.
yes they do, they appreciate the FACTS even more.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Three of them were on inmate's side in about 1981/2 but he then lost by a 6/3 majority.
So? There is nothing in the legal system that requires decisions to be unanimous. Inmate was found guilty. He has had more chances at appeal than any murderer in US Jurisprudence and he remains convicted and in prison where he belongs.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There needs to be INVESTIGATING.
I believe you meant "there needs to be an investigation". But henri, your poor thing, don't you realize THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING A VERY THOROUGH AND EXTENSIVE REINVESTIGATION. That all took place before inmate was tried.

Also FACT, inmate had his presumption of innocence and 10 long years of undeserved freedom while the bodies of Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and unborn baby boy were buried forever. There was a TRIAL henri. A trial is an event where a judge and jury sit and listen to the DEFENSE and the PROSECUTION present evidence, question witnesses, cross-examine, etc. the Judge makes the legal determinations and provides the jury instructions and then the jury deliberates and makes (if they can) a decision on guilt or innocence.

ALL OF THIS WAS DONE. 7 weeks, over 1,100 pieces of evidence, 28 witnesses both lay and expert, conviction in just over 6 hours.
byn63 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