International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Continuation] Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II

Henri McPhee · 10th September 2018, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by JTF

Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The FBI made it up. There is a similar sort of controversy about these silly polygraphs in the JonBenet Ramsey case when the lousy detectives and the FBI falsely tried to imply that the Ramseys were reluctant to take a polygraph. This is from the deposition of the bad cop Steve Thomas about the matter with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001

Quote:

18 Q. I mean when I was out there
19 saying, you know, I didn't think the FBI is
20 objective because they've been involved in
21 this case to a significant amount, whether
22 you agree or not with my objectivity
23 conclusion, I was right about the fact that
24 the FBI had been significantly involved in
25 the case, wasn't I?

378

1 A. For the record I don't agree with
2 the objectivity conclusion but, yeah, they
3 were significantly involved in the case.
4 Q. It seems like from what you're
5 telling me that they were of the mind that
6 you were, that Patsy Ramsey they thought was
7 involved in the death of her daughter?
8 A. That certainly seemed to be my
9 impression.
10 Q. So whether that was an objective
11 decision by then I certainly was right to
12 have some concerns about whether or not they
13 had formed such a conclusion before I
14 submitted John or Patsy to the FBI
15 examination, wasn't I?
16 A. Well, twofold. One, I don't think
17 they would have -- I don't think there was
18 anything inappropriate with their polygraph
19 unit or that they would have conspired in any
20 way with their polygraphers.
21 Q. I also comment to you the ruse
22 interview that was attempted on Richard Jewell
23 by the FBI might be enlightening about FBI
24 tactics, legal and illegal. Do you agree
25 that you all investigated the hell out of

379

1 Bill McReynolds?

10th September 2018, 08:36 AM	#315
Henri McPhee Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 4,028	Originally Posted by JTF Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com The FBI made it up. There is a similar sort of controversy about these silly polygraphs in the JonBenet Ramsey case when the lousy detectives and the FBI falsely tried to imply that the Ramseys were reluctant to take a polygraph. This is from the deposition of the bad cop Steve Thomas about the matter with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001 Quote: 18 Q. I mean when I was out there 19 saying, you know, I didn't think the FBI is 20 objective because they've been involved in 21 this case to a significant amount, whether 22 you agree or not with my objectivity 23 conclusion, I was right about the fact that 24 the FBI had been significantly involved in 25 the case, wasn't I? 378 1 A. For the record I don't agree with 2 the objectivity conclusion but, yeah, they 3 were significantly involved in the case. 4 Q. It seems like from what you're 5 telling me that they were of the mind that 6 you were, that Patsy Ramsey they thought was 7 involved in the death of her daughter? 8 A. That certainly seemed to be my 9 impression. 10 Q. So whether that was an objective 11 decision by then I certainly was right to 12 have some concerns about whether or not they 13 had formed such a conclusion before I 14 submitted John or Patsy to the FBI 15 examination, wasn't I? 16 A. Well, twofold. One, I don't think 17 they would have -- I don't think there was 18 anything inappropriate with their polygraph 19 unit or that they would have conspired in any 20 way with their polygraphers. 21 Q. I also comment to you the ruse 22 interview that was attempted on Richard Jewell 23 by the FBI might be enlightening about FBI 24 tactics, legal and illegal. Do you agree 25 that you all investigated the hell out of 379 1 Bill McReynolds?
	Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th September 2018 at 08:40 AM.