ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Reply
Old 4th September 2017, 12:30 AM   #3081
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Bad Script

The landlord's responses to the documented record are akin to a script that is consistently passed over by Hollywood studios. The biggest problem with the script is that it contains repetitive dialogue and its plot is all over the map. The script has several scenes where the big, bad government "invents" over 1,000 evidentiary items in order to railroad the protagonist with a heart of gold.

This script provides ample excuses for the protagonist cheating on his wife with at least 8 different women and for continuing this behavior after his wife is put in the ground. The script then delves into science fiction by providing an, ahem, explanation for the protagonist lying to his father in-law about killing one of the "real" murderers.

Outside of the script being ridiculous and boring, the reason why it gets thrown into the garbage bin is that it relies on characters who are stereotypes. The nefarious government, the crooked Judge(s), the dirty cops, and the mean in-laws. The landlord includes it all in a script that rivals Plan Nine From Outer Space as the worst script ever written. The big difference between the two is that Plan Nine actually got made whereas the Greet Beret Doctor Is Innocent movie has never seen the light of day.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 4th September 2017 at 12:33 AM.
JTF 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
Old 4th September 2017, 03:05 AM   #3082
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
That's more Irish blarney from JTF. We are talking about facts and evidence here, not MacDonald's sex life, or family rows and perjury and prejudice in the Kassab family. It's not a Hollywood film. It's more a horror example of how several people got away with murder due to bad police work by the Army CID, and invented evidence by the FBI.

It's patently untrue for JTF, and even Christina, to say publicly that Dr. Thornton had "unfettered access" to the forensic evidence. He was able to examine the pajama top and the bedsheet but that was about it.

Dr Thornton explained his problems in an affidavit:

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

The MacDonald lawyer Junkin made a good response to Murtagh and his sidekick Judge Fox once at:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Imag...t_Response.pdf

Part of the trouble is that MacDonald ran out of money for his legal fees and private investigators. I suppose you can't expect a criminal defense lawyer to work for nothing. I agree that most of their clients are guilty. It's not a problem faced by biased Judge Fox, or by the trickster lawyer Murtagh. I think the MacDonald defense fund is still advertised on his website and it's tax deductible as far as I know.
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
Old 4th September 2017, 10:45 AM   #3083
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Point of Fact: the evidence was there, it was available for examination. Segal did not send Thornton until the last moment, which makes it the fault of the defense, not the prosecution that Thornton's access was limited (by time).

Quit blaming everyone else but the murdering Jeffrey Robert Macdonald for the jury coming to the correct conclusion. If he hadn't killed his pregnant wife and two daughters, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.....
desmirelle 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
Old 4th September 2017, 02:35 PM   #3084
dropzone
Master Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
This script provides ample excuses for the protagonist cheating on his wife with at least 8 different women and for continuing this behavior after his wife is put in the ground.
FTR, it stopped being cheating when she died.
Quote:
Outside of the script being ridiculous and boring, the reason why it gets thrown into the garbage bin is that it relies on characters who are stereotypes. The nefarious government, the crooked Judge(s), the dirty cops, and the mean in-laws.
You forgot the evil hippies. Can't leave out the evil hippies!
dropzone 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
Old 5th September 2017, 01:01 PM   #3085
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Welcome to the discussions Animal Friendly!
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
Old 5th September 2017, 10:22 PM   #3086
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Clarification

DZ: The portion of the landlord's script that covers inmate's post-murder behaviors glosses over behavior that is far worse than his history of marital infidelity. This includes bedding the 16 year old daughter of family friends Marian and Bob Stern.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF 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
Old 7th September 2017, 08:18 AM   #3087
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
MacDonald was not being tried for his sex life. That Judge Fox is a bit dim. It's strained logic. Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent.
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
Old 7th September 2017, 01:06 PM   #3088
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald was not being tried for his sex life. That Judge Fox is a bit dim. It's strained logic. Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent.
Four random, unconnected sentences.

Sentence one: But it spreaks volumes on his character that he cheated on his wife, seduced a teen he was supposed to be helping, and immediately after his wife's death he's boinking a neighbor in the BOQ.

Sentence two: You would be the resident expert on dimness.

Sentence three: Without knowing which of your imagined injustices in the case you're addressing, can't really comment - unless you're referring to considering Macdonald anything other than guilty as charged, then it's strained logic.

Sentence four: Lie, just a flat-out untruth.
desmirelle 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
Old 8th September 2017, 02:39 AM   #3089
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Jeff MacDonald was given plenty of good character references at the 1979 trial, and at the McGinniss case in 1987, but they were rejected and ignored. Anything to do with sex, and women and narrow-minded Irish Catholics become unreliable. Should President Kennedy have been tried for murder? It's like having some sort of rock star in charge of the MacDonald case. I appreciate that judges are human but it's obviously unfair.
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
Old 8th September 2017, 02:11 PM   #3090
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
inmate is a lying, cheating, nacissistic sociopathic family slaughterer and a bastard who does't deserve the title human.....even in jail he thinks he is above the rules...
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
Old 8th September 2017, 02:51 PM   #3091
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
All the character witnesses saw was the side of Macdonald that he wanted them to see and he could pull it off when he didn't have to live with the person. I'd bet all my Monopoly cash that none of them knew he cheated on his wife.

Quite rightly, in a CONTRACT dispute, the character witnesses were not allowed. This was a trial about the contract for the book written by McGinnis about Macdonald. It ended in a hung jury because the judge's instructions were so complicated the jury deadlocked on the first question they had to answer. Nobody won that one, but to keep it from going to trial again, the insurance company of McGinnis paid out - the least amount went to Macdonald, who would have been still colllecting residuals from the book sales had he just badmouthed Joe in the press rather than take him to court. According to the contract, Joe had the right to write it as he saw it. To finish the book, I bet he took more phenergen (nausea med) than he should have, to not vomit every time he had to deal with a man he realized was an angry, murderous, conscienceless being.

Your last four sentences are, per usual, Henri nonsense and have nada to do with Macdonald's case. You seem to think that stringing together nonsensical random thoughts will support your case, but, in reality it makes you look uneducated with regard to this particular case, much as your racist comments on Irish ancestry (assumed) and competency of various posters/writers/judges/lawyers does.

Insulting the winning team without facts is bad form, old boy.

Last edited by desmirelle; 8th September 2017 at 02:58 PM.
desmirelle 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
Old 9th September 2017, 02:57 AM   #3092
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
That's insulting. Opinions and beliefs are not evidence.

There was a problem at the McGinniss case in 1987 because one juror refused to agree with the others unless something was done about animal rights. They all agreed that MacDonald had been cheated by that Irish son of a bitch McGinniss, if not railroaded and screwed. Greedy Kassab then tried to claim the damages from the insurance company when it was MacDonald who had been wronged.

I don't know why Wambaugh thinks MacDonald is a sociopath. Not all cops have right judgment, or do careful investigations. That's why cases are not tried by the police.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th September 2017 at 03:08 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
Old 9th September 2017, 04:06 AM   #3093
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,191
You're a very bad advocate for this case, Henri. So far all you give as the case for the defense is ....

a) A rag tag of conspiracy theories backed up by a false confession from a mentally ill woman
b) The assertion that everybody on the prosecution/police side of the case is Irish and therefore uniquely evil.

Far from convincing anyone reading that MacDonald deserves a retrial, you're more likely to convince the waverers that he's guilty.
Strawberry 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
Old 9th September 2017, 07:31 AM   #3094
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
The point is that Jeff MacDonald was unfairly blamed for the MacDonald murders. I can't help it if the Irish have got no principles and that they manufacture evidence. How you can believe Dwight Smith when he said he could not remember where he was the night before when the murders happened, or Greg Mitchell saying he might have been staying with his parents I do not know. It's bad police work.

This is an alternative viewpoint which makes sense to me. Page 385 of Fatal Justice by Jerry Potter and Fred Bost:

Quote:
David Yarnell, a movie producer in Southern California, told me that his
stepdaughter had lost part of a finger in an accident. All the doctors who saw
her immediately after it occurred advised that the severed part couldn’t
be reattached. Not Dr. MacDonald. He performed the surgery and saved
the finger....... .........

I was to hear many, many more stories about his lifesaving efforts. The
Long Beach Police Department made him a lifetime honorary officer for
performance “beyond the call” when he saved the life of an officer
wounded in a shoot-out. A retired nurse told me, , during the civil trial
in Los Angeles, that she would forfeit the remainder of her days if she
could only get him back into the trauma center again. “No one was ever
better there,” she said.

Even Alfred Kassab said he had charisma. The CID said that six months
after his wife’s death MacDonald had bedded down one of the army’s
civilian secretaries at his BOQ. That is true. What the army investigators
didn’t reveal is that, when they interviewed her, the woman insisted that
it was she who approached MacDonald, and the affair was her idea. And
when they asked her how often it had happened, she replied, proudly,
“As often as possible.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th September 2017 at 07:44 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
Old 9th September 2017, 07:56 AM   #3095
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,191
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that Jeff MacDonald was unfairly blamed for the MacDonald murders. I can't help it if the Irish have got no principles and that they manufacture evidence. How you can believe Dwight Smith when he said he could not remember where he was the night before when the murders happened, or Greg Mitchell saying he might have been staying with his parents I do not know. It's bad police work.

This is an alternative viewpoint which makes sense to me. Page 385 of Fatal Justice by Jerry Potter and Fred Bost:
Aren't you from Britain Henri?

Actually, let me rephrase that question - aren't you from the country which gave us some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in history? The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Birmingham Six, the Cardiff Three, Stefan Sisko, the Bridgewater Three, Judith Ward, Colin Stagg, Timothy Evans and the list goes on and on. Your people have a far stronger claim than mine to be without principles and predisposed to fabricate evidence.

So if we're going to start indulging racism on this forum, I posit the suggestion that a British person claiming MacDonald to be innocent is suggestive that he's guilty, because Britain's record shows them to be untrustworthy.
Strawberry 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
Old 9th September 2017, 06:13 PM   #3096
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Persona

STRAWBERRY: For the past 14 years, I've responded to the landlord's disjointed diatribes on multiple true crime forums, and I'm convinced that his LONE reason for posting is to stir the pot. He loves being a contrarian and he could care less about whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent.

His priority has been to create a persona that has no basis in reality. He has posted under several different names, he regurgitates debunked claims, and ignores documented fact. I don't believe that he lives in the United Kingdom and his anti-Irish ramblings are simply for show.

He enjoyed the reaction he got from calling Joe McGinniss an "Irish son of a bitch," and considering that I'm Irish, he probably thought he was upsetting me in some form or fashion. Fat chance.

IMO, he is simply a true crime troll who is frustrated with his inability to formulate a salient rebuttal to any of the facts presented by the CID, FBI, and/or on my website.

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters in less than 7 hours. At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and DNA test results further inculpated inmate. His hippie home invader story is beyond absurd and no convicted murderer has been treated more fairly by the legal system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th September 2017 at 06:18 PM.
JTF 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
Old 10th September 2017, 01:21 AM   #3097
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,191
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
STRAWBERRY: For the past 14 years, I've responded to the landlord's disjointed diatribes on multiple true crime forums, and I'm convinced that his LONE reason for posting is to stir the pot. He loves being a contrarian and he could care less about whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent.

His priority has been to create a persona that has no basis in reality. He has posted under several different names, he regurgitates debunked claims, and ignores documented fact. I don't believe that he lives in the United Kingdom and his anti-Irish ramblings are simply for show.

He enjoyed the reaction he got from calling Joe McGinniss an "Irish son of a bitch," and considering that I'm Irish, he probably thought he was upsetting me in some form or fashion. Fat chance.

IMO, he is simply a true crime troll who is frustrated with his inability to formulate a salient rebuttal to any of the facts presented by the CID, FBI, and/or on my website.

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters in less than 7 hours. At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and DNA test results further inculpated inmate. His hippie home invader story is beyond absurd and no convicted murderer has been treated more fairly by the legal system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Thank you.

You clearly know alot more about the case than I do, but I will say that as soon as I heard the hippy story from MacDonald my BS detector went off. Nobody ever in the history of the entire world has said "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." That's the type of thing that a man from MacDonald's demographic would imagine hippies saying, or something he read in a magazine about hippy culture. I don't believe for one second that it ever happened.
Strawberry 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
Old 10th September 2017, 09:05 AM   #3098
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Aren't you from Britain Henri?

Actually, let me rephrase that question - aren't you from the country which gave us some of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in history? The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Birmingham Six, the Cardiff Three, Stefan Sisko, the Bridgewater Three, Judith Ward, Colin Stagg, Timothy Evans and the list goes on and on. Your people have a far stronger claim than mine to be without principles and predisposed to fabricate evidence.

So if we're going to start indulging racism on this forum, I posit the suggestion that a British person claiming MacDonald to be innocent is suggestive that he's guilty, because Britain's record shows them to be untrustworthy.
There may be 1000 so-called items of evidence, but none of those items prove that MacDonald did it. Just because there was blood at the crime scene proves nothing. This "acid is groovy" business has been debated endlessly on the MacDonald forums in the past. You may be too young to know it but "groovy" was used in modern parlance in the 1960s. Some people make silly remarks like saying things are "cool" or Kim Jong Un saying Trump is hysterical. It proves nothing.

Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were clearly erroneous with regard to Helena Stoeckley, and it's not just me that thinks that. That's what lawyers have said.

I agree that there have been gross miscarriages of justice in the UK in the past. Innocent people have been convicted while the guilty go free. In a way DNA has been helpful in the past few years. From a book called English Justice written in 1932 by a solicitor:

Quote:
The Wallace case is an instance where a man would have been hanged by the verdict of a jury had it not been for the Court of Criminal Appeal. And it must be remembered that the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal are limited. There is no rehearing of the case.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th September 2017 at 09:06 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
Old 11th September 2017, 02:41 AM   #3099
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Thank you.

You clearly know alot more about the case than I do, but I will say that as soon as I heard the hippy story from MacDonald my BS detector went off. Nobody ever in the history of the entire world has said "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." That's the type of thing that a man from MacDonald's demographic would imagine hippies saying, or something he read in a magazine about hippy culture. I don't believe for one second that it ever happened.
The word groovy was not unknown in the 1960s, even by hippies. I can't understand why people can't believe that what MacDonald said happened did happen even though it might be strange. This is an example of a song from the time with the word groovy in it:

https://youtu.be/b3kXqlJhGuE
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
Old 11th September 2017, 09:30 AM   #3100
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
By 1970, "groovy" had been co-opted by mainstream and was abandoned by the counter-culture.

I can't believe anyone with a fully functional brain would consider anyone but Macdonald as the murderer after reviewing ALL the transcripts.
desmirelle 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
Old 11th September 2017, 09:36 AM   #3101
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Hi Stawberry - if you noticed in henri's replies he made up a bunch of nonsense again! He thinks if he stamps his feet and makes himself even more of a nuisance then he already is/was it will make the over 1,100 pieces of evidence go away. He totally ingores the FACT that the evidence against inmate is even stronger now than at trial because the DNA testing did not help him in any shape, manner, or form.

Also notice that he doesn't grasp the subtlety of the comments that "Acid is Groovy, kill the pigs" is a tell tale sign that a non-hippy had made the statements not a true flower child. henri doesn't grasp that while the word groovy was being used during parts of the 1960s, the hippies were not using it in the context to which inmate ascribed it. I was a child (a little more than a year older than Kimmie) and the "cool kids" and true hippies had long since stopped using Groovy in a context related to drug use. On many of these forums people who were actually part of the drug using counter culture at the time of the murders have said that "acid is groovy...." comment set off their BS meter too. Naturally, henri ignores them....he really hates when we insist on clouding the issues with FACTS. Welcome to the discussions and the "fun" of dealing with henri, albie, artie, etc etc etc
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
Old 11th September 2017, 09:49 AM   #3102
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,191
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Hi Stawberry - if you noticed in henri's replies he made up a bunch of nonsense again! He thinks if he stamps his feet and makes himself even more of a nuisance then he already is/was it will make the over 1,100 pieces of evidence go away. He totally ingores the FACT that the evidence against inmate is even stronger now than at trial because the DNA testing did not help him in any shape, manner, or form.

Also notice that he doesn't grasp the subtlety of the comments that "Acid is Groovy, kill the pigs" is a tell tale sign that a non-hippy had made the statements not a true flower child. henri doesn't grasp that while the word groovy was being used during parts of the 1960s, the hippies were not using it in the context to which inmate ascribed it. I was a child (a little more than a year older than Kimmie) and the "cool kids" and true hippies had long since stopped using Groovy in a context related to drug use. On many of these forums people who were actually part of the drug using counter culture at the time of the murders have said that "acid is groovy...." comment set off their BS meter too. Naturally, henri ignores them....he really hates when we insist on clouding the issues with FACTS. Welcome to the discussions and the "fun" of dealing with henri, albie, artie, etc etc etc
Thank you.

Yes, you're right its not the word groovy which sets my BS meter off its the quote in its entirety. No hippy ever anywhere, including those who used the word groovy, ever chanted "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." Ever. That's something MacDonald probably picked up from reading about the Manson family, not something he ever heard anybody say.
Strawberry 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
Old 12th September 2017, 03:17 AM   #3103
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Thank you.

Yes, you're right its not the word groovy which sets my BS meter off its the quote in its entirety. No hippy ever anywhere, including those who used the word groovy, ever chanted "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." Ever. That's something MacDonald probably picked up from reading about the Manson family, not something he ever heard anybody say.
That's just your opinion. It isn't a fact or evidence. Witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts. You need to try to become judicially minded.
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
Old 12th September 2017, 04:11 AM   #3104
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
the point of a trial that henri seems to miss is that OPINION is not EVIDENCE. in this case every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders. that is FACT.

it is also FACT that inmate did not get convicted because of his BS "acid is groovy..." comment, but that comment made investigators begin to take notice that something was rotten (and it was inmate) because drugged-out hippies would not have made that comment, as has been pointed out previously by people who were drug using hippies in 1970.
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
Old 12th September 2017, 08:47 AM   #3105
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
the point of a trial that henri seems to miss is that OPINION is not EVIDENCE. in this case every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders. that is FACT.
Black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source, and pajama fibers found by the CID at the exact spot in the hallway where Jeff MacDonald said he fell unconscious does not point to MacDonald as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders. Even a novitiate judge and juror could work that out for himself. Numerous confessions by Mitchell and Stoeckley were just rejected and ignored. Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were clearly erroneous. They were inexperienced in weighing evidence. It was obviously an unsafe verdict.
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
Old 12th September 2017, 11:28 AM   #3106
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Education

From now on, rather than respond to the landlord directly, I will rebut his claims in order to educate any visitors to this thread who may only have a cursory knowledge of the facts in this case.

CLAIM: Black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source...

REBUTTAL: In most cases, the FBI deems unsourced trace evidence to be "forensically insignificant." In past appellate briefs, the government has labeled unsourced trace evidence as "household debris." What is most significant about unsourced trace evidence in this case is that not a single hair or fiber was sourced to a known intruder suspect.

CLAIM: ... pajama fibers found by the CID at the exact spot in the hallway where Jeff MacDonald said he fell unconscious does not point to MacDonald as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders.

REBUTTAL: CID agent Robert Shaw was the only individual who saw multiple blue fibers on the hallway floor, but even in that best case scenario for the defense, that number pales in comparison to the number of blue fibers (e.g., over 100) found in the 3 bedrooms. It's important to remember that inmate claims he took his pajama top off in the master bedroom, but fibers from that garment were found under Colette's body, under the children's blankets, and even under a pillow in Kimmie's room.

CLAIM: Numerous confessions by Mitchell and Stoeckley were just rejected and ignored.

REBUTTAL: The claim that Mitchell confessed lacks merit and Stoeckley's unreliability is the main reason why her confessions were not taken seriously by Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court. Getting back to Mitchell, he denied involvement in this crime not once, but twice. He was interviewed by the CID in 1971, and by the FBI in 1981. He passed a CID administered polygraph exam, none of his prints and/or head hairs were found at the crime scene, and none of the 29 DNA exhibits matched his DNA profile.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF 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
Old 13th September 2017, 04:26 AM   #3107
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
unsourced equals forensically useless in the world that MOST of us live in because most of us realize that the Theory of Locard is correct. We all carry hairs and fibers and other debris on our person as we go about our daily lives. WE pick up a fiber somewhere and shed it somewhere else. EVERYONE of us would have "unsourced" items in our homes if they were to be processed like a crime scene.
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
Old 13th September 2017, 09:10 AM   #3108
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
REBUTTAL: The claim that Mitchell confessed lacks merit and Stoeckley's unreliability is the main reason why her confessions were not taken seriously by Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court. Getting back to Mitchell, he denied involvement in this crime not once, but twice. He was interviewed by the CID in 1971, and by the FBI in 1981. He passed a CID administered polygraph exam, none of his prints and/or head hairs were found at the crime scene, and none of the 29 DNA exhibits matched his DNA profile.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Greg Mitchell was a suspicious character and so was Stoeckley and Mazerolle. The Army CID and FBI should have had half-suspicions about those characters from the start. The SBI, or North Carolina Bureau of Investigation, were on to Dwight Smith and Pat Reese almost immediately and talked to them.

A CID administered polygraph exam is not evidence. Some murderers are good at categorically denying everything. The fact that he probably wore surgical gloves at the crime scene is not proof of innocence. One witness was quoted as saying that Greg Mitchell had told her that all children under ten should be exterminated. That's a bit odd.

Biased Judge Dupree made the silly remark at the 1985 appeal that Mitchell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere. That's not evidence either. It's pure speculation. There needs to be INVESTIGATING. It affects confidence in the administration of justice.

There is some background to this from People Magazine in January 2017:

[
Quote:
Greg Mitchell, too, repeatedly confessed up until his death in June 1982. Ann Sutton Cannady, who ran a rehab facility for drug addicts in Fayetteville in 1971, said Mitchell was briefly a patient there. Sutton*claimed she saw Mitchell running out of a farmhouse owned by the rehab facility, on which the words,*“I killed MacDonald’s wife and children,” were written on a wall in red paint.

Long after MacDonald’s 1979 conviction, three of Mitchell’s friends contacted Kathryn MacDonald saying he had confessed to them as well. Those three people gave affidavits that are now part of MacDonald’s*appeal.


Greg Mitchell (third from left) in Vietnam
Courtesy USA v MacDonald

In September 2012, after reading about an evidentiary hearing in MacDonald’s case in The Charlotte Observer, local couple John and Chris Griffin came forward with a similar tale of an alcohol-fueled, tear-filled confession from*Mitchell, who was doing some electrical work in their Lake Wylie, North Carolina home in 1980 or 1981.

“He said, ‘You read about Jeffrey MacDonald? I’m the one. It was me. I killed them. Oh those children,’ ” says John, who says Mitchell was full of remorse. “He said he’d done something so horrible God wouldn’t forgive him.”
Adds Chris: “It scared us half to death. He just had wild eyes.”

According to Chris, Mitchell picked up the phone at one point and tried to call Helena, but he couldn’t reach her.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th September 2017 at 09:25 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
Old 14th September 2017, 02:18 AM   #3109
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
unsourced equals forensically useless in the world that MOST of us live in because most of us realize that the Theory of Locard is correct. We all carry hairs and fibers and other debris on our person as we go about our daily lives. WE pick up a fiber somewhere and shed it somewhere else. EVERYONE of us would have "unsourced" items in our homes if they were to be processed like a crime scene.
That's a lack of logical thought. I agree that applies to pajama fibers which the prosecution and JTF are so interested in. You talk like corrupt bias Judge Dupree and Judge Fox. I don't get it how people can be so stupid. There were black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source, apart from Murtagh saying there were photos of Colette once wearing a black dress! Those black wool fibers remain unexplained. That information was illegally withheld and covered up by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial in 1979. Any average jury, or competent 4th Circuit judge, would be interested in that information. That information indicates intruders.
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
Old 14th September 2017, 06:57 AM   #3110
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
a lack of logical thought is what your posts show henri, not MINE. It is perfectly logical to state that something UNSOURCED is of no forensic value. TRY AND GRASP THIS SIMPLE FACT henri....

if a CSI team entered your home and processed it TODAY they would find all sorts of debris such as threads, other fibers, hair, hair fragments, skin cells, dust, dirt, etc. A great deal of that miscellany would be of no use in an investigation. Hair fragments that cannot be sourced are of no use. Fibers that cannot be traced to anyone specific have no value forensically. This is a FACT.

Also a FACT is that the The Theory of Locard is as valid today as when first stated.

In Forensic science, Locard's exchange principle holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence. Dr. Edmond Locard (13 December 1877 – 4 May 1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the Sherlock Holmes of France.[1] He formulated the basic principle of forensic science as: "Every contact leaves a trace". Paul L. Kirk[2] expressed the principle as follows:

"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
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
Old 14th September 2017, 04:04 PM   #3111
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
No Evidence Of Intruders

CLAIM: ... corrupt bias Judge Dupree and Judge Fox.

REBUTTAL: The 4th Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court disagree with that slanderous statement.

CLAIM: There were black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source, apart from Murtagh saying there were photos of Colette once wearing a black dress!"

REBUTTAL: The unsourced woolen fibers were not the same color nor were they from the same source materials. The FACT that the MacDonald family once owned dark clothing was first posed by the Kassabs. Freddy Kassab took color home movies of the family wearing dark wool hats and dark clothing. The government also used color photographs of Colette and her children wearing dark wool hats and dark clothing to provide a viable explanation for the source of the 5 dark woolen fibers.

CLAIM: Those black wool fibers remain unexplained. That information was illegally withheld and covered up by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial in 1979.

REBUTTAL: Judge Dupree and the 4th Circuit Court disagree with that slanderous statement.

CLAIM: That information indicates intruders.

REBUTTAL: The only information that would indicate intruders would include SOURCED prints, hairs, and fibers. Logic dictates that if Stoeckley or Mitchell took part in this murder, at least one sourced print/hair/fiber would have been found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th September 2017 at 04:10 PM.
JTF 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
Old 15th September 2017, 03:33 AM   #3112
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
CLAIM: Those black wool fibers remain unexplained. That information was illegally withheld and covered up by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial in 1979.

REBUTTAL: Judge Dupree and the 4th Circuit Court disagree with that slanderous statement.

CLAIM: That information indicates intruders.

REBUTTAL: The only information that would indicate intruders would include SOURCED prints, hairs, and fibers. Logic dictates that if Stoeckley or Mitchell took part in this murder, at least one sourced print/hair/fiber would have been found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Logic dictates that those black wool fibers are unexplained and that they could have come from Stoeckley or Mitchell and Mazerolle if there had been INVESTIGATING. Their clothes were never tested. The army CID and FBI are incapable of solving a difficult murder. Criticism of judges is not slander. It's just that the Justice Department in Britain and America are trying to close down any media outlets or social media which are not establishment journalists. There should be an independent judiciary and freedom of speech.

This is what Logan said about the matter on a Google group 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
re-examined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also re-examined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact Black wool fibers that were similar
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
withheld 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?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th September 2017 at 03:35 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
Old 15th September 2017, 04:34 AM   #3113
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Logic dictates that those black wool fibers are unexplained and that they could have come from Stoeckley or Mitchell and Mazerolle if there had been INVESTIGATING.
They also could have come from YOU and your clothing. However, since there is no evidence of an intruder/intruders that evening such as fingerprints, there isn't a whole lot of point in pursuing people who could not have been there.

Quote:
Their clothes were never tested.
No need to test Mazerolle's clothing - he was in jail at the time.

There was no requirement to test Stoeckley's either - there is no evidence that ties her to the crime.

Quote:
The army CID and FBI are incapable of solving a difficult murder.
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote:
Criticism of judges is not slander.
Criticism is one thing - you are spouting baseless accusations of criminal activities in complete defiance to any facts.

Quote:
It's just that the Justice Department in Britain and America are trying to close down any media outlets or social media which are not establishment journalists.
Evidence? Other then the upsurge in alternative media sources, their increased access to places like the White House, and their increased acceptance by people that is.

Quote:
There should be an independent judiciary and freedom of speech.
Yes there should be.

An independent judiciary means that the legal system can determine that the inmate is guilty based on the weight of evidence, and not have to consider if some people think that maybe he's not.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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
Old 15th September 2017, 05:36 AM   #3114
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
I am in absolutely 100% agreement!
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
Old 15th September 2017, 07:58 AM   #3115
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Criticism is one thing - you are spouting baseless accusations of criminal activities in complete defiance to any facts.
Without suggesting that Judge Dupree's former son-in-law Proctor was ever involved in CIA drug smuggling activities, Errol Morris has suggested that "would being the former boss and father-in-law of the assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict" and that there are lawyers who think it was a conflict of interest, which affects the reputation of the judiciary.

MacDonald's former military lawyer, Malley, had a bit to say about this matter:

Quote:
Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable. The trial resulted in Jeff’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment on charges of killing his wife, Colette, and his two daughters Kim and Kristen. Many appeals followed, most of which resulted in not much. Jeff remains in prison today, and probably will for life..........

In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial. But the North Carolina District Court has uniformly rejected all these arguments and evidence. Occasionally the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals—having been slapped down twice by the Supreme Court after ruling in Jeff’s favor— would issue a somewhat sympathetic opinion requiring the District Court to take a “second look.” But invariably the District Court simply dismissed the proffered new evidence as of little consequence.

After Dupree died, one of his best friends, Judge James C. Fox, now a senior judge in the North Carolina District Court, took up the cudgel to ensure that his predecessor’s rulings against Jeff and for the government survived further appellate inquiry. The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013, after the Fourth Circuit ordered him to take another look to see if there was a basis to Jeff’s claims that he has persistently been denied a fair trial. Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion. (Nothing happens in less than a year in this case.)

Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view. He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years don’t actually prove by clear and convincing evidence Jeff’s innocence, after the jury found him guilty. Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th September 2017 at 08:03 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
Old 15th September 2017, 10:59 AM   #3116
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Old News

CLAIM: Without suggesting that Judge Dupree's former son-in-law Proctor was ever involved in CIA drug smuggling activities, Errol Morris has suggested that "would being the former boss and father-in-law of the assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict" and that there are lawyers who think it was a conflict of interest, which affects the reputation of the judiciary.

RESPONSE: This issue was addressed in the early 80's, and the 4th Circuit Court found that the Proctor/Dupree relationship did not result in a qualifying conflict. Morris is not a lawyer nor judging by the hammering doled out by those who covered this case, is he considered to be an investigative journalist.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 15th September 2017 at 11:00 AM.
JTF 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
Old 16th September 2017, 02:36 AM   #3117
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
I can't quite see how Mazerolle was in jail during the MacDonald murders if he never turned up in court the day after the MacDonald murders for his appointed time for his case to be heard. And not until a year later after he had been on the run. That little piece of information has never been explained by the prosecution, or by the CID and FBI, or by the 4th Circuit judges.

Judge Dupree was definitely biased, and so is Judge Fox. It was obviously a mistrial. Errol Morris says what he thinks about the matter in his book about the MacDonald case. This is part of it from a review of the Morris book:

Quote:
Morris’ most critical point, however, is that there was evidence the judge, Franklin T. DuPree, was biased.* At the very least, according to him, DuPree should have recused himself, since one of the early investigators, Assistant US Attorney James C. Proctor, was both his former employee and son-in-law. And on this point, he makes his strongest case.

Judges would not be human if they did not have an opinion after hearing the same evidence that the jurors heard. After speaking to a few judges (none of whom wished to be quoted), I wonder whether Morris is right.* According to Dimitry Bam, writing for the Brigham Young University Law Review, “In the United States, judges are required to recuse themselves—that is, remove themselves from participating in a case—not only when they are biased, but even when they may appear biased to a neutral observer. This nominally strict, appearance-based recusal standard is intended to ensure the judge’s impartiality in resolving disputes and to protect the judiciary’s reputation”. He then presents a compelling argument for even stricter rules.

The first canon under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges currently covers this same issue for federal judges, although, incidentally, not for those on the Supreme Court.* Under the Code, judges in effect self police themselves and are supposed to step aside when they have a conflict. Would being the former boss and father-in law of the Assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict?

Of course, lawyers defend the guilty all the time—that’s their job.* But judges are different—they are supposed to ensure that defendants get a fair—not necessarily “perfect”—trial.* The book cites many examples of rulings by Judge DuPree that, to be charitable, appear questionable.
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
Old 16th September 2017, 08:09 AM   #3118
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
Don't you think a judge should disclose if he holds rail company shares if he is dealing with some kind of rail company legal dispute, or similarly if he holds aviation company shares in litigation from some angry client, or similarly in these fracking legal disputes?

The matter is briefly mentioned in that English Justice book published in 1932 and written by a solicitor:

Quote:
Many things are said in private, often truthfully enough, that would be indignantly denied in public. I doubt whether anyone, in whatever privacy or whatever class of society, has ever heard a suggestion of corruption made against any judge, whether of the High Court or the County Court. Occasionally some member of the Labour Party has ventured to remark on some obvious fact, such as the strong feeling of the judiciary against the immunity from legal proceedings conferred upon Trade Unions. He has usually been howled down as if for blasphemy, even by his own party, and not only in the House of Commons, where it is out of order to criticise the judges except upon a definite resolution moved for that purpose.
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
Old 16th September 2017, 02:14 PM   #3119
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Conspiracy Nut

CLAIM: I can't quite see how Mazerolle was in jail during the MacDonald murders if he never turned up in court the day after the MacDonald murders for his appointed time for his case to be heard.

RESPONSE: You can't, can you? Avoiding the documented record, the same record used to prove beyond all doubt that Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70, will only encourage you to live in a fantasy world.

CLAIM: Judge Dupree was definitely biased, and so is Judge Fox. It was obviously a mistrial.

RESPONSE: As mentioned in dozens of posts, the 4th Circuit Court disagrees with your fantasy narrative.

CLAIM: Errol Morris says what he thinks about the matter in his book about the MacDonald case.

RESPONSE: I repeat, Morris is not a lawyer and judging by the hammering he received by those who covered this case, he is not an investigative journalist.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF 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
Old 18th September 2017, 02:22 AM   #3120
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,905
[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12

Errol Morris has written that mistakes were made in the MacDonald case, and serious ones. That's right judgement.

The whole problem in the MacDonald case from the start is that it was a mistrial by the biased criminal trial judge Dupree. He was in charge of the MacDonald appeals with his biased colleague 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Fox, and their colleagues in the 4th Circuit judges and the Supreme Court. MacDonald should have had an impartial judge. It's ludicrous and scandalous and unreported, and not investigated by the mainstream media. There should be government by the rule of law. It's Nazi justice.

It's no good also for that stupid cop author Wambaugh saying MacDonald is a sociopath. Psychiatrists disagree with him about that. How would Wambaugh like it if he was charged with murder by the CID and FBI and his appeals were conducted by Judge Dupree? I suppose he would say he could afford expensive counsel.

Last edited by kmortis; 26th September 2017 at 08:38 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.