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 8th May 2019, 08:16 PM   #1361
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
“Someone in that house wearing JMcD’s pyjama top, with his blood type, with his footprints, killed those people, everything that’s come out since then hasn’t really contradicted the physical evidence of the case.”*

The most chilling part of this case for me was the pathologist’s finding that as there were no corresponding holes in Kristen’s pyjama top, that JMcD lifted her top to ensure that the wounds he inflicted on his baby were anatomically precise, to ensure her death.

Would a drug crazed intruder do this, or a medical professional determined to escape what he had done?

JMcD was guilty of first degree murder because of this!

Still guilty, still in a cage after nearly 50 years. Nothing’s changed.
GiSEQ 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 May 2019, 02:14 AM   #1362
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post

The most chilling part of this case for me was the pathologist’s finding that as there were no corresponding holes in Kristen’s pyjama top, that JMcD lifted her top to ensure that the wounds he inflicted on his baby were anatomically precise, to ensure her death.
That's nonsense. There is quite a detailed analysis of the weakness of the prosecution case in 1973:

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

The trouble is those North Carolina judges are not competent lawyers.

Quote:
Apparently, the hairs found in Colette's right hand have not been identified. This evidence would aid the defense.
There is some question regarding how conclusive the C.I.D. lab report is in regard to the origin of the blue fibers and threads. At one time a Government witness said the fibers and threads "could have" come from the pajama top.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th May 2019 at 02:16 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 May 2019, 02:48 AM   #1363
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
One persons opinion early on, in what would be a lengthy process through the system.

Fortunately, justice prevailed and the killer received his day in court. The rest is history.

Looking at bits and pieces that may suit your made up story, rather than the actual evidence as a whole is where you fail.

Still guilty, still in a cage!
GiSEQ 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 May 2019, 10:04 AM   #1364
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Put Up Or Shut Up

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's nonsense. There is quite a detailed analysis of the weakness of the prosecution case in 1973:

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

The trouble is those North Carolina judges are not competent lawyers.
You have a penchant for focusing on data that was collected and analyzed prior to the Grand Jury Hearings and/or the 1979 trial. A year after this memo was constructed, the FBI took part in a thorough re-analysis of the physical evidence in this case. The results of the re-analysis led to inmate being indicted by a Grand Jury, and according to several jurors at the 1979 trial, this same forensic analysis was the tipping point in their guilty verdict.

Again, I challenge you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th May 2019 at 10:21 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 10th May 2019, 02:18 AM   #1365
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post

Looking at bits and pieces that may suit your made up story, rather than the actual evidence as a whole is where you fail.
As an amateur lawyer I would have thought that the 'evidence as a whole' should include all the weaknesses in the prosecution case and their made up and withheld and forensic fraud evidence. This evidence as a whole concept in appeals seems to have come about in America after some sort of Supreme Court ruling in about 2006 which was then addressed by the 4th Circuit judges in the MacDonald case. This should include al the evidence that was discovered after the trial was over and which could not be previously included in appeals because of time limit legislation. There was a discussion about the matter on another MacDonald forum in which JTF and Byn and Christina were heavily involved as usual:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/jeff...hole-t754.html

There is a sensible posting by Locard about the matter on that forum:

Quote:
The only possible way to interpret the April 2011 COA ruling is to read it in full. It clearly favors the defense and not only does it condemn the Britt claim interpretation by Judge Fox, but also the Gov. Basically they gave leave to MacDonald to file, he did, and Murtagh and Judge Fox openly snubbed them.

On page 30 of the order (pacer) the 4th Circuit addresses very pointedly what they think has been overlooked and is like a road map back to the allegation of prosecution error, tether to constitutional error, he would be wise to address. At 83 Judge Fox will forget more about the law then I will ever cite or apply, but he should know a tap on his shoulder when he gets it.

His ruling following this is like a minefield- the defendant does not have to prove anything. Judge Fox has to prove he considered all the evidence to include the expansion *NOW* of the record. The 4th already sided with the defendant whether we like it or not. If you have not read the appendixes of the 2006 motion to expand the record (pacer) you should. It is entirely different than actual innocence. That 4th opinion is quite sneaky and forward in my humblest of opinions

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th May 2019 at 02:22 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 10th May 2019, 02:40 AM   #1366
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
This is a quote by silly old Judge Fox which explains the evidence as a whole. One juror said after the trial that the reason he convicted MacDonald was because there were no pajama fibers or blood where MacDonald fell unconscious. That was patently untrue and Segal and Wade Smith should have corrected him about that at the trial:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d7b0493497ae2e

Quote:
the Fourth Circuit further explained:
[A] court must make its § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) or § 2255(h)(1) determination–unbounded by the rules of admissibility that would govern at trial–based on all the evidence, including that alleged to have been illegally admitted [and that] tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have been available only after the trial. Or, to say it another way, the court must consider all the evidence, old and new, incriminating and exculpatory, without regard to whether it would necessarily be admitted under [evidentiary rules].

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th May 2019 at 02:47 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 10th May 2019, 02:42 AM   #1367
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Unfortunately for all the misguided supporters of JMcD, in 1979 he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury who considered the mountain of legitimate evidence and decided he indeed slaughtered his family.

In nearly 50 years nothing and nobody has come close to overturning the truth.
GiSEQ 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 May 2019, 09:22 AM   #1368
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
The jury got it wrong for a variety of reasons. The matter is discussed by former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate at:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys.../#61f2b944e3e3

Quote:
This notion should be condemned to the scrap heap of American judicial history. As University of Virginia Law Professor Brandon L. Garrett has written in his recent book, Convicting the Innocent, currently “the one claim that no convict can easily bring is a claim that he is innocent and should be freed for that reason alone.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th May 2019 at 09:24 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 10th May 2019, 12:17 PM   #1369
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As an amateur lawyer
An amateur lawyer? what the hell is that?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 May 2019, 12:35 PM   #1370
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Living In A Dream World

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is a quote by silly old Judge Fox which explains the evidence as a whole. One juror said after the trial that the reason he convicted MacDonald was because there were no pajama fibers or blood where MacDonald fell unconscious. That was patently untrue and Segal and Wade Smith should have corrected him about that at the trial:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d7b0493497ae2e
It wasn't enough to smear a well-respected judge, you had to conflate unrelated items in order to foster your fantasy case narrative. Again, I challenge you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

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 10th May 2019, 12:45 PM   #1371
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Sore Loser

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The jury got it wrong for a variety of reasons. The matter is discussed by former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate at:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys.../#61f2b944e3e3
Is this the same Harvey Silverglate that got his legal butt handed to him by the DOJ not once, not twice, but three times? Poor Harvey, this case damaged his ego to the point where he has become an expert in revisionist history.

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 11th May 2019, 02:17 AM   #1372
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
There is an interesting article on the internet about judicial corruption, which applies to the MacDonald case and Judges Dupree and Fox and the 4th Circuit judges. Any criminal defense lawyer is just beating against the wind with judges like that in a courtroom:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12...-is-invisible/

Quote:
The next stage of judicial corruption is false statement of the facts. The judge simply states a false set of “facts” which would lead any other court to the desired conclusion, and the resulting judgment not only looks plausible but cannot be appealed. The corrupt side submits the judgment you will be allowed to see, which is rubberstamped without effort or risk of appeal. Any case not favored by the judiciary requires a jury trial and an intense battle over evidence, but the judge simply refuses to admit evidence which contradicts his prejudice. If enough facts are deleted, the case is given his “summary judgment” without trial. If tried, the outcome is determined by the false picture of fact.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th May 2019 at 02:20 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 May 2019, 02:35 AM   #1373
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Nothing to see here.

Still guilty, still in a cage where he belongs.
GiSEQ 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 May 2019, 08:18 AM   #1374
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
Still guilty, still in a cage where he belongs.
Why bother to have a trial in a murder case then if the police and prosecutors and FBI and judges and the media and public have decided beforehand that you are guilty? There is nothing criminal defense lawyers can do to keep an innocent person out of prison. Evidence? MacDonald is innocent and there is nothing he can do about it. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://jdrhoades.blogspot.com/2011/...nyway-faq.html

Quote:
The question I see and hear most often is this: "Why do we even have to have a trial? Why are we paying lawyers to defend him? Everyone knows he did it!" The answer is simple: because the U.S. Constitution says so.

The Sixth Amendment reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

That's in all, repeat all, criminal prosecutions. There's no exception for "really bad crimes" or for defendants who "everyone knows" are guilty. All means all.
Colonel Rock had right judgment at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 when MacDonald was cleared.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th May 2019 at 08:33 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 12th May 2019, 09:58 AM   #1375
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Burden Of Proof

[quote=Henri McPhee;12693061]Why bother to have a trial in a murder case then if the police and prosecutors and FBI and judges and the media and public have decided beforehand that you are guilty? There is nothing criminal defense lawyers can do to keep an innocent person out of prison. Evidence? MacDonald is innocent and there is nothing he can do about it. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://jdrhoades.blogspot.com/2011/...nyway-faq.html

Inmate had more chances at freedom than any convicted murderer in history. Incredibly, he had 8 shots at presenting his evidence of innocence and in each instance, he failed to meet his "daunting burden." In 2012, Judge Fox provided him with his best chance at freedom, yet inmate was unable to take advantage of this legal gift. Judge Fox allowed inmate to present the kitchen sink, but inmate's defense team didn't have the evidentiary ammunition to free their client.

To be frank, inmate's evidentiary arguments were pathetic. The defense didn't call a single forensics expert to the stand and they requested that all of their evidentiary arguments be presented at closing arguments. This was not a good look for the defense and the government took full advantage of their weak opponent. After decades of hyperbolic rhetoric, all the defense could muster were previously litigated claims (e.g., wax drippings, unsourced prints, unsourced fibers) and arguments for the significance of 3 unsourced hairs. Unlike the defense presentation, Brian Murtagh presented ALL of the hair exhibits in this case.

His presentation included color slides of each hair, the exhibit number for each hair, the chain of custody for each hair, and the forensic analysis of each hair. Murtagh was so thorough that anyone with an ounce of critical thought would conclude that the defense failed to present concrete evidence of outside assailants. Murtagh also proved that the hair found in Colette's left hand was forcibly (e.g., broken, bloody) removed AND matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

In 2014, Judge Fox ruled that "MacDonald has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the murder of his wife and two daughters. Alternatively, the court finds that MacDonald has failed to adequately establish the merits of any of his claims." In 2018, the 4th Circuit Court concurred with Judge Fox and ruled that "MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

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 12th May 2019, 10:38 AM   #1376
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Your Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Why bother to have a trial in a murder case then if the police and prosecutors and FBI and judges and the media and public have decided beforehand that you are guilty?
Your logical fallacy here is begging the question. You're posting as a given the very assertion you must prove. Since you have no evidence, you seemingly always resort to begging the question and simply proclaiming MacDonald innocent. Learn this: Your proclamations carry no weight. Either here in this forum or in a court of law.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is nothing criminal defense lawyers can do to keep an innocent person out of prison.
Hilarious.

Two words: Casey Anthony.

Two more: Orenthal Simpson.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming either of the above are innocent. To the contrary, I believe both committed the crimes they were accused of. But each were found not guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. If lawyers can present enough of a defense to sometimes get their guilty clients off, surely they can present enough of a defense to get their innocent clients off.

Defense lawyers can present an adequate defense utilizing all the evidence collected and analyzed by experts. They can put the defendant on the stand and extract his story. They can cross-examine opposing experts and witnesses and establish that they are mistaken or confused. They can show the jury that the prosecution case has holes in it, too many to convict. They can show the jury the defense's case establishes the prosecution didn't establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Evidence?
Yeah, it would be good if you had some.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald is innocent and there is nothing he can do about it.
He had plenty of opportunities to do something about it. It's solely on him that he's still in jail. This is yet another example of you committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter is discussed at this website:
https://jdrhoades.blogspot.com/2011/...nyway-faq.html
And there's the apparently obligatory citation from you in every post to someone else's meaingless opinion.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Colonel Rock had right judgment at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 when MacDonald was cleared.
MacDonald was not cleared. Rock found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to a court-martial, as I understand it. That is wholly different from a not guilty verdict. A civilian grand jury found there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, and in fact, there was sufficient evidence to convict.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th May 2019 at 10:49 AM.
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 10:42 AM   #1377
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Why don't you listen to the experts?
I do. Quote the expert testimony from MacDonald's trial, why don't you?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 02:40 AM   #1378
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
[quote=JTF;12693159]
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
In 2012, Judge Fox provided him with his best chance at freedom, yet inmate was unable to take advantage of this legal gift. Judge Fox allowed inmate to present the kitchen sink, but inmate's defense team didn't have the evidentiary ammunition to free their client.
Biased old Judge Fox never wanted that evidentiary hearing in 2012 and he made sure that it just concentrated on Jimmy Britt and DNA and Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. I didn't know what was going on with that evidentiary hearing when it happened because it was not reported at the time. I know the defense wanted Glisson of the Army CID lab to appear because she is in disagreement with Stombaugh about the blood evidence and fabric impressions but she seems to be well into her 90s now, and she probably could not make it. A very interesting new confession by Mitchell came up, I think by the Griffins, and Stoeckley's own lawyer. Leonard, testified that now he was outside the lawyer /client confidentiality that Helena confessed to him, and he thought MacDonald was screwed. There seemed to be a cross-examination by the defense of Army CID agent Ivory which led nowhere as usual.
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 13th May 2019, 02:48 AM   #1379
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post


MacDonald was not cleared. Rock found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed to a court-martial, as I understand it. That is wholly different from a not guilty verdict. A civilian grand jury found there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, and in fact, there was sufficient evidence to convict.

Hank
That's just an assertion by you. From Colonel Rock's report at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 which Murtagh and Judge Dupree deliberately withheld from the jury and 4th Circuit judges:

Quote:
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the interest of military justice and discipline, it is mended that:

(1) All charges and specifications against Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald be dismissed because the matters set forth in all charges and specifications are not true. There are no lesser charges and/or specifications which are appropriate.

(2) That appropriate civilian authorities be requested to investigate the alibi of Helen [sic] Stockley [sic], Fayetteville, North Carolina, reference her activities and whereabouts during the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, based on evidence presented during the hearing.
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 13th May 2019, 02:52 AM   #1380
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
You can think a lot of things and maybe this or that happened or wasn’t reported, BUT you cannot provide any actual evidence.

Misguided opinions and second hand hearsay 10 times removed is not evidence and is not admissible in any court of law.
GiSEQ 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 May 2019, 03:09 AM   #1381
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I do. Quote the expert testimony from MacDonald's trial, why don't you?

Hank
There was expert testimony at the 1979, and also at the Article 32 in 1970, which the jury and 4th Circuit judges were never informed about, including Dr. Sadoff's opinion that he is "fairly certain" MacDonald didn't do it, and by the textile expert Wofgang. There were a few real experts at the trial in 1979, including the fingerprint expert Osterburg ,and the blood expert Charles Morton, and the surgical glove fragment expert Guinn. In a way I agree that the defense might have made a mistake in not presenting a hair and fiber expert of their own who could have countered and exposed the blatant lies and deceptions of Stombaugh and Blackburn.

This is the opinion of the surgical glove expert Guinn at the trial, which is sympathetic to MacDonald:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-guinn-tt.html

Quote:
R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 3:50 p.m.

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Dr. Guinn, the name "Perry-brand" or "Perry-Pure" latex gloves as has been used by Mr. Murtagh, do you know which was Perry-Pure rubber glove samples -- that is, exemplar or evidence?
A Those were the exemplar samples and were stated to be from that particular -- they came out of the packages and they had that brand name on them; yes.
Q All right, it was stated to you then that the --
A (Interposing) The evidence ones, I, have no idea, obviously, what brand they are.
Q All right, sir. Were you informed as to where in the MacDonald household the Perry-Pure rubber gloves came from?
A I was informed they were found in packages stored somewhere in the kitchen of the house.
Q Were you informed as to where the evidence samples were found in the MacDonald household?
A They were found, I believe, in the master bedroom.
Q So, as far as you knew, you were comparing pieces of material found in the master bedroom with pieces of material found in the kitchen -- all of which came from the MacDonald household; is that correct?
A That is correct.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th May 2019 at 03:10 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 13th May 2019, 07:13 AM   #1382
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs
Well another incomplete thought/comment by henri big surprise (NOT). Yes, Stombaugh said the hairs "could be" because there is no absolute in hair analysis EXCEPT (1)DNA testing which was not available at the time and (2) only head and pubic hairs have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and threads as stated by Murtagh at a bench conference.
I do not believe anyone said "it could be" in relation to the pj fibers and threads. I think you are comparing apples and oranges and finding pineapples.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh was an FBI lab hair and fiber man and he was never qualified to testify at MacDonald's trial about fabric impressions or bloodstains.
Yes Stombaugh was a fiber and hair analyst AND HE WAS QUALIFIED BY THE COURTS TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT. Just because you don't like his conclusions does not mean he was not an expert. BESIDES the FACT that the Defense Expert Thorton agreed with large portions of Stombaugh's testimony. So if Stombaugh was wrong Thorton was even more so....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He was one of the "purported experts" or "pseudo experts" as Segal described him during the trial.
STOMBAUGH WAS AN EXPERT AND THE COURTS DEEMED HIM SUCH. Segal's petty machinations do not now nor did they then diminish the FACT that Stombaugh was an expert and he testified in over 300 cases in his career including testimony before the Warren Commission.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was only because Stombaugh was in the FBI that he was able to sway the jury, who were never given the full facts to make a right judgment as to the facts.
Yes, FBI experts do tend to carry weight with the jury, but that doesn't make the FACTS as reported by Stombaugh any less damning for your man crush. IF the defense felt there was evidence that should have been brought forth and presented it was the defense responsibility to present it. THE FACT that they didn't present any exculpatory evidence is in large part because there was not any exculpatory evidence. The prosecution presented only about 60% of the inculpatory evidence available. inmate is guilty and has been proven such before the courts more times than any other murderer in US jurisprudence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
was most severe in his criticism of the Army CID in the initial investigation when he still had his head screwed on and he had not met McGinniss yet:
Actually, Freddy's head got "screwed on straight" due to a number of factors:
1. reading the Article 32 hearing transcripts and comparing what inmate had told him and Mildred and what the FACTS showed.
2. going to the murder scene and comparing what inmate said he did and what the scene showed
3. listening to inmate tell him about "murdering" one of the alleged intruders
4. LISTENING to what Peter Kearns had to say during the re-investigation
5. seeing and hearing inmate's Bob Hope-like performance on the talk show

inmate lied, he killed his family.....I want to know why you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much!
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 May 2019, 08:04 AM   #1383
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Well another incomplete thought/comment by henri big surprise (NOT). Yes, Stombaugh said the hairs "could be" because there is no absolute in hair analysis EXCEPT (1)DNA testing which was not available at the time and (2) only head and pubic hairs have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared.
There has been hair and fiber false testimony in murder cases for many years and it's that which convicted MacDonald. Blackburn in his closing speech at the trial told the jury that the conclusive evidence was that there were pajama fibers on the wooden murder weapon. Another juror said after the trial that there were no fibers where MacDonald fell unconscious, which was why he convicted, which was patently false. I agree that the defense strategy was mainly about an unseemly wrangle over the bloodstains and pajama folding experiment which was presented by the prosecution at the Grand Jury. The defense were taken by surprise when confronted by all that hair and fiber fabrication at the trial until they were able to obtain the facts afterwards on a freedom of information request.

This is an example of hair and fiber fraud from a British newspaper:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lse-conviction

Quote:

In other words, microscopic analysis of hair – the very analysis that put George Perrot and so many people behind bars – is virtually worthless as a method of identifying someone. It can only safely be used to rule out a suspect as the source of crime-scene materials or in combination with the vastly more accurate technique of DNA testing.....

The results, first reported by the Washington Post, concluded that an astonishing 26 of the 28 FBI agents who had provided testimony as expert witnesses at trial based on microscopic hair analysis had made statements to juries that are now known to be false. Their erroneous evidence was found in a full 90% of the trial transcripts the team has studied.
The government has identified almost 3,000 cases in which FBI agents may have given testimony involving the now-discredited technique. So far only about 500 of those cases have been been reviewed.
Some 268 of those involved FBI examiners providing expert evidence in court that pointed to the guilt of the defendant – of which 257, or 96%, included false testimony.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th May 2019 at 08:58 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 13th May 2019, 08:29 AM   #1384
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I do not believe anyone said "it could be" in relation to the pj fibers and threads. I think you are comparing apples and oranges and finding pineapples.
Well what about this quote then from Murtagh at a bench conference during the Shirley Green testimony at the 1979 trial?:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html

Quote:
THE COURT: If he told me that you could arrange 48 places and arrange those same 48 so they would still go into those 21 holes other than the way that they say they arranged them in this case, I wouldn't believe it. But, now, thankfully, I don't have to make that decision, nor will that opinion ever be expressed to this jury.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if there is another way to reconstruct it -- and if it was tough enough to do it one way -- I think this is merely the conservative nature of the laboratory examiner. It is like the hair could have come -- the same thing with respect to the threads.

THE COURT: If I have ever heard a man disclaim, not one time but fifty, old Stombaugh kept saying that, "I only said it could be."

MR. MURTAGH: That is right, sir.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th May 2019 at 08:31 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 13th May 2019, 11:01 AM   #1385
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Wrong Again

[quote=Henri McPhee;12693790]
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

Biased old Judge Fox never wanted that evidentiary hearing in 2012 and he made sure that it just concentrated on Jimmy Britt and DNA and Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. I didn't know what was going on with that evidentiary hearing when it happened because it was not reported at the time. I know the defense wanted Glisson of the Army CID lab to appear because she is in disagreement with Stombaugh about the blood evidence and fabric impressions but she seems to be well into her 90s now, and she probably could not make it. A very interesting new confession by Mitchell came up, I think by the Griffins, and Stoeckley's own lawyer. Leonard, testified that now he was outside the lawyer /client confidentiality that Helena confessed to him, and he thought MacDonald was screwed. There seemed to be a cross-examination by the defense of Army CID agent Ivory which led nowhere as usual.
This is a prime example of your penchant for replacing fact with fantasy. Despite your assertions to the contrary, Judge Fox provided the defense with the freedom to present their case in the manner they saw fit. He also reminded the defense that the government was provided with the same freedom. You also dip into your "playing dumb" persona by claiming that the arguments presented at the evidentiary hearing were not reported. Hilarious.

The first 3 days of this hearing were covered from stem to stern by multiple media outlets, and the talking heads were debating whether the defense team's presentation would result in MacDonald receiving a new trial. Once the government put forth their case, however, the coverage dwindled as most of the talking heads quickly realized that inmate didn't come close to meeting his "daunting burden." The defense presented no smoking gun, they relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony, and they did not call a single forensics expert to the stand. By day 7 of the evidentiary hearing, the defense was left with the destruction of Jimmy Britt's claims, no sourced DNA from Stoeckley or Mitchell, and previously litigated arguments regarding the evidence presented at the 1979 trial.

Despite the government wiping the floor with inmate's defense team, Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit Court took great care in rendering their decisions. In 2014, Judge Fox ruled that "MacDonald has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the murder of his wife and two daughters. Alternatively, the court finds that MacDonald has failed to adequately establish the merits of any of his claims." In 2018, the 4th Circuit Court concurred with Judge Fox and ruled that "MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th May 2019 at 11:06 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 14th May 2019, 04:27 AM   #1386
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Well what about this quote then from Murtagh at a bench conference during the Shirley Green testimony at the 1979 trial?:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html
The quote says that the Judge was satisfied with the conclusion of the pj top folding; in other words, you cannot force a pattern to exist it either DOES EXIST or it does not exist. In this case it DOES EXIST and proves that inmate stabbed Colette through his pj top that he laid on her body most likely to try and explain her blood all over it. Too bad for him it was proven that several of the blood stains were on the top BEFORE it was torn.
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 May 2019, 09:51 AM   #1387
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
The quote says that the Judge was satisfied with the conclusion of the pj top folding; in other words, you cannot force a pattern to exist it either DOES EXIST or it does not exist. In this case it DOES EXIST and proves that inmate stabbed Colette through his pj top that he laid on her body most likely to try and explain her blood all over it. Too bad for him it was proven that several of the blood stains were on the top BEFORE it was torn.
Judge Dupree had corrupt bias and all he was interested in was that the defense could not litigate for a mistrial. That was just his uninformed opinion. It was never proven that several of the blood-stains were on the top BEFORE it was torn. Stombaugh was never a qualified blood expert and the serologist at the Army CID lab, Glisson, was in disagreement with Stombaugh about that. There needs to be a second opinion about the matter by real experts in America who have written books about bloodstains and blood spatter and fabric impressions.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I asked you whether you had read testimony of Shirley Green in regard to the reconstruction experiment that she said she did in terms of putting 48 probes into holes in the -- rather, taking 48 holes in the pajama top and making them fit into 21 holes.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you at that time the question of whether you had an opinion as to whether or not she did in fact do what she said she did, and you said you had an opinion in that regard.
A Yes.
Q And what was that opinion?
A I consider her reconstruction to be impossible. I consider it to be conceptually unsound and contrived.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th May 2019 at 09:54 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 May 2019, 11:32 AM   #1388
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Playing Dumb, Again

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Dupree had corrupt bias and all he was interested in was that the defense could not litigate for a mistrial. That was just his uninformed opinion. It was never proven that several of the blood-stains were on the top BEFORE it was torn. Stombaugh was never a qualified blood expert and the serologist at the Army CID lab, Glisson, was in disagreement with Stombaugh about that. There needs to be a second opinion about the matter by real experts in America who have written books about bloodstains and blood spatter and fabric impressions.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html
As you full well know, both the 4th Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court lauded Dupree's handling of the 1979 trial. Your smear tactics are tiresome. As you full well know, the trial testimony of Paul Stombaugh and Terry Laber proved that Colette's Type A blood was smeared/spattered on inmate's pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn. As you full well know, Bernie Segal consulted with bloodstain expert Judith Bunker, and she processed with Segal that considering she agreed with the bloodstain analysis of BOTH Stombaugh and Laber, she would not be a good witness for the defense.

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 14th May 2019, 11:43 AM   #1389
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,188
Using the time honored tactic in defending their mancrush through innuendo about any crime ever committed, here's proof that the mancrush did the deed:

https://people.com/crime/doctor-mom-...ivorce-papers/

A Toronto neurosurgeon was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday for strangling his wife after she filed for divorce.

Mohammed Shamji, 43, pleaded guilty last month to second-degree murder in the 2016 death of 40-year-old Elana Fric. According to court testimony, Fric had served her husband with divorce papers two days before he killed her. He broke her neck and ribs before choking her to death as their three children slept nearby.

According to the CBC, Fric was a respected family doctor who also worked as an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. She also served as a member of the health policy committee at the Ontario Medical Association.


Doctor murders wife = Doctor murdering the whole family.

I'm sure there's a anonymous internet post somewhere that supports this theory, but I can't remember where it was.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 May 2019, 03:32 PM   #1390
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was expert testimony at the 1979, and also at the Article 32 in 1970, which the jury and 4th Circuit judges were never informed about, including Dr. Sadoff's opinion that he is "fairly certain" MacDonald didn't do it, and by the textile expert Wofgang. There were a few real experts at the trial in 1979, including the fingerprint expert Osterburg ,and the blood expert Charles Morton, and the surgical glove fragment expert Guinn. In a way I agree that the defense might have made a mistake in not presenting a hair and fiber expert of their own who could have countered and exposed the blatant lies and deceptions of Stombaugh and Blackburn.

This is the opinion of the surgical glove expert Guinn at the trial, which is sympathetic to MacDonald:

Quote:
R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 3:50 p.m.

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Dr. Guinn, the name "Perry-brand" or "Perry-Pure" latex gloves as has been used by Mr. Murtagh, do you know which was Perry-Pure rubber glove samples -- that is, exemplar or evidence?
A Those were the exemplar samples and were stated to be from that particular -- they came out of the packages and they had that brand name on them; yes.
Q All right, it was stated to you then that the --
A (Interposing) The evidence ones, I, have no idea, obviously, what brand they are.
Q All right, sir. Were you informed as to where in the MacDonald household the Perry-Pure rubber gloves came from?
A I was informed they were found in packages stored somewhere in the kitchen of the house.
Q Were you informed as to where the evidence samples were found in the MacDonald household?
A They were found, I believe, in the master bedroom.
Q So, as far as you knew, you were comparing pieces of material found in the master bedroom with pieces of material found in the kitchen -- all of which came from the MacDonald household; is that correct?
A That is correct.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-guinn-tt.html
Let's not forqet this on cross-examination.

Q Dr. Guinn, can you say positively that these pieces of rubber did not come from a Perry-brand surgical latex glove?
A Could I say positively?
Q Can you say positively?
A 'If you mean by that -- the word "positively" if you mean absolutely --
Q (Interposing) I mean absolutely.
A -- then, I would say "no," I could not say that.


I really don't see how Guinn's testimony that you quoted helps you any.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 14th May 2019 at 04:11 PM.
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 03:41 PM   #1391
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's just an assertion by you. From Colonel Rock's report at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 which Murtagh and Judge Dupree deliberately withheld from the jury and 4th Circuit judges:
Please present the case law that Colonel Rock's report was admissible as evidence. It's not, based on my understanding of what's admissible. You're claiming they withheld it, please establish it was admissible.

The testimony of the various witnesses, yes. The conclusions of a judge or judge-equivalent, not so much.

We'll await your citations to documented case law where conclusions of a military tribunal were admitted into evidence during a civilian trial.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 04:01 PM   #1392
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
. Stombaugh was never a qualified blood expert ...
The court found differently.

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, at this time we would renew our offer for this witness to be an expert in the field of hair, fibers, fabric impression, damage and stains.

THE COURT: Yes, the Court will so hold.



As you're not licensed to practice law in North Carolina to the best of my knowledge, nor have you ever served as an appelate judge in that state, your opinion can be safely and reasonably ignored.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 02:16 AM   #1393
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Actually, Freddy's head got "screwed on straight" due to a number of factors:
1. reading the Article 32 hearing transcripts and comparing what inmate had told him and Mildred and what the FACTS showed.
2. going to the murder scene and comparing what inmate said he did and what the scene showed
3. listening to inmate tell him about "murdering" one of the alleged intruders
4. LISTENING to what Peter Kearns had to say during the re-investigation
5. seeing and hearing inmate's Bob Hope-like performance on the talk show
The main reason Kassab changed his mind about MacDonald is because CID agent Kearns went to Kassab's home in New York to tell him that MacDonald had been seeing other women at the time of the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. That made the Kassabs angry. There was an unpleasant meeting between MacDonald and the Kassabs at about that time, which was witnessed by a woman MacDonald companion, and explained by that witness at the 1979 trial, when Colette's mother told MacDonald that if he took up his medical post in California he would regret it. That's why Colette's mother committed perjury at the 1979 trial which is a criminal offense.
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 May 2019, 02:44 AM   #1394
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Sorry, hearsay many times removed is not admissible.

Still guilty, still in his cage.
GiSEQ 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 May 2019, 02:51 AM   #1395
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Please present the case law that Colonel Rock's report was admissible as evidence. It's not, based on my understanding of what's admissible. You're claiming they withheld it, please establish it was admissible.

The testimony of the various witnesses, yes. The conclusions of a judge or judge-equivalent, not so much.

We'll await your citations to documented case law where conclusions of a military tribunal were admitted into evidence during a civilian trial.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hank
Murtagh made some silly remark at the 1979 trial, which I now can't find, that the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 were inadmissible at trial because the calm and thorough presentation of the facts then was ten years old! The only difference between then and the trial was Stombaugh's manufactured and fabricated hair and fiber testimony and fabric impressions and the conceptually unsound pajama folding experiment There is an unseemly wrangle between Judge Dupree and Segal about the matter at this website:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html...ald_trial.html

Quote:
THE COURT: Have you found a case in any jurisdiction in which the findings of the officer conducting an Article 32 proceeding, or any other inquiry the object of which is to determine probable cause for the institution of a criminal action, in which such findings have been admitted in evidence under 803(8)(c) or any other rule of evidence?

MR. SEGAL: 803(8)(c) is too new to have produced much appellate review.

THE COURT: Like we say to the witnesses, you just answer my question yes or no. I'll let you explain.

MR. SEGAL: Certainly, Your Honor. We have set forth the cases that we --

THE COURT: (Interposing) There are several cases. There are several cases. I said in a criminal prosecution.

MR. SEGAL: These are the only cases that we are aware of.

THE COURT: You have never found one; have you?

MR. SEGAL: We have no other cases to offer, but I must say that because the context is novel, the rule isn't. I mean the rule could not be more plain. It says you can introduce an official investigation and finding against the Government in a criminal case. I mean I hope we are not reduced to another situation now where we decide that both Congress and the drafters and the Supreme Court had their backs turned on the possibility that MacDonald might make use of the rules.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th May 2019 at 02:56 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 May 2019, 03:13 AM   #1396
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Let's not forqet this on cross-examination.

Q Dr. Guinn, can you say positively that these pieces of rubber did not come from a Perry-brand surgical latex glove?
A Could I say positively?
Q Can you say positively?
A 'If you mean by that -- the word "positively" if you mean absolutely --
Q (Interposing) I mean absolutely.
A -- then, I would say "no," I could not say that.


I really don't see how Guinn's testimony that you quoted helps you any.

Hank
There is no absolute certainty that fingerprint and DNA evidence is accurate. It's just that a jury can usually work it out for themselves. Dr. Guinn was asked for his expert opinion about the surgical glove fragments found at the crime scene and this is it:

Quote:
Q What is your opinion?
A My opinion is that just looking at the numbers that he submitted, I would come to the same conclusion -- that it would be extremely unlikely that the evidence in the exemplar samples were made by the same manufacturer.
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 May 2019, 05:17 AM   #1397
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is no absolute certainty that fingerprint
yes there is....


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and DNA evidence is accurate.
OMG you cannot really mean have the BS you type! DNA does not lie

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's just that a jury can usually work it out for themselves.
Wow what a surprise another incomplete thought from henri....WHAT exactly can the jury work out for themselves?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr. Guinn was asked for his expert opinion about the surgical glove fragments found at the crime scene
yes, and he gave it, as in "I cannot say that the pieces found at the crime scene are NOT from the supply of rubber gloves found under the sink"
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 May 2019, 05:31 AM   #1398
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh made some silly remark at the 1979 trial, which I now can't find, that the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 were inadmissible at trial because the calm and thorough presentation of the facts then was ten years old!
Not my point. Please respond to the point I made, not to the straw man argument you find easier to refute. You offered the judge advocate's opinion as admissible. I'm asking you you establish it is. We can wait until you cite the established case law on that.

Here is what you wrote:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From Colonel Rock's report at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 which Murtagh and Judge Dupree deliberately withheld from the jury and 4th Circuit judges:
Show me that Colonel Rock's report is admissible. If you can't, then the above premise of your argument is false. It wasn't 'deliberately withheld' as you claim. It was never admissible to start with.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The only difference between then and the trial was Stombaugh's manufactured and fabricated hair and fiber testimony and fabric impressions and the conceptually unsound pajama folding experiment

There is an unseemly wrangle between Judge Dupree and Segal about the matter at this website:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html...ald_trial.html
And there's the ever present logical fallacy of Begging the Question followed by a link to something you have yet to establish is meaningful.

We've seen this song-and-dance routine hundreds of times already. It wasn't meaningful then, it isn't meaningful now, and it won't be meaningful in the future.

The court tells Segal that his attempt to admit Rock's conclusions is not allowed. Rock's conclusions are not evidence. The jury is empaneled to make up their own mind from the evidence. They are not empaneled to hear someone else's conclusions and rubber-stamp those.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 15th May 2019 at 06:03 AM.
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 05:54 AM   #1399
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Acid Trip, but whose?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is no absolute certainty that fingerprint and DNA evidence is accurate. It's just that a jury can usually work it out for themselves. Dr. Guinn was asked for his expert opinion about the surgical glove fragments found at the crime scene and this is it:
So your theory is that hippies on an acid trip murdered the family but thought to bring along and don latex gloves so as not to leave fingerprints that you claim are meaningless and don't prove anything in any case?

Am I understanding that correctly?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 06:05 AM   #1400
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,188
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh made some silly remark at the 1979 trial, which I now can't find
Giving your recollection zero credibility.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 02:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.