|
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. |
25th January 2019, 04:26 PM | #881 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Chain Of Custody
The chain of custody involving the debris found on the club is not hard to follow, but that didn't stop Bost and Potter from purposely mucking up the waters. The following is the chain of custody for the 2 pajama seam threads found on the club.
In 1970, CID chemist Dillard Browning labeled the debris found on the club as CID Exhibit E-205. Browning noted that two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood and he subsequently placed the two fibers in a vial. He concluded that the source of the two pajama fibers was inmate's torn pajama top. In 1974, FBI physical science technician Shirley Green labeled the debris from the club as FBI Exhibit Q89. Green placed the pajama fibers in a pillbox, and Paul Stombaugh later matched the fibers to the seam threads from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. In 1989, the FBI took two color photographs of the seam threads in the pillbox and the photographs were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. In 1990, FBI hair and fiber expert Michael Malone examined various hairs and fibers collected at the crime scene, but it appears that he didn't examine the pajama fibers in the pillbox. It's important to remember that unlike Stombaugh, Frier and Malone did not examine every fiber that was collected in this case. They simply left the fibers in the pillbox and trusted Stombaugh's conclusions. In the end, Browning and Stombaugh concluded that the source of the two blue fibers found on the club was inmate's torn pajama top. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
26th January 2019, 03:29 AM | #882 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's not quite correct either. As MacDonald himself said this is actually what happened:
Quote:
|
26th January 2019, 09:15 PM | #883 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Household Debris
Inmate's relationship with Bost and Potter was chaos personified. As pointed out by the Landlord of MacFantasy Island, inmate states that Shirley Green catalogued the fiber evidence in this case whereas Bost/Potter claimed that Kathy Bond completed this task. Incredibly, inmate's position was the correct one, yet Bost and Potter still printed the erroneous claim that Kathy Bond assisted James Frier in the re-analysis of fiber evidence in this case. The 12/21/18 decision by the 4th Circuit Court, put this issue in its proper place by concluding that all of inmate's fiber claims centered on mere household debris.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
27th January 2019, 03:32 AM | #884 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's nonsense. There used to be some lab notes by Kathy Bond of the FBI lab on the internet in which she described the fibers in the pillbox as "pajama-like fibers" which I now can't find though they may still be there somewhere. The 4th Circuit judges don't understand forensics or forensic fraud. There needed to be some old-fashioned police work. Segal had a bit to say about the matter in an affidavit:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...990-10-13.html
Quote:
|
27th January 2019, 03:44 AM | #885 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Read It And Weep
|
27th January 2019, 09:44 AM | #886 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You can't just say that Kathy Bond had nothing to do with the MacDonald case just because Murtagh told her to keep her mouth shut and not tell the 4th Circuit judges. That's like saying electronic eavesdropping doesn't happen because it's not reported in the media. Her name and handwritten notes are mentioned frequently in Murphy's analysis of the forensics after the trial, who was a paralegal with the Harvey Silverglate law firm, which unfortunately I am unable to copy for some reason. Her analysis was that the fibers on the murder club were 'pajama-like' fibers which the expert examiner Frier at the FBI lab said were black wool fibers with an unknown source.
This is Murphy's affidavit which may be above the heads of an average jury and 4th Circuit judges: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ff_murphy.html |
27th January 2019, 10:04 AM | #887 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There was a sensible posting about the MacDonald case on another MacDonald forum in 2008:
Quote:
|
27th January 2019, 12:10 PM | #888 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Murphy Was Wrong
Shirley Green's 1990 affidavit was one of SEVERAL affidavits and government briefs that point out the FACT that Kathy Bond had NO involvement in this case. The fact that Murphy, Bost, and Potter continued to put forth this erroneous claim speaks to their collective incompetence.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
28th January 2019, 04:15 AM | #889 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I find it extraordinary that people can claim that Kathy Bond of the FBI lab had no connection to the Jeffrey MacDonald case. There were handwritten lab notes which Shirley Green, who was never a real expert, now claims as her own.There are professional forensic document examiners who could clear up the confusion about all this handwriting. It strikes me that Murtagh just coached Kathy Bond and Janice Glisson to keep their mouths shut whenever they had any embarrassing opinions about the case.
There are some sensible opinions about the MacDonald case at this website as well as the usual violent anti-MacDonald prejudice postings. I still consider the judges in the MacDonald case were awful. It's farcical: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...=158957&page=3
Quote:
|
28th January 2019, 04:55 AM | #890 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Henri:
I bet you're actually surprised you're getting nowhere on this dead horse. For the record, the only true things I have ever heard your favorite American criminal say are: He was an Army Captain and Green Beret (when he committed the crime, but he leaves that out because it undermines his "factual innocence" nonsense); he was married but not faithful to Colette; the lights were out and he didn't turn them when he checked them (the family he slaughtered); and he doesn't like being in prison. |
28th January 2019, 12:12 PM | #891 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
History Of Incompetence
There is a laundry list of examples where inmate's advocates are either incompetent or simply delusional. Here are just a few examples.
- It wasn't until a 1984 evidentiary hearing when inmate's advocates admitted that correctional records proved that Allen Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70. - Inmate's defense team has simply ignored the fact that Shirley Green, not Kathy Bond, constructed and initialed lab notes pertaining to the re-analysis of specific fibers collected at the crime scene. - Ray Shedlick's Gurney Theory. Nuff said. - Inmate's advocates continue to ignore the fact that prior to the 1984 evidentiary hearing, Shedlick's bizarre Sheet Theory was proven false. - Bost and Potter never addressed the fact that their claims regarding the unsourced hairs in the fingernail scrapings of both Kristen and Kimberley were erroneous. - In regards to the 7mm hair fragment in Kimberley's fingernail scrapings, their collective incompetence was in full display. They claimed that the source of the hair was a human female, yet microscopic analysis of the hair fragment in 1999, proved it was an animal hair. - Inmate's defense team waffled back and forth in regards to whether the 3 unsourced hairs (e.g., no matching DNA profile) were forcibly removed. It took 17 years (e.g., 1999-2016) before the defense appeared to admit that the hairs were naturally shed. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
29th January 2019, 04:01 AM | #892 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The MacDonald defense were never allowed to examine the hairs and fibers. Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be with regard to the hairs and threads as Murtagh so succinctly put it during a bench conference during the trial. That's not firm evidence. This is another sensible posting on another MacDonald forum which I've previously mentioned:
Quote:
|
29th January 2019, 06:03 AM | #893 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes, it is 100% correct. blue pj fibers were found on the murder club, removed from the club for examination, and stored in pill vial. THAT IS FACT.
No, actually unsourced fibers have no value forensically speaking. in this case especially since inmate himself got rid of the property of the family he slaughtered before CID or FBI could request them for comparison purposes. HOWEVER in this case there is plenty of evidence that the family owned things that were made of dark woolen fibers. Especially the afghan inmate alleged he got tangled in (big bad Doctor couldn't get untangled from an afghan but his wife fought and fought - if what inmate said happened were true which we all know it was not). ******** the dark woolen fibers were listed in the bench notes. HOWEVER, since they did not use the dark woolen fibers against inmate it matters not. IF the defense truly believed they had some sort of exculpatory value then THEY were the ones who should have raised the point at trial. Actually, the way I recall things is that Murtagh etal produced numerous photos of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy (even inmate) wearing items of dark wool clothing as well as video taken by Freddy Kassab showing the family in winter garb. The law does not allow for murderers to benefit from bad behavior and in this case, throwing away, selling, or giving away the family clothes and afghans etc was bad behavior and imho shows consciousness of guilt because inmate didn't want to have the fibers compared. |
29th January 2019, 09:39 AM | #894 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's ridiculous. The MacDonald defense were never able to raise the matter of the black wool fibers on the murder club and around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps because they were never told about those black wool fibers at the trial, or previous to the trial. The defense was never able to examine those fibers and so-called pajama fibers in case mistakes or fabrications had been made. Murtagh kept quiet about them as part of his deception and con artist plan. As Harvey Silverglate, a MacDonald lawyer at the time, said later on those black wool fibers indicate strangers.
MacDonald did give away and send to the garbage tip several family possessions like the children clothes and Colette's clothes and the children dolls because he thought quite reasonably at the time that he had been cleared after the Article 32 in 1970. He had no possible way of knowing that those items would then be used later on as so-called evidence against him as the prosecution manufactured specious evidence about hairs and threads. |
29th January 2019, 01:46 PM | #895 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Your Boy Lost, Deal With It
The Landlord's fixation with household debris is not only sad, it ignores the fact that this unsourced household debris was introduced in 4 separate court proceedings. They include...
- 1984 evidentiary hearing before Judge Dupree - 1992 oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court - 2010 oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court - 2012 evidentiary hearing before Judge Fox I think one can assume that the Landlord's continual regurgitation of debunked issues in this case is the result of inmate getting his butt kicked in all 4 court proceedings. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
30th January 2019, 07:07 AM | #896 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No it is not!
THIS is RIDICULOUS! The information in the bench notes, investigative notes, interviews, home search etc. was all in the material provided to the defense under the disclosure process. IT IS ENTIRELY BERNIE SEGAL AND THE DEFENSE TEAM responsibility to make THEIR case. IF they thought the wool fibers were so damn important then THEY should have brought them up during the defense portion of the trial. That they did not mention them shows that they paid little heed to the evidence as a whole. Also, since there is plenty of evidence that the family owned items with dark wool prior to inmate throwing everything away the FACT is that the existence of such fibers were of little to no forensic value. UNSOURCED equals forensically useless. THAT IS A FACT. http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...-room-001.html See the nice afghan on the sofa? See the dark wool it is made from? and that is just 1 piece of probable source material.... That is not exactly accurate information henri and you are well aware of it! Bernie Segal decided to play legal games in an attempt to have the evidence transferred across the country to his choice of experts. THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. (I think he was hoping the Judge would allow it and then he could fight over some chain of custody issue - which is why no Judge of any quality would do such a thing). Lab space and full access was made available in Raleigh long before Bernie ever sent Thorton and Morton to examine anything. Yes, in fact the time they had was limited due to the machinations of Bernie but, they had full access and if they did or did not review certain pieces of evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution nor does it mean that the evidence is not valid. FACT henri - Bernie Segal thought his histrionics and condescending attitude would win the case but he was dead wrong. Blackburn and Murtagh out lawyered him in the best possible way using logic, rational thought, and FACTS. Murtagh was not the lead prosecutor - you do realize this yes? The prosecution has no responsibility to tell the defense about any of the evidence that is listed in the discovery material. the prosecution has no requirement to discuss/present a motive. So, whether Brian M ever told Bernie or Wade about the wool fibers is IMMATERIAL! inmate was not convicted on the wool fibers presence or absence. actually, Harvey didn't come into the picture until the appeals process. Also, if he claimed that wool fibers indicate strangers then he was over simplifying life in the worst possible means. Firstly, because there is plenty of evidence that dark woolen objects were common in the winter life of the family. Secondly, you have obviously chosen to ignore the Theory of Locard again. Actually, he threw away and gave away there things because he was pleased to be rid of them and happy that at least to that point he had gotten away with his horrific actions. Also, it was NOT reasonable for him to believe that he had been cleared since the Base Commander stated quite plainly that charges were being dismissed for LACK OF EVIDENCE. That is not even CLOSE to say innocent or even not guilty. Better than half of the evidence had yet to be reviewed at the time of the Article 32 but under the UCMJ the proceedings had to take place within a short span of time after charges had been brought. The Provost Marshall jumped the gun on the charges leaving the CID insufficient time to complete the analysis. HOWEVER, in the real world it was a good thing because the UCMJ punishment for Courts Martial if there had been one, was insufficient for the heinous nature of the crimes inmate committed. ha ha haaa ha ha haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa how do you type such ridiculous things without breaking down? First the wool fibers WERE NOT used as evidence "so-called" or otherwise. Secondly, there was no manufactured evidence of any kind and the evidence used to convict certainly was not specious because if it had it would not have held up under all the extra appeals inmate has been allowed to bring forth. Third, by asking for the DNA testing to be done, he had to know that his conviction was going to be more firm. The "Mystery Hair" was a 100% match to inmate and the DEFENSE is the one who always said the wielder of the murder club would be the supplier of that hair.......and they were correct! Inmate is in jail and he will remain in jail where he belongs. |
30th January 2019, 04:38 PM | #897 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Similarities
I recently finished watching the Ted Bundy documentary on Netflix and it was interesting to note the parallels between that case and inmate's case.
- Both trials took place in 1979. - Both cases garnered national attention. - Both perps were intelligent, handsome, and did not fit the mass murderer stereotype. - Both perps were world class fabricators. - Both perps were convicted on new (e.g., bitemark evidence in Bundy case) and/or unusual (e.g., pajama top theory in MacDonald case) forensic techniques. - Both perps were convicted in six and a half hours. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
31st January 2019, 03:22 AM | #898 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Have you not heard of the Brady law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense? Murtagh and Dupree concealed the exculpatory evidence, like the black wool fibers with no known source, and made sure the defense were never given access to it until after the trial. That's obstruction of justice. It's strained logic. As MacDonald himself has said Stombaugh never bothered to check the so-called 'pajama -like' fibers in the pill box, and neither did the 4th Circuit judges, even if the whole thing was not a fabrication. That was supposed to be the conclusive evidence for the jury to convict him. Stombaugh only said it could be. He was making it up.
|
31st January 2019, 07:10 AM | #899 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes henri I have but you apparently think it means something that it DOES NOT MEAN. The prosecution is required to give copies of the evidence (bench notes, investigation notes, access to physical evidence etc) BUT THEY ARE NOT REPEAT ARE NOT REPEAT AGAIN ARE NOT required to point out any specific evidentiary items. The defense has to review ALL the evidence. The FACT is that Bernie ignored a great deal of the evidence and/or chose to ignore that evidence. That does not make it invalid nor does it mean the prosecution cannot use it against inmate.
HOWEVER, in this case the black wool fibers WERE NOT exculpatory anyway. From inmate's perspective they were at best neutral because UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. No, they did not. FIRST OFF - the Judge of a case has no action or responsibility for disclosing evidence to either side. The Judge presides over the trial and other legal actions as required. SECONDLY, Murtagh and Blackburn provided the evidence and/or access to the physical evidence as required by law. THIRD as you have been told numerous times Bernie Segal chose to attempt to have the evidence shipped across country for analysis by his "experts" and wasted a great deal of time in the process. That action was one he KNEW would not be granted. During the entire time he was playing a losing game, the Prosecution had made lab space available to the defense and full access to ALL THE EVIDENCE. The DEFENSE FAILED TO REVIEW/ANALYZE the evidence in a timely manner. that is not a fault of the prosecution and does not constitute a violation of Brady or any other Procedural Rule. IF items had been withheld it might constitute obstruction of justice but in this case the access was available and the defense chose to ignore it until the time was so limited. That is the fault of the defense and inmate, if he feels that situation was part of the reason for his conviction should have tried to request a new trial for insufficient council. Stombaugh was not the Expert that testified about the pj fibers in the pillbox. Seriously? JUDGES DO NOT REVIEW PHYSICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE. THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS/LAB TECHNICIANS. finally YOU realize that inmate's story is a total fabrication! Stombaugh used the legal language that was accepted/acceptable for Experts in forensics. I know someone pointed that out to you earlier in this thread. No, he was not making things up. The fabricator/liar/murderer inmate and Bernie Segal are the only ones to "make things up" at trial. In more recent years Jimmy Britt also made things up. |
31st January 2019, 08:34 AM | #900 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
a lot of people have and actually understand it. when are you going to come to this country and free your boy with all your faux knowledge? why are you letting him rot in prison since you have all the answers? that's more criminal than if he had been falsely convicted.
|
31st January 2019, 03:34 PM | #901 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Sore Losers
The issue of whether the government purposely withheld exculpatory evidence in this case was addressed in the early to mid-80's by the 4th Circuit Court. Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, they ruled that there was no evidence of the government purposely withholding evidence. This has not stopped inmate's advocates from crying foul, and I would argue that their diatribes paints them as sore losers.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
1st February 2019, 11:04 AM | #902 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Henri is counting dancing angels on the head of a pin
Henri, so what? For the sake of argument, let's concede ALL the purple thread issues, etc..
How does that prove that other people were in inmate's apartment that night? It doesn't. So it's irrelevant. At this point, inmate needs actual proof of something, not more bizarre, extraordinarily unlikely dream-like scenarios. He needs something real. And it doesn't exist because no one else was there: it was just him slaughtering his family. |
1st February 2019, 01:39 PM | #903 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Unsourced Fibers
It's important to note that bloggers, posters, authors, and lawyers have no expertise in fiber analysis. In essence, any "analysis" by these individuals in regards to the significance of unsourced fibers in this case are worthless. Harvey Silverglate quickly found that out in the early 90's when the government put forth the FBI's long standing philosophy or stance that unsourced fibers are "forensically insignificant."
This is especially the case in a lived-in domicile where the residents have frequent visitors and allow neighbors to use their laundry facilities. If you add the fact that fibers are frequently transferred to other locations (e.g., Transfer Theory of Locard), the presence of unsourced fibers in the MacDonald residence is not unusual nor is it evidence of hippie home invaders. The analysis of fiber expert Paul Stombaugh was significant in that it pointed to 3 undeniable facts. 1) Despite a 72 inch tear in MacDonald's blue pajama top, not a single fiber from that garment was found in the living room where inmate claimed he fought with 3 armed men. This indicated that the garment was not torn in the living room. 2) Seventy-Nine fibers sourced to inmate's pajama top were found in the master bedroom. This indicated that his pajama top was torn in the master bedroom and that the initial assault on Colette was in that same room. 3) Inmate denied wearing his pajama top when he "found" his children in their beds, yet fibers from the garment were found under the bedcovers of his children, under Kimberley's pillow, and under Kristen's fingernail. This indicated that inmate assaulted his children as they lay in their beds. When inmate was told (e.g., 4/6/70 CID interview) about the proliferation of pajama fibers in all 3 bedrooms, his initial response was "Holy Christmas." http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
1st February 2019, 03:48 PM | #904 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Prime Example
A prime example of Transfer Theory of Locard in this case involves the shag carpet in the master bedroom. One of the 3 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene was found under Colette's body. It was proven that the hair was naturally shed (e.g., not bloody, club root) and that inmate brought the shag carpet from his prior residence. As the government pointed out in several briefs, it is impossible to determine when that hair was deposited on the shag carpet and when that issue was being litigated, the burden of proof (e.g., sourcing the hair to a known intruder suspect) was on inmate.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
1st February 2019, 11:34 PM | #905 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Lone Argument
In regards to the pajama fiber issue, the lone argument put forth by inmate's advocates revolves around the tear in the crotch of inmate's pajama bottoms. There are a myriad of problems, however, with this particular position.
- Inmate insists that he never got on the master bed, Kimberley's bed, or Kristen's bed. - Similar to the huge tear in MacDonald's pajama top, the tear in his pajama bottoms did not shed a single fiber in the living room. - Fiber expert Paul Stombaugh was able to source a majority of the pajama fibers to the torn left front seam and torn left sleeve of inmate's pajama top. - Fiber expert Paul Stombaugh also sourced a 20 inch warp yarn found on top of Kimberley's pillow to the left front seam of inmate's torn pajama top. - The fiber embedded under Kristen's fingernail was sourced to inmate's pajamas with the most likely source being his torn pajama top. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
3rd February 2019, 09:52 AM | #906 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. CID agent Kearns just 'knew' MacDonald did it and to so-call prove it Kearns ordered a retesting of the urine stain after ninety weeks to 'prove' MacDonald was lying about carrying Kristen to her bedroom and possibly shedding pajama fibers that way. It can't be done. It's a joke. At least that matter was never mentioned at the trial because of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
This is what actually happened and I can't see why people can't believe it. This is his story and he's sticking to it. It's true MacDonald was offered the assistance of a lawyer at that April 1970 interview who could have helped him in the art of discretion, which resulted in trouble for him later on.
Quote:
|
4th February 2019, 07:51 AM | #907 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Which was the scientifically acceptable language for experts in forensic analysis to use when testifying. you've been told this before so stop bringing it up.
The time frame of the urine stain testing does not in any way exonerate or even help inmate AT ALL. Antigens would not change with the age of the urine stain. The testing PROVED repeat PROVED that only Kimmie or Colette could have made the urine stain on the master bed. PERIOD. IT IS NOT AND WAS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THAT STAIN TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY KRISTY. Try and grasp this simple concept henri: Type A blood contains Antigen A and anti-B antibodies Type AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B no antibodies Type O blood contains Antigen H and anti-A and anti-B antibodies The test results showed Antigen A found no antibodies so that leaves only Kimmie and Colette as possible sources of the urine stain. Add to this SCIENTIFIC FACT is that there was no sign that Colette had urinated on herself and there was SIGNIFICANT evidence showing that Kimmie HAD done. You have been told this before but I think you choose to repeat disproven nonsense to annoy us. HOWEVER one last time - Kimmie was the one in the master bedroom and there is no evidence that Kristy ever left her bed. INMATE LIED ABOUT WHICH DAUGHTER WAS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. Not surprising since he didn't want to admit he slaughtered his daughter (hit her so hard that she laid slowly dying on the floor of the master bedroom for some time before he carried her back to her bed). It can be done, you just don't like the FACT that the testing PROVED that it is scientifically impossible for Kristy to have been the one that wet the master bed. Sorry to disappoint you henri but murderers like inmate often lie. Cite your source as to the FRE being why the urine stain testing was not mentioned at trial. It is likely that the government did not consider that bit of evidence as powerful as other evidence they submitted. Since only about 60% of the available evidence was used at trial there are a number of FACTS that were not mentioned at trial and not because of the FRE but because the time to use every single piece of evidence would have stretched an already nearly 7 week trial to much more lengthy and cumbersome levels. I didn't finish reading nor quoting the rest....THAT is ridiculous. Inmate slaughtered his family. he has been tried, convicted, and heard before the courts more than any other murderer in US Jurisprudence. the evidence against him is stronger now then it was in 1979. I suppose it is possible he will request a hearing before the USSC, but I doubt they'd hear him. If he acted as smart as he allegedly is he'd accept his fate and go quietly into the cell and let them lock it tight to stay there until he breathes his last. |
4th February 2019, 09:31 AM | #908 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
This matter of the black wool fibers has been previously discussed on this forum:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...249368&page=38 You don't have to be a 4th Circuit judge in an excellent court to work out that the prosecution would be on to an afghan carpet causing black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and her biceps and on the wooden murder club like a shot if it was true. Even that manufactured evidence specialist Stombaugh never mentioned afghan carpets. Doesn't it occur to you that afghan carpets sometimes use synthetic fibers? Murtagh said publicly after the trial that any black wool fibers could have come from photos of Colette once wearing a black dress which is specious evidence!
Quote:
|
5th February 2019, 12:57 PM | #909 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
|
5th February 2019, 01:12 PM | #910 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
|
6th February 2019, 03:33 AM | #911 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The point is those black wool fibers with no known source from around the mouth of Colette and her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon were of forensic significance and should have been discussed in front of the jury at the trial. You can't just say it's household debris or that the MacDonald defense should have tortured Murtagh to get the information. The matter should have been explained to the 4th Circuit judges by some medical detectives. This is what Logan thought about the matter in 1999:
Quote:
|
6th February 2019, 04:42 AM | #912 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
I propose a new forum rule. "When the facts of a trial are well beyond reasonable doubt, any further debate is deemed to be a waste of bandwidth and threads devoted to these cases will be closed". I can think of a few which would fall foul of this rule, with this one the most prominent.
This is a serious suggestion. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
6th February 2019, 06:08 AM | #913 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
That is just the point henri they WERE NOT OF FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE.
(a) UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS (b) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the family had numerous dark wool items (hats, gloves, scarves, sweaters, afghan, pillow trim) Since the dark fibers were of no forensic significance the prosecution didn't not bring them up at trial. HOWEVER, if the defense thought they were significant then THEY should have brought them up at trial. That they did not do so shows quiet plainly that the defense knew they were not significant and were of no value to the defense. Actually we can certainly say the fibers were likely debris from the family living in the apartment. You have been told before, but perhaps you still have not managed to understand yet.....fibers and hairs and even skin cells are shed all day every day. WE pick up and deposit such things as we move through our daily routine. The FACT is that a lot of debris could have ended up landing in all sorts of places since it is obvious that Colette fought HARD to survive. The fact that inmate could bash, beat, stab, and otherwise brutalized the woman he allegedly loved is sickening to most people. I never saw anyone suggest that Murtagh be tortured for any reason. The DEFENSE had the information as soon as they received the disclosure materials. That they did not bring up the dark wool fibers at trial shows that they realized (just as the government had) that UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. The time to bring up the wool fibers (if they were going to do so) would have been trial. They could also have attempted to introduce them as "new evidence" during the appeals process, but the government would have shown that the information in regards the presence of those dark woolen fibers was included in the disclosure material and thus it was not "new" evidence and it would not be admissible. However, the courts may have let them introduce it anyway, but the conclusion would still be UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. What would medical detectives have to offer in regards to unsourced dark wool fibers? Are you trying to claim the dark wool fibers were the cause of death? |
6th February 2019, 06:11 AM | #914 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Since this case is technically still ongoing, with the defendant and his few remaining cronies doing their utmost to keep it in the courts. There are some people that actually believed the highly slanted PEOPLE magazine articles and as long as one person remains declaring things to be FACT that are not FACT then we will debate or at least counter the arguments.
IF you do not wish to join in the discussion of inmate then don't come on this thread. |
6th February 2019, 06:12 AM | #915 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
|
6th February 2019, 10:54 AM | #916 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's a load of crap from a bunch of idiots. Neither Dr. Thornton nor Bernie Segal were ever aware that there were black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon or around Colette's mouth with no known source, not even afghan or shag carpets, before the trial, or during the trial. They were not mind readers and it was deliberately and illegally concealed by Murtagh. The jury and 4th Circuit judges should have been informed. The matter is discussed at this website:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...pic.php?t=2214
Quote:
|
6th February 2019, 11:02 AM | #917 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
More from that website:
Quote:
|
6th February 2019, 01:33 PM | #918 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
7th February 2019, 06:56 AM | #919 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Nope it is the TRUTH and you know it.
I cannot confirm or deny what Dr. Thorton knew or did not know. HOWEVER, IT IS FACT THAT THE PRESENCE OF DARK WOOL FIBERS WAS IN THE DOCUMENTATION, LAB NOTES, ETC. THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE UNDER THE DISCOVERY PROCESS. It was therefore Bernie Segal's responsibility to read ALL that information and cull from it what he thought could be used to defend inmate. The FACT that he did not is not the fault or responsibility of the government. UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS inmate got rid of everything he could before there was a chance to gather them and source additional fibers, but there is evidence that shows the presence of dark woolen items in the household. For example: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-room-004.html http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c.../crime034.html http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...olette-17.html Nobody expected them to be mind readers however that does not negate the FACT that if Bernie had bothered to thoroughly review the documentation he received through discovery he would have been aware of the fibers. just because you are stamping your feet and throwing a fit does not make it any less true. Nothing was illegally concealed or deliberately concealed by Murtagh or Blackburn (and by the way Blackburn was the lead counsel). The prosecution is required to turn over the information THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC ITEMS. Then Bernie Segal should have brought it up if he believed they were of value. HOWEVER since the fibers were not SOURCED they were of no forensic value whatsoever.....FACT henri |
7th February 2019, 06:57 AM | #920 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
As for the thoughts of Harvey Silverglate - roflmao! utter nonsense
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|