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 23rd November 2020, 09:36 AM   #2041
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

9) Why is there not a drop of inmate's blood or a single fiber from his torn pajama top found in the living room?

10) Why was no DNA, hairs, fibers, or fingerprints sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven or New York Four found at the crime scene?

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
One explanation for no blood being found in the living room could be that Craig Chamberlain, the Army CID blood man, was not up to the job at the time. The Army CID admitted that pajama fibers were found where MacDonald said he fell unconscious. Craig Chamberlain did say somewhere that MacDonald's glasses were not found in the living room. That speck of blood on the glasses looks like caused by contamination to me. I never did find out exactly where the glasses were found.

The bad judges in the MacDonald case like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox and Judge King, and most of the Supreme Court, have fought tooth and nail to prevent any detection of the Stoeckley Seven. It's probably a drugs cover up. The silly thing is the 4th Circuit Court managed to prevent MacDonald prosecution at least twice from about 1976 onwards on grounds of a speedy trial but the corrupt Judge Dupree managed to get that overturned.

This is part of what Segal had to say about Craig Chamberlain at his closing 1979 trial argument:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html

"Now, the Government's theory that there was no blood in that room is premised on the assumption that Chamberlain was a fully-qualified expert to do blood testing on the crime scene. That is one of the interesting things -- what nine and a half years does to a case. Nine and a half years ago when I saw Craig Chamberlain, he was fresh out of college and fresh out of CID, you know, the six months training, the drug testing, and all the other things they do there, processing his first crime scene ever. And he is, I suggest to you, members of the jury, absolutely flat out wrong with the scientific facts about benzidine. His knowledge cannot be compared to that of John Thornton's.
Now, Chamberlain now has a Ph.D. He just got it last year. He works in a responsible position but nothing to do with forensic sciences. "

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd November 2020 at 09:40 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 23rd November 2020, 01:27 PM   #2042
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
One explanation for no blood being found in the living room could be that Craig Chamberlain, the Army CID blood man, was not up to the job at the time. The Army CID admitted that pajama fibers were found where MacDonald said he fell unconscious. Craig Chamberlain did say somewhere that MacDonald's glasses were not found in the living room. That speck of blood on the glasses looks like caused by contamination to me. I never did find out exactly where the glasses were found.

The bad judges in the MacDonald case like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox and Judge King, and most of the Supreme Court, have fought tooth and nail to prevent any detection of the Stoeckley Seven. It's probably a drugs cover up. The silly thing is the 4th Circuit Court managed to prevent MacDonald prosecution at least twice from about 1976 onwards on grounds of a speedy trial but the corrupt Judge Dupree managed to get that overturned.

This is part of what Segal had to say about Craig Chamberlain at his closing 1979 trial argument:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html

"Now, the Government's theory that there was no blood in that room is premised on the assumption that Chamberlain was a fully-qualified expert to do blood testing on the crime scene. That is one of the interesting things -- what nine and a half years does to a case. Nine and a half years ago when I saw Craig Chamberlain, he was fresh out of college and fresh out of CID, you know, the six months training, the drug testing, and all the other things they do there, processing his first crime scene ever. And he is, I suggest to you, members of the jury, absolutely flat out wrong with the scientific facts about benzidine. His knowledge cannot be compared to that of John Thornton's.
Now, Chamberlain now has a Ph.D. He just got it last year. He works in a responsible position but nothing to do with forensic sciences. "
Not only did you ignore 9 of my 10 questions...

QUESTION #9: CID chemist Craig Chamberlain collected the blood evidence found at 544 Castle Drive. This included the limited amount of blood found in the living room, but it was Janice Glisson, Terry Laber, and Larry Flinn who performed serological tests on the blood exhibits in this case. Again, not a drop of inmate's Type B blood was found in the living room. To be frank, you're purposely playing dumb when you state that you "never did find out exactly where the glasses were found." There are several crime scene photographs and dozens of references in the documented record to the EXACT location (e.g., glasses face down on the floor near the living room window) of inmate's glasses. The sequel to your box office bomb PLAYING DUMB, attempts to placate the audience by extending the living room into the hallway at 544 Castle Drive. There were no pajama fibers found in the living room and that includes next to, on, or anywhere near the couch where inmate claims his pajama top was torn (e.g., 72 inch tear down the left front seam and left sleeve) during a struggle with 3 armed men.

… your inclusion of Question #10, does not have an accompanying answer. I'll ask again, why was no DNA, hairs, fibers, or fingerprints sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven or New York Four found at the crime scene?

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd November 2020 at 01:37 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 03:56 PM   #2043
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Not only did you ignore 9 of my 10 questions...

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Chamberlain definitely says somewhere that the MacDonald glasses were not found in the living room, which, though highly conjectural, opens the possibility that the glasses were planted there with a speck of blood from God knows where, or from whom. Probably contamination.

Judge Dupree once said, probably from the 1984 evidentiary hearing, that the speck of blood on the glasses somehow proves MacDonald was lying about not wearing the glasses during the MacDonald murders. That's bunkum like Judge Dupree once saying, probably at the same 1984 evidentiary hearing, that Mitchell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere on the night of the MacDonald murders. That's not evidence. It's pure speculation.

This is what Judge Dupree said about the glasses at the 1985 Judge Dupree appeal. That appeal should have been held by judges with independent judgement, not by the trial judge:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...us-vs-mac.html

4. MacDonald's Eyeglasses

"MacDonald told investigators that he had not been wearing his eyeglasses when [**84] he woke and began his futile effort to revive his family. This statement was claimed to be false because the eyeglasses, which were found in the living room face down, were found to have Kristen MacDonald's blood on them. The government argued that this inconsistency proved that the glasses had been stained during MacDonald's attack on his family."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd November 2020 at 04:00 PM.
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 23rd November 2020, 09:31 PM   #2044
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain definitely says somewhere that the MacDonald glasses were not found in the living room, which, though highly conjectural, opens the possibility that the glasses were planted there with a speck of blood from God knows where, or from whom. Probably contamination.

Judge Dupree once said, probably from the 1984 evidentiary hearing, that the speck of blood on the glasses somehow proves MacDonald was lying about not wearing the glasses during the MacDonald murders. That's bunkum like Judge Dupree once saying, probably at the same 1984 evidentiary hearing, that Mitchell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere on the night of the MacDonald murders. That's not evidence. It's pure speculation.

This is what Judge Dupree said about the glasses at the 1985 Judge Dupree appeal. That appeal should have been held by judges with independent judgement, not by the trial judge:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...us-vs-mac.html

4. MacDonald's Eyeglasses

"MacDonald told investigators that he had not been wearing his eyeglasses when [**84] he woke and began his futile effort to revive his family. This statement was claimed to be false because the eyeglasses, which were found in the living room face down, were found to have Kristen MacDonald's blood on them. The government argued that this inconsistency proved that the glasses had been stained during MacDonald's attack on his family."
So, you're refusing to answer 9 of my 10 questions. Got it. In regards to your answer to 1 of the 10 questions...

1) Chamberlain's memory of where inmate's glasses were located in the living room is not nor has ever been an issue in this case. As I mentioned in my prior post, there are several color photographs and dozens of references in various case documents, that uniformly state that inmate's glasses were found face down near the living room window.

2) I agree with your contention that the Type O blood found on inmate's glasses was the result of contamination to be "highly conjectural."

3) Judge Dupree's conclusions regarding the inculpatory nature of the Type O blood found on inmate's glasses were echoed by the CID, FBI, DOJ, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court.

4) For the 2nd time, you have refused to answer the 2nd part of QUESTION #9. Again, there were no pajama fibers found in the living room and that includes next to, on, or anywhere near the couch where inmate claims his pajama top was torn (e.g., 72 inch tear down the left front seam and left sleeve) during a struggle with 3 armed men.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd November 2020 at 09:38 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 01:20 AM   #2045
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
So, you're refusing to answer 9 of my 10 questions. Got it. In regards to your answer to 1 of the 10 questions...

1) Chamberlain's memory of where inmate's glasses were located in the living room is not nor has ever been an issue in this case. As I mentioned in my prior post, there are several color photographs and dozens of references in various case documents, that uniformly state that inmate's glasses were found face down near the living room window.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
CID agent Shaw did say at the Article 32 in 1970 that no pajama fibers were found in the living room but he admitted that a lot of pajama fibers were found in the hallway where MacDonald fell unconscious. MacDonald was bonked on the head with a baseball bat and stabbed possibly once in the living room. That was never going to leave a mountain of pajama fibers to be discovered later on in the living room. It's insufficient evidence to put somebody in prison for the rest of his life.

Chamberlain's memory about where the eye glasses were found and what happened to those glasses is not at all clear. He was supposed to be collecting the blood evidence and testifying on oath at the trial about the blood evidence:

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

Q Thank you, Dr. Chamberlain. If you will, return to the stand, please. Now, do you recall, Dr. Chamberlain, there was actually a fourth place in the living room where there was blood that was collected and was considered later on in the Laboratory?
A Yes, sir; I know a fourth place.
Q What was that and where was that place and describe it to us?
A Which place are you referring to, sir?
Q Well, you have marked three places which we know to be Government Exhibits 341, 342, and 343. I was asking you whether you recall a fourth place in the living room where something was recovered in which blood processing and blood typing was done later on?
A Yes; I do recall it.
Q All right, would you tell us where that place was?
A Well, there were some eyeglasses on which a small portion of apparent blood stain was recovered.
Q Did you actually recover them or find them or did someone else recover them and find them and process them?
A Somebody else recovered them.
Q But they advised you that the glasses were found in the living room?
A I don't recall if they advised me of that or not, sir.
Q But you now know that to be so -- that the eyeglasses that you were given for processing were recovered from the living room?
A I don't know it for certain, sir.
Q You transported them back to Fort Gordon; didn't you?
A I did not say that, sir.
Q I am asking you, sir.
A No, I didn't.
Q This is cross-examination. I can sometimes suggest to you the information and you can tell us whether it is correct or not.
A I don't believe that is correct, sir.
Q Go ahead.
A I don't know if I transported the eyeglasses back or not, sir.
Q And was there not a fifth place in the living room in the MacDonald house where there was blood recovered which was later on subject to examination for dried blood stains in the Laboratory?
A In the MacDonald house, sir?
Q Yes, that place we are talking about.
A There were many blood stains in the house, sir.
Q I am sorry -- in the living room, I am talking about.
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was the fifth place?
A By the front window -- underneath the front window on the floor.
Q Did you process that blood stain there underneath the window you described?
A I don't recall, sir. I may have.
Q I will impose you in a minute to point that out to us, but I want to go on beyond there. Was there not a sixth place also in the MacDonald living room where blood was found?
A I guess you would have to define what you mean by "the living room," sir.
Q You mean the geographical area you are talking about?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, I had in mind the area that is divided by the hallway -- that is south of the hallway here."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th November 2020 at 01:42 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 24th November 2020, 01:38 AM   #2046
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
7) Why were inmate's bare bloody footprints only exiting Kristen's room?

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Fred Bost offers a perfectly adequate explanation for that footprint business in his short study. I just feel all this forensics business is way beyond the comprehension of a North Carolina jury. No wonder juries are very likely to be wrong. It's like talking about the principles of international finance to them. Unfortunately the 4th Circuit Court and Supreme Court seem to be similarly ill-informed and in my personal opinion that can lead to forensic fraud and corrupt judges and prosecutors:

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

"But why then was a bloody footprint found in Kristen's doorway?

CLAIM 3 -- THE BLOODY FOOTPRINT

Both prior claims are based in part on a bloody footprint found just inside Kristen's door, pointing out toward the hallway. The government's own documents, when studied closely, suggest the reason for its being there.

Wet Type A blood was on the floor of the master bedroom on and near a little throw rug. Shortly before Jeffrey MacDonald was taken from that room he was seen standing on his feet in that bloody area (SHORT #11). Three witnesses tell how he struggled off the gurney in the hallway while attempting to enter his children's rooms (SHORT #12).

The three-foot-wide hallway makes it clear that in order to get off the gurney in its low position just eight inches above the floor, MacDonald would have had to put his lower torso into one of the doorways leading off the hallway, such as the doorway in which the footprint was found only ten inches into the room. Imbedded within the bloody footprint was a fiber matching those from that little throw rug where MacDonald had earlier stood (review SHORT #8 & #11).

A detective who arrived at 4:50 a.m. saw the footprint still drying (SHORT #13). A thin layer of blood on a wooden floor takes little time to dry, therefore it is unrealistic to believe the blood of that footprint would be wet at 4:50 a.m. if it had been formed some 90 minutes earlier as envisioned by the government. So the evidence strongly suggests Jeff MacDonald made the footprint when he struggled off the gurney, not before."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th November 2020 at 01:45 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 24th November 2020, 02:16 AM   #2047
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Fred Bost offers a perfectly adequate explanation for that footprint business in his short study. I just feel all this forensics business is way beyond the comprehension of a North Carolina jury. No wonder juries are very likely to be wrong. It's like talking about the principles of international finance to them. Unfortunately the 4th Circuit Court and Supreme Court seem to be similarly ill-informed and in my personal opinion that can lead to forensic fraud and corrupt judges and prosecutors:

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

"But why then was a bloody footprint found in Kristen's doorway?

CLAIM 3 -- THE BLOODY FOOTPRINT

Both prior claims are based in part on a bloody footprint found just inside Kristen's door, pointing out toward the hallway. The government's own documents, when studied closely, suggest the reason for its being there.

Wet Type A blood was on the floor of the master bedroom on and near a little throw rug. Shortly before Jeffrey MacDonald was taken from that room he was seen standing on his feet in that bloody area (SHORT #11). Three witnesses tell how he struggled off the gurney in the hallway while attempting to enter his children's rooms (SHORT #12).

The three-foot-wide hallway makes it clear that in order to get off the gurney in its low position just eight inches above the floor, MacDonald would have had to put his lower torso into one of the doorways leading off the hallway, such as the doorway in which the footprint was found only ten inches into the room. Imbedded within the bloody footprint was a fiber matching those from that little throw rug where MacDonald had earlier stood (review SHORT #8 & #11).

A detective who arrived at 4:50 a.m. saw the footprint still drying (SHORT #13). A thin layer of blood on a wooden floor takes little time to dry, therefore it is unrealistic to believe the blood of that footprint would be wet at 4:50 a.m. if it had been formed some 90 minutes earlier as envisioned by the government. So the evidence strongly suggests Jeff MacDonald made the footprint when he struggled off the gurney, not before."
Fred cribbed this theory from Ray Shedlick and it was debunked by the government shortly after the release of the book Fatal Justice. Shedlick created this theory in 1985, and he presented it on the television show 20/20, but the defense waited a decade before they felt confident enough to include it in their appellate briefs. The government's response to the Gurney Theory demonstrated why the defense was so hesitant to include it in their motion(s) for a new trial. Shedlick argued that when Jeffrey MacDonald was being wheeled out of 544 Castle Drive on an ambulance gurney, he grabbed the door frame to Kimberley's room, and subsequently got off the gurney. During this process, he stood up at the entrance to Kristen's room and with his feet having been contaminated with Colette's blood from the master bedroom floor, he formed the three bloody footprints.

There are a myriad of problems with Shedlick's theory. The distance between the gurney and the bloody footprint inside Kristen's room is almost four feet. That's quite a distance to cover when you have an MP on either side of you as you're being wheeled down the hall on a gurney. The footprints were exiting Kristen's room, so in order to duplicate this sequence, inmate would have needed to do a back-flip off the gurney. Inmate's testimony at the Article 32 hearing casts further doubt on the validity of Shedlick's theory. Inmate stated that he backed into the stereo in Kimberley MacDonald's room after getting completely off the gurney. There is also the distinct possibility that inmate never even got off the gurney. Lieutenant Joseph Paulk testified at the Article 32 hearing that Jeffrey MacDonald only got to a sitting position on the gurney. The Gurney Theory was quickly added to the list of debunked evidentiary claims put forth by inmate's rotating band of lawyers.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 24th November 2020 at 02:18 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 24th November 2020, 10:22 AM   #2048
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
4) For the 2nd time, you have refused to answer the 2nd part of QUESTION #9. Again, there were no pajama fibers found in the living room and that includes next to, on, or anywhere near the couch where inmate claims his pajama top was torn (e.g., 72 inch tear down the left front seam and left sleeve) during a struggle with 3 armed men.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Inmate never did claim that the pajama top was torn in the living room. You are telling fibs again.

From the Article 32 with Eisman cross-examining Shaw:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...pa32-shaw.html

A He said to me in the only personal statement I heard him make, that he has no recollection of it going over his head because he has no recollection of the top being pulled over the head, but he did say at one point that the pajama jacket was wrapped somehow around his wrist and that someone was punching him and he was trying to fend off the punches with the top in his hands and when he regained consciousness, he went through these four people and wound up on the floor of the hallway and regained consciousness, he stood up and walked to his wife's body, pulled the pajama jacket off his hand and placed it on her body in an attempt to keep her warm and treat her for shock. So that is what I heard him say.
Q But he never said the jacket was ripped?
A I don't believe he used that term. I would have to read the transcript of his statement again.
Q If fibers were found in the hallway near the living room, isn't it possible this got there from his falling down there and lying there with his hands entwined in the jacket for a period of time -- we don't know how long -- before he got up to go in the bedroom? Couldn't they have gotten there that way?
A If that happened, yes, they could have."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th November 2020 at 10:23 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 24th November 2020, 10:43 AM   #2049
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

There are a myriad of problems with Shedlick's theory. The distance between the gurney and the bloody footprint inside Kristen's room is almost four feet. That's quite a distance to cover when you have an MP on either side of you as you're being wheeled down the hall on a gurney. The footprints were exiting Kristen's room, so in order to duplicate this sequence, inmate would have needed to do a back-flip off the gurney. Inmate's testimony at the Article 32 hearing casts further doubt on the validity of Shedlick's theory. Inmate stated that he backed into the stereo in Kimberley MacDonald's room after getting completely off the gurney. There is also the distinct possibility that inmate never even got off the gurney. Lieutenant Joseph Paulk testified at the Article 32 hearing that Jeffrey MacDonald only got to a sitting position on the gurney. The Gurney Theory was quickly added to the list of debunked evidentiary claims put forth by inmate's rotating band of lawyers.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Segal did have one of his lengthy and tedious cross-examinations about the gurney and a MacDonald footprint somewhere but I now can't find it. It seems to have acquired importance since the trial. It doesn't seem to have been thought particularly relevant at one time.

This is what one website thinks about it all and it makes sense to me:

https://www.karisable.com/mac4.htm

"Shortly before MacDonald was taken from that room, he was seen standing on his feet in that bloody area. Three witnesses told how he struggled off the gurney in the hallway, attempting to enter his children’s rooms. To get off the gurney in its low position, 8" from the floor, MacDonald would have had to put his lower body into one of the doorways leading off the 3' wide hallway, such as the door where the bloody footprint was found just 10" inside the room.

Imbedded within the bloody foot print was a fiber matching a throw rug in the master bedroom where MacDonald stood earlier. Also if one’s foot is wet, there would be more than just one foot print. Stepping once will not completely remove it. So the evidence suggests that MacDonald made the footprint when he struggled off the gurney, not before."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th November 2020 at 10:44 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 08:39 PM   #2050
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Segal did have one of his lengthy and tedious cross-examinations about the gurney and a MacDonald footprint somewhere but I now can't find it. It seems to have acquired importance since the trial. It doesn't seem to have been thought particularly relevant at one time.

This is what one website thinks about it all and it makes sense to me:

https://www.karisable.com/mac4.htm

"Shortly before MacDonald was taken from that room, he was seen standing on his feet in that bloody area. Three witnesses told how he struggled off the gurney in the hallway, attempting to enter his children’s rooms. To get off the gurney in its low position, 8" from the floor, MacDonald would have had to put his lower body into one of the doorways leading off the 3' wide hallway, such as the door where the bloody footprint was found just 10" inside the room.

Imbedded within the bloody foot print was a fiber matching a throw rug in the master bedroom where MacDonald stood earlier. Also if one’s foot is wet, there would be more than just one foot print. Stepping once will not completely remove it. So the evidence suggests that MacDonald made the footprint when he struggled off the gurney, not before."
As I mentioned in a prior post, Fred Bost cribbed the Gurney Theory from Ray Shedlick, and your 2nd source/website source cribbed from a portion of Bost's cribbing of Shedlick. Classic.

Again, there are a myriad of problems with Shedlick's theory. The distance between the gurney and the bloody footprint inside Kristen's room is almost four feet. That's quite a distance to cover when you have an MP on either side of you as you're being wheeled down the hall on a gurney. The footprints were exiting Kristen's room, so in order to duplicate this sequence, inmate would have needed to do a back-flip off the gurney. Inmate's testimony at the Article 32 hearing casts further doubt on the validity of Shedlick's theory. Inmate stated that he backed into the stereo in Kimberley MacDonald's room after getting completely off the gurney. There is also the distinct possibility that inmate never even got off the gurney. Lieutenant Joseph Paulk testified at the Article 32 hearing that Jeffrey MacDonald only got to a sitting position on the gurney. The Gurney Theory was quickly added to the list of debunked evidentiary claims put forth by inmate's rotating band of lawyers.

https://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 25th November 2020, 03:52 AM   #2051
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
As I mentioned in a prior post, Fred Bost cribbed the Gurney Theory from Ray Shedlick, and your 2nd source/website source cribbed from a portion of Bost's cribbing of Shedlick. Classic.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
My own personal opinion is "so what?" MacDonald never denied that it could be his footprint. It's hardly an electric chair evidence if it is his footprint.

The matter was discussed at the testimony of the military policeman Tevere at the 1979 trial though Segal seemed to go off at a tangent wondering if Tevere had touched the wall as MacDonald was wheeled out of the apartment. I'm not sure of the relevance of that:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...19-tevere.html

Q What did the medics do once he was placed on the stretcher?
A There was only one medic there, I think, at that time. I was at the foot of the stretcher which was the first part to go down the hallway. There was another medic in the middle, I believe, and I think Mica was at the head of the stretcher which would be the part of the stretcher closest to the master bedroom.
Q How wide was that stretcher, Mr. Tevere? Can you give us an estimate? Perhaps, you might use the bench in front of you.
A Twenty inches, I would say -- 20 or 24 inches.
Q Would you, perhaps, indicate with your hands on the table there?
A Well, from here -- about like this (indicating).
Q Thank you. I believe that I would agree with you. Twenty inches sounds reasonable. How wide was the hallway in the MacDonald house as far as you could tell?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: Thirty inches. That is a guess.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q That sounds like under three feet.
A Well, 36 inches.
Q About three feet wide?
A Yes. It wasn't very wide, but it wasn't very narrow.
Q Describe for us, if you will, how you and the other personnel moved the stretcher with Dr. MacDonald down the hall? Where were you positioned and how did the stretcher go down the hall?
A I was at the foot of the stretcher -- leading the stretcher down the hall. I believe the medic or another military person was in the middle of the stretcher alongside of it. Mica, I believe, was at the head of the stretcher where Captain MacDonald's head would have been.
Q Then, this group of the three of you with the man on the stretcher started to what -- roll the stretcher down the hall?
A Yes.
Q And then you stopped as you said Dr. MacDonald tried to get off the stretcher near one of the bedrooms?
A Well, I didn't stop -- we didn't stop. Captain MacDonald had asked several times about his children. As we went by the south bedroom, he grabbed the doorway -- the door jamb -- and kind of stopped the stretcher. We were not going that fast. He was trying to get off the stretcher to get into the south bedroom.
Q What did you do at that point to perhaps restrain him?
A We tried to hold him and pull him back onto the stretcher. I was around the waist area. I was holding him around the waist area. I can remember Mica and this third person also kind of, you know, coaxing, "Come on, come on, get on the stretcher," you know.
Q Was he struggling?
A Yes, he was. He put up -- I would not say a fight or battle, but he was struggling.
Q Was he perhaps motivated to see how his baby was doing?
A Yes.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Do not consider that answer.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You said that you had him around the waist at that point? I am sorry.

THE COURT: I SUSTAINED the OBJECTION and asked the jury not to consider that answer. Go ahead.

MR. MURTAGH: Thank you, Your Honor.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th November 2020 at 03:55 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 25th November 2020, 04:03 AM   #2052
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My own personal opinion is "so what?" MacDonald never denied that it could be his footprint. It's hardly an electric chair evidence if it is his footprint.

The matter was discussed at the testimony of the military policeman Tevere at the 1979 trial though Segal seemed to go off at a tangent wondering if Tevere had touched the wall as MacDonald was wheeled out of the apartment. I'm not sure of the relevance of that:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...19-tevere.html

Q What did the medics do once he was placed on the stretcher?
A There was only one medic there, I think, at that time. I was at the foot of the stretcher which was the first part to go down the hallway. There was another medic in the middle, I believe, and I think Mica was at the head of the stretcher which would be the part of the stretcher closest to the master bedroom.
Q How wide was that stretcher, Mr. Tevere? Can you give us an estimate? Perhaps, you might use the bench in front of you.
A Twenty inches, I would say -- 20 or 24 inches.
Q Would you, perhaps, indicate with your hands on the table there?
A Well, from here -- about like this (indicating).
Q Thank you. I believe that I would agree with you. Twenty inches sounds reasonable. How wide was the hallway in the MacDonald house as far as you could tell?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: Thirty inches. That is a guess.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q That sounds like under three feet.
A Well, 36 inches.
Q About three feet wide?
A Yes. It wasn't very wide, but it wasn't very narrow.
Q Describe for us, if you will, how you and the other personnel moved the stretcher with Dr. MacDonald down the hall? Where were you positioned and how did the stretcher go down the hall?
A I was at the foot of the stretcher -- leading the stretcher down the hall. I believe the medic or another military person was in the middle of the stretcher alongside of it. Mica, I believe, was at the head of the stretcher where Captain MacDonald's head would have been.
Q Then, this group of the three of you with the man on the stretcher started to what -- roll the stretcher down the hall?
A Yes.
Q And then you stopped as you said Dr. MacDonald tried to get off the stretcher near one of the bedrooms?
A Well, I didn't stop -- we didn't stop. Captain MacDonald had asked several times about his children. As we went by the south bedroom, he grabbed the doorway -- the door jamb -- and kind of stopped the stretcher. We were not going that fast. He was trying to get off the stretcher to get into the south bedroom.
Q What did you do at that point to perhaps restrain him?
A We tried to hold him and pull him back onto the stretcher. I was around the waist area. I was holding him around the waist area. I can remember Mica and this third person also kind of, you know, coaxing, "Come on, come on, get on the stretcher," you know.
Q Was he struggling?
A Yes, he was. He put up -- I would not say a fight or battle, but he was struggling.
Q Was he perhaps motivated to see how his baby was doing?
A Yes.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Do not consider that answer.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q You said that you had him around the waist at that point? I am sorry.

THE COURT: I SUSTAINED the OBJECTION and asked the jury not to consider that answer. Go ahead.

MR. MURTAGH: Thank you, Your Honor.
Thanks for providing testimony that disputes Shedlick's claim that inmate got completely off the gurney and somehow managed to get to the OTHER side of the hallway with his BACK facing Kristen's room. This testimony is also at odds with inmate's Article 32 testimony where he states he backed into Kimmie's stereo. In that scenario, inmate would have left bloody footprints in Kimmie's room, not Kristen's room. The fact that there were 3 bare bloody footprints found exiting Kristen's room forced inmate to reluctantly admit that he was the likely source of 1 of the bloody footprints. The only differences between the 3 bloody footprints is that only 1 of the bloody footprints provided enough characteristics to source it to inmate. All three footprints were found exiting Kristen MacDonald's room. A right footprint and a partial left footprint were found just inside Kristen's room. A partial left footprint was found in the middle of the hallway just outside the entrance to Kristen's room. The right footprint was formed in Colette's or Kimberley's blood, the partial left footprint was formed in Colette's blood, and the partial left footprint could not be typed due to the paucity of the stain.

The only footprint that could be sourced was the left footprint formed in Colette's blood. CID fingerprint technician Hilyard Medlin sourced the footprint to Jeffrey MacDonald. CID investigators were curious as to how the footprints were formed, especially the footprint sourced to MacDonald. Their curiosity was due to the fact that the footprint was the lone trace of Colette's blood on Kristen's floor. The completion of the Fort Gordon lab reports provided CID investigators with a possible explanation. The blue bedsheet and multi-colored bedspread found rumpled together in the master bedroom bore massive blood stains from Colette MacDonald. Investigators surmised that MacDonald placed the multi-colored bedspread on Kristen's floor and that he subsequently set Colette's body down on the bedspread. The heavy bedspread shielded the floor from Colette's bleeding body.

MacDonald then obtained the blue bedsheet and used it to lift Colette's body off of the multi-colored bedspread. Investigators felt that MacDonald may have stepped on a bloody portion of the bedspread and formed three bloody footprints as he was in the process of transporting Colette out of Kristen's room in the blue bedsheet. Hilyard Medlin and CID agent Paul Connolly concluded that the formation of the left footprint indicated that MacDonald was carrying something heavy as he exited Kristen's room. In 1974, fabric impression analysis by Paul Stombaugh appeared to bolster the CID's original conclusion. Stombaugh discovered bloody pajama cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet which indicated that Jeffrey and Colette MacDonald came in direct contact with the blue bedsheet.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 25th November 2020 at 04:28 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 25th November 2020, 10:09 AM   #2053
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

MacDonald then obtained the blue bedsheet and used it to lift Colette's body off of the multi-colored bedspread. Investigators felt that MacDonald may have stepped on a bloody portion of the bedspread and formed three bloody footprints as he was in the process of transporting Colette out of Kristen's room in the blue bedsheet. Hilyard Medlin and CID agent Paul Connolly concluded that the formation of the left footprint indicated that MacDonald was carrying something heavy as he exited Kristen's room. In 1974, fabric impression analysis by Paul Stombaugh appeared to bolster the CID's original conclusion. Stombaugh discovered bloody pajama cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet which indicated that Jeffrey and Colette MacDonald came in direct contact with the blue bedsheet.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There were doubts and inconsistencies with regard to the footprints. It was the same with the fingerprints. The fingerprint expert Osterburg testified at the trial in 1979 that he was "totally mystified " by the fingerprint collection by the Army CID and Medlin.

All that stuff from JTF about Colette being transported out of Kristen's room in a blue bedsheet is pure speculation and "Old Stombaugh only said it could be" stuff. It was never proven. Stombaugh wasn't qualified to testify about fabric impressions. There was never any bare left shoulder impression on the blue bedsheet as Stombaugh insisted at the trial.

I was interested to read in Medlin's testimony at the trial that Bill Ivory fingerprints were found on the Esquire magazine. It makes you wonder about contamination blood evidence in the case. I find that quite amusing. This is more from Medlin at the trial. I'm not too sure if Medlin is still alive. I suspect he may be dead now:

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

Q Let us read every single word at the bottom there so no one misunderstands what people were signing. If I may follow with you, please, Mr. Medlin.
A "The foot impressing appearing on Exhibit D-215 matches in general shape, outline, and size the record footprint of Captain J. MacDonald; however, due to the absence of individual ridge characteristics in the photograph taken of this exhibit, a positive identification could not be made by the examiner."
Q And it is signed Hilyard O. Medlin; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And underneath that is Mr. Hannah's signature?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you told us yesterday that the problem was that no other examiner ever saw the same things that you did; is that right?
A That is right, sir.
Q You thought you might have been able to show them what you saw if the photographs had turned out better; is that right?
A They would have seen what I saw, sir.
Q You were aware at the time that you were working on that footprint that it was going to be difficult to get a photograph; weren't you?
A Most photographs are; yes, sir.
Q Most photographs are what?
A Most photographs taken under those conditions are.
Q You mean taken with the wrong equipment and the wrong lighting --

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th November 2020 at 10:16 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 25th November 2020, 01:14 PM   #2054
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were doubts and inconsistencies with regard to the footprints. It was the same with the fingerprints. The fingerprint expert Osterburg testified at the trial in 1979 that he was "totally mystified " by the fingerprint collection by the Army CID and Medlin.

All that stuff from JTF about Colette being transported out of Kristen's room in a blue bedsheet is pure speculation and "Old Stombaugh only said it could be" stuff. It was never proven. Stombaugh wasn't qualified to testify about fabric impressions. There was never any bare left shoulder impression on the blue bedsheet as Stombaugh insisted at the trial.

I was interested to read in Medlin's testimony at the trial that Bill Ivory fingerprints were found on the Esquire magazine. It makes you wonder about contamination blood evidence in the case. I find that quite amusing. This is more from Medlin at the trial. I'm not too sure if Medlin is still alive. I suspect he may be dead now:

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

Q Let us read every single word at the bottom there so no one misunderstands what people were signing. If I may follow with you, please, Mr. Medlin.
A "The foot impressing appearing on Exhibit D-215 matches in general shape, outline, and size the record footprint of Captain J. MacDonald; however, due to the absence of individual ridge characteristics in the photograph taken of this exhibit, a positive identification could not be made by the examiner."
Q And it is signed Hilyard O. Medlin; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And underneath that is Mr. Hannah's signature?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, you told us yesterday that the problem was that no other examiner ever saw the same things that you did; is that right?
A That is right, sir.
Q You thought you might have been able to show them what you saw if the photographs had turned out better; is that right?
A They would have seen what I saw, sir.
Q You were aware at the time that you were working on that footprint that it was going to be difficult to get a photograph; weren't you?
A Most photographs are; yes, sir.
Q Most photographs are what?
A Most photographs taken under those conditions are.
Q You mean taken with the wrong equipment and the wrong lighting --
Hate to break it ya, but there were no "doubts and inconsistencies with regard to the footprints." Again, investigators discovered three bare bloody footprints at the crime scene. All three footprints were found exiting Kristen MacDonald's room. A right footprint and a partial left footprint were found just inside Kristen's room. A partial left footprint was found in the middle of the hallway just outside the entrance to Kristen's room. The right footprint was formed in Colette's or Kimberley's blood, the partial left footprint was formed in Colette's blood, and the partial left footprint could not be typed due to the paucity of the stain.

The only footprint that could be sourced was the left footprint formed in Colette's blood. CID fingerprint technician Hilyard Medlin sourced the footprint to Jeffrey MacDonald. CID investigators were curious as to how the footprints were formed, especially the footprint sourced to MacDonald. Their curiosity was due to the fact that the footprint was the lone trace of Colette's blood on Kristen's floor. The completion of the Fort Gordon lab reports provided CID investigators with a possible explanation.

The blue bedsheet and multi-colored bedspread found rumpled together in the master bedroom bore massive blood stains from Colette MacDonald. Investigators surmised that MacDonald placed the multi-colored bedspread on Kristen's floor and that he subsequently set Colette's body down on the bedspread. The heavy bedspread shielded the floor from Colette's bleeding body. MacDonald then obtained the blue bedsheet and used it to lift Colette's body off of the multi-colored bedspread. Investigators felt that MacDonald may have stepped on a bloody portion of the bedspread and formed three bloody footprints as he was in the process of transporting Colette out of Kristen's room in the blue bedsheet.

Hilyard Medlin and CID agent Paul Connolly concluded that the formation of the left footprint indicated that MacDonald was carrying something heavy as he exited Kristen's room. In 1974, fabric impression analysis by Paul Stombaugh appeared to bolster the CID's original conclusion. Stombaugh discovered bloody pajama cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet which indicated that Jeffrey and Colette MacDonald came in direct contact with the blue bedsheet.

In regards to the collection and analysis of fingerprints/palmprints found at the crime scene...

There were 104 prints of value found at 544 Castle Drive. Thirty prints were unidentified, 10-13 were accidentally destroyed, and seven were accidentally destroyed while in the process of being photographed. Not one of the 30 unidentified prints matched a known intruder suspect. No fingerprints were obtained from Kimberley or Kristen MacDonald and the partial print exemplars obtained from Colette at autopsy were of poor quality. During his Grand Jury testimony, CID fingerprint technician Hilyard Medlin stated that Colette was probably the source of the unidentified prints found on the household blinds. In addition, the unidentified prints found on the lower portions of the walls and door frames were most likely those of the MacDonald children.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 25th November 2020 at 01:17 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2020, 03:50 PM   #2055
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The blue bedsheet and multi-colored bedspread found rumpled together in the master bedroom bore massive blood stains from Colette MacDonald. Investigators surmised that MacDonald placed the multi-colored bedspread on Kristen's floor and that he subsequently set Colette's body down on the bedspread. The heavy bedspread shielded the floor from Colette's bleeding body. MacDonald then obtained the blue bedsheet and used it to lift Colette's body off of the multi-colored bedspread. Investigators felt that MacDonald may have stepped on a bloody portion of the bedspread and formed three bloody footprints as he was in the process of transporting Colette out of Kristen's room in the blue bedsheet.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
This only goes to prove to me that the police, or in this case the Army CID and FBI, decide who did and then 'find' the evidence afterwards. The only problem with that is if they decide wrongly or corruptly, as in the MacDonald case, and then use fabricated or manufactured or old Stombaugh only said it could be evidence to put a man into prison for the rest of his life with no real appeals.
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 26th November 2020, 02:11 AM   #2056
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Back To The Basics

In 1979, a North Carolina jury took less than 7 hours to convict Jeffrey MacDonald of murdering Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen MacDonald. They based their verdict on the mass of inculpatory evidence presented by the prosecution. This evidence included blood, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric/non fabric impression evidence. The evidence was so overwhelming that MacDonald was 0 for 8 in convincing the appellate courts to either overturn his conviction or to grant him a new trial. In 2006, DNA test results put the final nail in MacDonald's forensic coffin. The most damning DNA test result involved a broken, bloody 1 inch limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's left hand. From 1970-2005, MacDonald and his defense team argued that the most likely source of this limb hair was intruder suspect Greg Mitchell. The AFIP determined that this hair matched Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile. This proved that Jeffrey MacDonald was not simply guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilt beyond ALL doubt.

https://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 26th November 2020, 09:10 AM   #2057
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In 2006, DNA test results put the final nail in MacDonald's forensic coffin. The most damning DNA test result involved a broken, bloody 1 inch limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's left hand. From 1970-2005, MacDonald and his defense team argued that the most likely source of this limb hair was intruder suspect Greg Mitchell. The AFIP determined that this hair matched Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile. This proved that Jeffrey MacDonald was not simply guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilt beyond ALL doubt.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
If that hair in Colette's left hand had been identified correctly it would have been firm evidence of intruders and grounds for a reversal of the verdict.

Murtagh and Malone made sure that never happened by using forensic fraud. In their little dishonest Irish minds Murtagh and Malone thought they would never get caught or punished for that. What can you do about it apart perhaps from bugging their houses? Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. It was just the same with the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers which Malone just fabricated to have come from MacDonald dolls instead of intruders. That was forensic fraud by Malone as well in my personal opinion.

The matter was discussed on this forum by me a couple of months ago:

"And when it was, it was MacDonald's hair. Right?

Suddenly, his lawyers weren't so interested in that hair anymore, as they had proclaimed it more than likely was linked to the killer. Curiously, you didn't find the time to mention any of that."

Hank

"This matter of hairs like the hair in Colette's left hand being dissimilar to MacDonald was discussed at the Grand Jury in about 1974. Suffice to say that the initial report from the Army CID lab was that the hairs were dissimilar but after Stombaugh and Malone had a go at the problem the hairs miraculously became similar.

Q Dr. MacDonald. As I read the report, they say that the hair that was taken from you did not come from enough points.
A That is incorrect, sir.
Q On your body.
A They have twelve hair samples from the head, armpits, pubic, legs, and chest. Where else do I have hair? The initial laboratory report stated without any question that the hair was dissimilar from my hair.
Q How many points on your head did they take hair samples?
A I don't know.
Q Was it more than one point?
A Yes, it was.
Q Can you tell me how many points?
A I don't remember. I was standing naked in my room while they were cutting hair from me.
Q Did they use scissors?
A Yes, they did.
Q Who removed the hairs?
A A physician from Special Forces. I don't remember -- or the hospital. I don't know which one.
Q And where else did they obtain hair from you?
A Armpits, pubic area, legs. I don't know if they did my arms or not, and chest.
Q Well, we are advised, Dr. MacDonald, and we have to rely upon the information that is furnished to us at this time that in order to make a positive statement with respect to whether or not one of these hairs came from you, they need additional hair samples from you. We also need a --
A I'd like to respond to that, sir, if I may at this time.
Q Yes.
A That hair report was very, very clear when it was initially issued from the laboratory at Ft. Gordon. The laboratory technician issued a specific decision that the hair was dissimilar. There is no question what that means.
Q To the hair taken from you which they did examine, but in the second report --
A In the second report asked for by the prosecutor.
Q They said they needed additional samples. They needed hair from additional points on your body. Now, the report is clear in that respect, Mr. MacDonald; and I am not here to debate the matter with you. I am telling you what the situation is.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th November 2020 at 09:36 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 26th November 2020, 09:34 AM   #2058
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
There were definitely serious doubts about the hair in Colette's left hand at the Article 32 in 1970 The fact is that hair was definitely dissimilar to a Jeffrey MacDonald hair then. It was only when MacDonald lawyers like the Silverglate lawyers Good and Cormier applied pressure on the 4th Circuit Court for the hairs to be DNA tested that that those hairs suddenly did not become proof of intruders. It's clever fraud. As JTF keeps saying Good and Cormier as MacDonald lawyers may have made a strategic mistake in just concentrating on Stoeckley and Mitchell. There were others involved.

This is Bill Ivory being cross-examined about the matter by Eisman at the Article 32 in 1970:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Have you had occasion to make any affidavit as to any physical evidence which you wish to obtain at this time?
A (Affirmative nod.)
Q What was this affidavit pertaining to?
A Hair samples.
Q Hair samples from whom?
A Captain MacDonald.
Q What did you want to take hair samples for?
A For comparison.
Q With what?
A With a yet unknown hair.
Q Where was that hair found?
A In the hand of Colette.
Q Can you tell which hand?
A The left hand.
Q When was the hair found in the hand of Colette? Are you saying in the hand or in the area?
A In the hand.
Q When was this hair found inside of the hand of Colette MacDonald?
A At the morgue.
Q Is there any reason why there was some type of delay of something like two and a half months before the Criminal Investigation Division decided they wanted hair samples from Captain MacDonald?
A No. You have got the laboratory report back, all known hair samples, Colette and the children, and we exhausted all those samples and it is still an unknown hair.
Q Where was it found, clinched in the hand, or under the fingernails?
A I can say in the hand.

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q From what part of the body was this hair?
A That is why we wanted hair samples.
Q You do not know what part of the body this hair was from?
A No.
Q Is it a human hair? Are you certain of that?
A Yes.

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Do you have any explanation of how that hair got there?
A In the struggle between Colette and Captain MacDonald.
Q From which hand did Captain MacDonald say he took the pulse?
A He didn't say he took a hand pulse; he said a throat and a femoral.
Q The hair samples found near the body of Colette, was it taken to the laboratory for comparison?
A Yes.
Q And there were no hairs in their hairbrush that could be identified?
A No, we had no comparative sample.
Q Did they take body hair samples from Colette?
A Pubic hairs?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q So at this point, it would be impossible to compare that hair with any pubic hair samples of Colette MacDonald, is that correct?
A Yes.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th November 2020 at 09:38 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2020, 02:30 PM   #2059
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were definitely serious doubts about the hair in Colette's left hand at the Article 32 in 1970 The fact is that hair was definitely dissimilar to a Jeffrey MacDonald hair then. It was only when MacDonald lawyers like the Silverglate lawyers Good and Cormier applied pressure on the 4th Circuit Court for the hairs to be DNA tested that that those hairs suddenly did not become proof of intruders. It's clever fraud. As JTF keeps saying Good and Cormier as MacDonald lawyers may have made a strategic mistake in just concentrating on Stoeckley and Mitchell. There were others involved.

This is Bill Ivory being cross-examined about the matter by Eisman at the Article 32 in 1970:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Have you had occasion to make any affidavit as to any physical evidence which you wish to obtain at this time?
A (Affirmative nod.)
Q What was this affidavit pertaining to?
A Hair samples.
Q Hair samples from whom?
A Captain MacDonald.
Q What did you want to take hair samples for?
A For comparison.
Q With what?
A With a yet unknown hair.
Q Where was that hair found?
A In the hand of Colette.
Q Can you tell which hand?
A The left hand.
Q When was the hair found in the hand of Colette? Are you saying in the hand or in the area?
A In the hand.
Q When was this hair found inside of the hand of Colette MacDonald?
A At the morgue.
Q Is there any reason why there was some type of delay of something like two and a half months before the Criminal Investigation Division decided they wanted hair samples from Captain MacDonald?
A No. You have got the laboratory report back, all known hair samples, Colette and the children, and we exhausted all those samples and it is still an unknown hair.
Q Where was it found, clinched in the hand, or under the fingernails?
A I can say in the hand.

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q From what part of the body was this hair?
A That is why we wanted hair samples.
Q You do not know what part of the body this hair was from?
A No.
Q Is it a human hair? Are you certain of that?
A Yes.

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Do you have any explanation of how that hair got there?
A In the struggle between Colette and Captain MacDonald.
Q From which hand did Captain MacDonald say he took the pulse?
A He didn't say he took a hand pulse; he said a throat and a femoral.
Q The hair samples found near the body of Colette, was it taken to the laboratory for comparison?
A Yes.
Q And there were no hairs in their hairbrush that could be identified?
A No, we had no comparative sample.
Q Did they take body hair samples from Colette?
A Pubic hairs?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q So at this point, it would be impossible to compare that hair with any pubic hair samples of Colette MacDonald, is that correct?
A Yes.
Your statement or claim or whatever the hell you mean by...

"If that hair in Colette's left hand had been identified correctly it would have been firm evidence of intruders and grounds for a reversal of the verdict."

… defies logic and science. During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal pointed to a number of unsourced hairs found at the crime scene as proof of intruders. MacDonald advocates listed 19 hairs as being unidentified and were hopeful that the DNA test results conducted by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would strengthen their position. That didn't happen. In 2006, the DNA test results for hairs collected at the crime scene did not result in a single DNA match to a known intruder suspect. Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were the defense team's main intruder suspects, and their DNA profiles did not match a single exhibit. A limb hair found in Colette MacDonald's left hand was one of the keys to the defense team's position that Colette was killed by an intruder.

Greg Mitchell's name was even bandied about as being the probable donor of that limb hair. Prior to DNA technology, head hairs and pubic hairs were the only hairs that could be compared under a microscope, so this limb hair could not be sourced until 2006. The importance of this hair lay in the fact that a splinter from the club was also present in Colette's hand. To everyone involved, this indicated that the donor of the hair was also the wielder of the club that brutalized Colette. The test results demonstrated that the limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5, matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Body hairs found on the multi-colored bedspread and on top of Kristen's bed also matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th November 2020 at 02:31 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2020, 01:47 AM   #2060
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The test results demonstrated that the limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5, matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Body hairs found on the multi-colored bedspread and on top of Kristen's bed also matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I still think all this MacDonald case hair and fiber evidence is quite ludicrously unsatisfactory. It's all "Old Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads" so-called evidence.

The FBI hair and fiber man Malone, who was involved with the MacDonald case, has been described by one criminal defense attorney in another murder case as a total liar. I still believe Judge Fox was quite wrong in his judgement to dismiss out of hand the criticism of Malone and the FBI hair and fiber department in about 2014 by MacDonald lawyers, which had been well documented at the time. The 4th Circuit Court and even the Supreme Court should have put their foot down about all that.

There is a bit about Malone and the FBI hair and fiber department at this website. It's people like Malone and Murtagh and Stombaugh who who have wrongly kept MacDonald in prison for the rest of his life. It's a serious matter for him:

https://nypost.com/2014/07/21/discre...r-years-later/

"Although he was never disciplined and got to retire with a pension, Malone’s criminal forensics work has come under heavy scrutiny by investigators – including his involvement in a case that sent former DC resident Donald Gates to prison for 28 years for a murder he didn’t commit.

“Malone’s faulty analysis and scientifically unsupportable testimony contributed to the conviction of an innocent defendant” and at least five other convictions that were later reversed, the IG wrote in its report, released last week.

Malone testified at trial that one of Gates’ hairs scientifically matched one found on the body of Georgetown University student Catherine Schilling, 21. DNA evidence later proved him to be wrong.

His testimony before a judicial inquiry of Florida federal Judge Alcee Hastings was also found to be off base. Malone testified that he conducted a “tensile” test on a piece of evidence – a purse strap. It was later revealed he didn’t do the test.

Independent scientists found 96 percent of Malone’s caseload to be “problematic” for reasons such as making statements that “had no scientific basis.” Contrary to normal standards, Malone produced lab notes that were “in pencil and not dated.”

The prior IG investigation found Malone testified “outside his expertise and inaccurately” and cited him for misconduct.

Malone denied any wrongdoing."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th November 2020 at 01:50 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 27th November 2020, 03:15 AM   #2061
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
It's technically possible for CID agent Bill Ivory to have been involved in the MacDonald murders. MacDonald blames Ivory for jumping to conclusions and ignoring Mitchell and Stoeckley and for Ivory being scared. Ivory was young and inexperienced, but there may be more to it than that.

Detective Beasley honestly thought Ivory was involved in a drugs cover up with a local corrupt policeman. Ivory was far too friendly with Helena Stoeckley for my liking. I was interested to read in Medlin's testimony that Bill Ivory's fingerprints were on the Esquire magazine, though there may be an innocent explanation for that. Ivory refused to investigate when Mrs. Garcia presented him with those bloody clothes and boots which is either stupid and negligent, or suspicious. Ken Adachi quotes what MacDonald thought about all this at this website:

http://educate-yourself.lege.net/cn/...july2000.shtml

"In the late 1990s we learned the full, sour truth of the government’s deception. There are now upwards of 40 witnesses who placed Stoeckley and her boyfriend, Greg Mitchell (an ex-82nd Airborne trooper and heroin addict), and their accomplices in the vicinity of my home on the murder morning. Some of the assailants were even seen in bloody clothing and boots shortly after the murders in a Bragg Boulevard doughnut shop; and later that morning in a Murchison Road grocery store. Several other persons, including Greg Mitchell’s own niece, heard him confess soulfully to taking part in the murders.

Helena Stoeckley (who died in January 1983) was the daughter of a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a drug user, and drug dealer. William Ivory, the lead CID investigator, was closely acquainted with her. (Read Fatal Justice, co-authored by Jerry Allen Potter and retired SF Sergeant Major Fred Bost. W.W. Norton, 1995, hardcover; 1997, updated paperback).

Potter located an ex-CID agent who had been a former partner of Bill Ivory at the time of the murders. The ex-agent told Potter of how investigators from the very beginning were talking about Helena Stoeckley possibly being involved; of how he and Ivory sought out Stoeckley and took her to a safehouse for questioning, and how Ivory questioned her alone, just two days after the murders, the results of which have never been disclosed.

Witnesses heard Stoeckley tell of wearing a blonde wig that night, and of being worried the rain would ruin it. Twenty-two-inch and 24-inch synthetic blonde wig fibers were found in a hairbrush at the murder scene, their existence kept hidden. Long-suppressed CID lab notes now confirm the presence of black wool fibers on Colette’s mouth, her shoulder, and on a splintered club used as one of the murder weapons. No one in my family was wearing black wool; no matching black wool was found in my quarters.

A hair, dissimilar to my hair, was found clutched in Colette’s hand along with a splinter from the club. Even more important, hairs were found under the bloody fingernails of my daughters. The CID tried to match these hairs to me; when that failed, they promptly hid the hairs’ existence."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th November 2020 at 03:24 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 27th November 2020, 08:40 AM   #2062
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
39 Years And Counting

HENRI: You can rinse and repeat until the cows come home, but in the spring of next year, MacDonald will be celebrating his 40th year as an inmate in a federal correctional facility.

https://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 27th November 2020, 09:32 AM   #2063
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: You can rinse and repeat until the cows come home, but in the spring of next year, MacDonald will be celebrating his 40th year as an inmate in a federal correctional facility.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Well I think it's a public scandal. It's the sort of thing you hear about happening in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Hong Kong, not in the land of the free. It's bad judges and corruption and because a jury is very likely to be wrong.

I think it's a pity that Colonel Kriwanek of the Army CID was never properly investigated as well about the MacDonald murders, like Bill Ivory. He was supposed to be the senior officer in charge of the investigation and he later talked a lot of blah blah about the murder weapons trying to incriminate MacDonald besides tramping all over the crime scene.

It later turned out that Colonel Kriwanek's daughter was mixed up with the Stoeckley gang. She might even have been involved in the MacDonald murders. I have a feeling she sometimes even used to post years ago sometimes on MacDonald internet forums against MacDonald. This conflict of interest should have been declared by Colonel Kriwanek. My own personal opinion is that Greg Mitchell and Mazerolle, the man with the good fake prison alibi, did the murders but this is an interesting opinion by Logan about Kriwanek from 1999:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.true...m/3fHDRoqVo_cJ

"We believe that she and one other person killed the children. The other
person may have been Pam Kriwanek, but we obviously have no proof of that.
The proof, however, may have been there and is still waiting to be revealed."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th November 2020 at 09:38 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2020, 02:15 PM   #2064
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Psychopath's Luck

HENRI: Inmate was extremely fortunate to have had 9 years to bask in the California sun, while his wife and two daughters were rotting at a Long Island gravesite. His luck ran out in August 1979, and he his currently paying the piper for his horrific acts.

https://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 28th November 2020, 10:18 AM   #2065
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: Inmate was extremely fortunate to have had 9 years to bask in the California sun, while his wife and two daughters were rotting at a Long Island gravesite. His luck ran out in August 1979, and he his currently paying the piper for his horrific acts.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I am only trying to suggest improvements. It can't be right for the judges in the MacDonald case to be corrupt and for them to get away with it. Besides being most unfair on MacDonald himself I think it's dangerous when every kind of corruption and abuse becomes rife.

Theoretically there is always a chance of appeal in criminal cases. Practically, it is impossible for the poor, owing not only to the expense but to the technical difficulties involved. It is obvious that the present state of things is wrong and the corrupt judges in the MacDonald case are not much help.

There is a bit about corrupt judges like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox and Judge King in the MacDonald case at this website:

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

"Judicial corruption is invisible to citizens, because lawyers are trained and motivated to deny and cannot safely speak of it, because mass media corporations agree with judicial prejudice and live in fear of judicial whims, because non-lawyers cannot obtain the facts without prohibitive cost and effort, and because the infantile myth of judicial salvation has broad appeal and is propagated as an opiate by the mass media. Judicial corruption is discovered by those of its victims willing to do years of tedious research, and only they will speak of it.

Lawyers do not speak against judges, on whom they depend for income stability and success, and often aspire to be judges. They do not criticize law practice and precedent, which they are selected and trained to accept regardless of validity, and which they could not otherwise use successfully. The mass media are silent because they and their advertisers are big businesses in agreement with judicial prejudice, advised by lawyers, and dependent upon judicial whim for protection from libel suits. They do not investigate judicial corruption."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th November 2020 at 10:21 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 29th November 2020, 02:50 AM   #2066
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I am only trying to suggest improvements. It can't be right for the judges in the MacDonald case to be corrupt and for them to get away with it. Besides being most unfair on MacDonald himself I think it's dangerous when every kind of corruption and abuse becomes rife.

Theoretically there is always a chance of appeal in criminal cases. Practically, it is impossible for the poor, owing not only to the expense but to the technical difficulties involved. It is obvious that the present state of things is wrong and the corrupt judges in the MacDonald case are not much help.

There is a bit about corrupt judges like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox and Judge King in the MacDonald case at this website:

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

"Judicial corruption is invisible to citizens, because lawyers are trained and motivated to deny and cannot safely speak of it, because mass media corporations agree with judicial prejudice and live in fear of judicial whims, because non-lawyers cannot obtain the facts without prohibitive cost and effort, and because the infantile myth of judicial salvation has broad appeal and is propagated as an opiate by the mass media. Judicial corruption is discovered by those of its victims willing to do years of tedious research, and only they will speak of it.

Lawyers do not speak against judges, on whom they depend for income stability and success, and often aspire to be judges. They do not criticize law practice and precedent, which they are selected and trained to accept regardless of validity, and which they could not otherwise use successfully. The mass media are silent because they and their advertisers are big businesses in agreement with judicial prejudice, advised by lawyers, and dependent upon judicial whim for protection from libel suits. They do not investigate judicial corruption."
You're being disingenuous when you state that you're "only trying to suggest improvements" in regards to how this case was handled by law enforcement and the appellate courts. For the past 17 years, you've flat-out stated on multiple forums that MacDonald is a tortured innocent. You've also gone far beyond the claims leveled by MacDonald's defense team in that...

- You've named Cathy Perry as being an individual who witnessed and/or took part in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen.

- You continue to be a man on an island in regards to believing that Allen Mazzerolle was not in jail on 2/17/70, and that he took part in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen.

- You continue to be a man on an island in regards to believing that Bruce Fowler drove some of the mythical hippie home invaders to and from 544 Castle Drive.

- You have also accused Fowler of taking part in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen.

- You have accused Dwight Smith of being the mythical black male intruder who took part in the mythical assault of MacDonald in the living room.

- You've accused a number of CID, FBI, and DOJ staff members of deliberately altering, planting, or destroying evidence in this case.

For the past 17 years, you've brought nothing to the discussion table in regards to tangible evidence of these various claims. No sourced evidence linking any of your pet hippie home invaders has been included in any of your posts. You've not produced a single legal document that provides tangible proof of evidence being deliberately altered, planted, or destroyed. The essence of your posts indicates a concerted effort to cultivate a persona that derives pleasure from stirring the pot.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th November 2020 at 03:04 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 29th November 2020, 09:48 AM   #2067
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

- You've named Cathy Perry as being an individual who witnessed and/or took part in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen.

- You continue to be a man on an island in regards to believing that Allen Mazzerolle was not in jail on 2/17/70, and that he took part in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen.

- You continue to be a man on an island in regards to believing that Bruce Fowler drove some of the mythical hippie home invaders to and from 544 Castle Drive.

- You have also accused Fowler of taking part in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen.

- You have accused Dwight Smith of being the mythical black male intruder who took part in the mythical assault of MacDonald in the living room.

- You've accused a number of CID, FBI, and DOJ staff members of deliberately altering, planting, or destroying evidence in this case.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
For once I agree with JTF about a few things with regard to the MacDonald case. I still think it's suspicious that Mazerolle was due to appear in court at about the time of the MacDonald murders and he never turned up in court. Detective Beasley was convinced Mazerolle was out on bail and that he jumped bail and that Mazerolle had help with forging his documentation, and vanishing his documentation for the 1979 trial.

My own personal view has been that Bruce Fowler was mostly involved in driving that night connected to the MacDonald murders. Nobody I know of has actually accused Fowler of murder but I could be wrong about that.

Dwight Smith was considered a 'person of interest' along with the Fayetteville Observer former drug addict Pat Reese the day after the murders, and he had no alibi as he himself admitted, but the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation who suspected them, were then suddenly taken off the case by the Army CID.

I grew up thinking that the the police in America were 'tough cops' who used third degree methods and that the judges in America were a political bench lacking in independent judgement.

It wasn't until I started investigating the JonBenet Ramsey case and the MacDonald case, and even the Madeleine McCann case, that I began to realize they could also be corrupt as well. If I hear of the police 'surmising' one more time I'm afraid I'm rather going to lose my temper. I just hope that nobody on this forum ever gets accused of murder because they are not going to have much chance of ever clearing their name.

There is some background information to all this at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...onclusion.html

"That if the Army would give her immunity from prosecution, she would furnish the identity of those offenders who committed the murder and explain the circumstances surrounding the homicides.

During the interview on 23 April 1971, Miss STOECKLEY repeatedly acknowledged knowing the identity of the persons who committed the murders in question. However; on 24 April 1971, Miss STOECKLEY related that she had been incorrect in her statements, had "talked too much", and that she only suspected some people of committing the homicides.

At this time Miss STOECKLEY stated suspected Don HARRIS, a Caucasian male who told her after the homicide that he must leave Fayetteville, North Carolina as he could find an alibi for the time of the murder;

Bruce FOWLER, the owner of the blue Mustang automobile in which she (Miss STOECKLEY) was a passenger or driver on the night of the homicide; Janett FOWLER, the wife of Bruce FOWLER and was employed as a "Go-Go" dancer in Fayetteville, North Carolina at the time of the homicides;

Joe Kelly, a negro soldier who was assigned to a Medical Holding Detachment at Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg, North Carolina at the time of the homicides;

and a negro male she knew only as "Eddie", who introduced her (Miss STOECKLEY) to heroin. At one time during the pre-test interview on 24 April 1971, Miss STOECKLEY asserted that she had been lying when she admitted knowing who committed the homicides and stated that Cpt MacDONALD had killed his family. Further, that her rationale was based on the fact that four "hippies" could not have entered Cpt MacDONALD's home without being observed by neighbors or causing dogs to bark.

The examiner pointed out that the homicide was alleged to have occurred at about 0330 hours in the morning and it supposedly raining. Miss STOECKLEY immediately exclaimed that it had been drizzling rain during the night but that it did not start to rain hard until after the homicide. When the examiner inquires as to how she acquired this information, Miss STOECKLEY exclaimed "I have already said too much". Later during the interview Miss Stoeckley repeated her previous statement by saying she suspected "hippie type" individuals of the crime.

Based on a polygraph examination conducted on 24 April 1971, it is concluded that Miss STOECKLEY is convinced in her mind that she knows the identity of those person(s) who killed Collette, [sic] Kimberly, [sic] and Christine [sic] MacDONALD. It is further concluded that Miss STOECKLEY

page 3

in her mind is convinced that she was physically present when the three members of the MacDONALD family were killed."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th November 2020 at 09:59 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 29th November 2020, 04:47 PM   #2068
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Back To Basics Part Deux

In 1979, a North Carolina jury took less than 7 hours to convict Jeffrey MacDonald of murdering Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen MacDonald. They based their verdict on the mass of inculpatory evidence presented by the prosecution. This evidence included blood, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric/non fabric impression evidence. The evidence was so overwhelming that MacDonald was 0 for 8 in convincing the appellate courts to either overturn his conviction or to grant him a new trial. In 2006, DNA test results put the final nail in MacDonald's forensic coffin. The most damning DNA test result involved a broken, bloody 1 inch limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's left hand. From 1970-2005, MacDonald and his defense team argued that the most likely source of this limb hair was intruder suspect Greg Mitchell. The AFIP determined that this hair matched Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile. This proved that Jeffrey MacDonald was not simply guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilt beyond ALL doubt.

https://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 Yesterday, 01:57 AM   #2069
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In 2006, DNA test results put the final nail in MacDonald's forensic coffin. The most damning DNA test result involved a broken, bloody 1 inch limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's left hand. From 1970-2005, MacDonald and his defense team argued that the most likely source of this limb hair was intruder suspect Greg Mitchell. The AFIP determined that this hair matched Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile. This proved that Jeffrey MacDonald was not simply guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilt beyond ALL doubt.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I honestly think that hair in Colette's left hand is the biggest forensic fraud in the illustrious criminal career of hair and fiber FBI man Malone and his accomplice Murtagh.

MacDonald himself had said that Fort Gordon had stated categorically that the hair was dissimilar to MacDonald back in 1970. Either Fort Gordon was wrong then or Malone and Stombaugh were making it up, which is more likely with a FBI MacDonald hair substitution for the DNA test.

I had a bit to say about this matter on this forum back in 2013:

"For JTF to say that all the evidence was not in at the Article 32 is simply not true. The controversial Stombaugh of the FBI, whose forensic work has come into criticism for his work on the Warren Commission, then made up some theory without facts that Dr. MacDonald had supposedly stabbed Colette through the pajama top with an ice pick, and he had supposedly hit Colette with a hairbrush. The Army CID agent Shaw still falsely believed that Colette had murdered the two little girls. It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. The Grand Jury were fooled and conned. Doctors are not detectives.

There was a hair in Colette's left hand which miraculously became Dr. MacDonald's hair in 2006 after being unidentified since 1970. That was after the FBI had promised not to tamper with the forensic evidence in their possession. Malone of the FBI then pontificated later on that blonde synthetic hair-like fibers found at the crime scene came from a MacDonald doll with no proof to back that opinion up. Those fibers almost certainly came from Helena Stoeckley's wig. Malone is another controversial FBI lab figure who has been in trouble in other murder cases for his false testimony in the past."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 01:59 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 Yesterday, 03:28 AM   #2070
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I honestly think that hair in Colette's left hand is the biggest forensic fraud in the illustrious criminal career of hair and fiber FBI man Malone and his accomplice Murtagh.

MacDonald himself had said that Fort Gordon had stated categorically that the hair was dissimilar to MacDonald back in 1970. Either Fort Gordon was wrong then or Malone and Stombaugh were making it up, which is more likely with a FBI MacDonald hair substitution for the DNA test.

I had a bit to say about this matter on this forum back in 2013:

"For JTF to say that all the evidence was not in at the Article 32 is simply not true. The controversial Stombaugh of the FBI, whose forensic work has come into criticism for his work on the Warren Commission, then made up some theory without facts that Dr. MacDonald had supposedly stabbed Colette through the pajama top with an ice pick, and he had supposedly hit Colette with a hairbrush. The Army CID agent Shaw still falsely believed that Colette had murdered the two little girls. It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. The Grand Jury were fooled and conned. Doctors are not detectives.

There was a hair in Colette's left hand which miraculously became Dr. MacDonald's hair in 2006 after being unidentified since 1970. That was after the FBI had promised not to tamper with the forensic evidence in their possession. Malone of the FBI then pontificated later on that blonde synthetic hair-like fibers found at the crime scene came from a MacDonald doll with no proof to back that opinion up. Those fibers almost certainly came from Helena Stoeckley's wig. Malone is another controversial FBI lab figure who has been in trouble in other murder cases for his false testimony in the past."
There is no evidence that Malone and/or Murtagh committed "forensic fraud," and last time I checked, inmate has no training in microscopic hair comparisons. As has been pointed out to you on literally hundreds of occasions, the only hairs that are suitable for microscopic comparisons are head and pubic hairs. The hair that sealed the deal on MacDonald's guilt was a limb hair and limb hairs, body hairs, and hair fragments cannot be compared under a microscope. DNA technology took care of that forensic hurdle, and that broken, bloody limb hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Case closed.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 03:33 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:22 AM   #2071
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I just think it's hopelessly corrupt. It's Irish justice. I don't think the innocent should be convicted or the guilty acquitted. It's like talking about ending the war on pickpocketing and arson. Forensic fraud, or even forensic incompetency, is a serious matter.

There is a bit about all this at this website which makes sense to me:

https://koehlerlaw.net/2010/05/on-mi...acdonald-case/

"But I really don’t know what to believe. The problem is, until the government can take the necessary steps to prevent abuses like the Michael P. Malone cases, we can never know what to believe. Any confidence we might have had in the government’s ability to sort through these same facts and arrive at the right solution through the judicial system is completely belied by the government’s handling of the Michael P. Malone case.

Multiple prosecutors, both federal and state, called Michael Malone to the stand to testify for the government in numerous cases when they either knew or should have known that the testimony he was about to deliver was false. Multiple supervisors within Malone’s chain of command at the FBI refused to take corrective action when alerted to repeated instances of Malone’s perjury. Malone was relieved of his forensic responsibilities in 1997 and retired in 1999, and while the government claims it is now investigating him and other analysts against whom similar accusations have been leveled, Malone has never, as far as I know, been disciplined or sued. And, in many cases, Justice officials waited for years (13 years in the Donald Gates case) to notify defense counsel of the Malone abuses."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 09:26 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 Yesterday, 09:39 AM   #2072
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
There are some interesting comments with regard to that website about Malone which I just quoted:

https://koehlerlaw.net/2010/05/on-mi...acdonald-case/

"Frederic Whitehurst
November 10, 2010
To determine the truth behind Malone’s position on the saran fibers you might want to talk to an individual named Lucia Bartolli, a friend of Jeffrey McDonald, who talked to me years ago about Malone’s connection with the saran fibers. Lucia knew nothing about such fibers but while investigating the issue found that Malone had approached individuals in the saran fiber industry who told Malone that such fibers were actually found in wigs and Malone had ignored their information. I am sure that Kathryn McDonald could tell you how to reach Lucia Bartolli out in California.

jamison
November 10, 2010
Mr. Whitehurst: I am very familiar with your name. It is an honor to have you commenting on this site."
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 Yesterday, 10:17 AM   #2073
Spiff
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1
[I'm new to this site, and thanks for having me!]

I've read fairly extensively on this case, and I'm glad I found this forum. It's beyond obvious to me that MacDonald is guilty, and I'm at least pleased that over time, it seems as though more and more people have accepted this, and there are fewer and fewer who think he is innocent.

There is one comment that is taken as gospel by some that just drives me nuts. And that is the supposition that if MacDonald would just confess to a parole board, than he would be immediately released. Here is a blurb from the podcast Morally Indefensible, episode 8. The speaker is Janet Malcolm:

"I was very surprised to learn that you could be out on parole and have chosen to remain in prison to establish your innocence. This seems unprecedented and should be better known. It has made a great impression on me."

This comment is astonishing to me on several levels. First and foremost, it's patently untrue. After 50 years of dragging this case through the courts, if MacDonald just announced "yeah know, now that you mention it, I have to admit, I did kill my wife, two daughters and unborn son, can I go home now" that he'd just waltz out the door. There is no way at all he'd be set free. He knows it and his lawyers know it. And I have a difficult time believing that Janet Malcolm doesn't know it too.

But I hear similar comment made, to support the notion that MacDonald is not only innocent, but that he's a bastion of principal, courage and honor due to his "stand" and it drives me mad.

Last edited by Spiff; Yesterday at 10:19 AM.
Spiff 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 Yesterday, 03:45 PM   #2074
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
[I'm new to this site, and thanks for having me!]

I've read fairly extensively on this case, and I'm glad I found this forum. It's beyond obvious to me that MacDonald is guilty, and I'm at least pleased that over time, it seems as though more and more people have accepted this, and there are fewer and fewer who think he is innocent.

There is one comment that is taken as gospel by some that just drives me nuts. And that is the supposition that if MacDonald would just confess to a parole board, than he would be immediately released. Here is a blurb from the podcast Morally Indefensible, episode 8. The speaker is Janet Malcolm:

"I was very surprised to learn that you could be out on parole and have chosen to remain in prison to establish your innocence. This seems unprecedented and should be better known. It has made a great impression on me."

This comment is astonishing to me on several levels. First and foremost, it's patently untrue. After 50 years of dragging this case through the courts, if MacDonald just announced "yeah know, now that you mention it, I have to admit, I did kill my wife, two daughters and unborn son, can I go home now" that he'd just waltz out the door. There is no way at all he'd be set free. He knows it and his lawyers know it. And I have a difficult time believing that Janet Malcolm doesn't know it too.

But I hear similar comment made, to support the notion that MacDonald is not only innocent, but that he's a bastion of principal, courage and honor due to his "stand" and it drives me mad.
Welcome to the forum. The result of the 2012 evidentiary hearing basically weeded out what was left of MacDonald's core supporters. That hearing was MacDonald's 8th and last real chance at garnering a new trial, yet his defense team brought a plastic knife to an evidentiary gunfight. They didn't produce a single expert witness to combat the mass of evidence (e.g., DNA, fibers, blood, bloody fabric impressions, fabric damage, bloody footprints) that proved beyond ALL doubt that MacDonald is a mass murderer. It was clear to anyone who followed or was directly involved in this case that presenting 2nd/3rd hand hearsay testimony and unsourced household debris was not going to move the needle. The burden of proof was on MacDonald, and his defense team fell far short of meeting that burden.

In terms of Malcolm's comments, her knowledge of the parole system and MacDonald's attempt at parole in 2005, are slim and Slim left town. At the 2005 parole hearing, Brian Murtagh shredded MacDonald's attempt at an end run around parole protocol by seeking a pardon. The parole board not only denied MacDonald's parole request, they ruled that he could not apply for parole again until 2020. Well, MacDonald did not apply for parole in 2020, but his new ruse was to file for a compassionate release. This application was based on MacDonald's claim that he has multiple medical issues which could have dire consequences in the near future. I would highly recommend that you read Fatal Vision's 1989 epilogue. Joe McGinniss does a wonderful job of calling Janet Malcolm out for her inability to view this case with a critical eye.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 03:55 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:05 PM   #2075
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,787
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
[I'm new to this site, and thanks for having me!]

I've read fairly extensively on this case, and I'm glad I found this forum. It's beyond obvious to me that MacDonald is guilty, and I'm at least pleased that over time, it seems as though more and more people have accepted this, and there are fewer and fewer who think he is innocent.

There is one comment that is taken as gospel by some that just drives me nuts. And that is the supposition that if MacDonald would just confess to a parole board, than he would be immediately released.

But I hear similar comment made, to support the notion that MacDonald is not only innocent, but that he's a bastion of principal, courage and honor due to his "stand" and it drives me mad.
It's very wrong judgement to convict the wrong man for murder. You decide according to the evidence, not according to emotion, or whether you are going nuts, or whether the opinion polls and mass media think somebody is guilty. The jury in the MacDonald case was very likely to be wrong. The judges were wrong, apart perhaps from three Supreme Court judges in about 1982. You don't convict on false evidence. Most of the MacDonald case prosecutors seem to have ended up in jail on fraud charges, apart perhaps from Murtagh who should have been charged with contempt of court and obstruction of justice and coaching in the Lockerbie case.

As I understand it MacDonald would have to state remorse if he was ever to get parole, as well as admitting guilt which he quite rightly refuses to do.

That 2005 parole hearing seemed to be dominated by Colette's brother Bob Stevenson, the man who agrees with the Army CID that his sister murdered one of the two little girls and that his sister hit MacDonald with a hairbrush according to Stombaugh, as well as she being hit with a hairbrush in return by MacDonald in a violent argument! It's ridiculous and Bob Stevenson should pull his socks up.

There is a bit about this sort of thing at this website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22912075

"In the US, once someone has been sent to prison on a life sentence, it's hard for him or her to get out."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 04:21 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.