|
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. |
16th November 2018, 02:53 AM | #721 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There are irregularities in that. Colette struck Macdonald with a piece of rock from outer space, not a hairbrush. MacDonald was then about to be taken by alien abduction and the children then committed suicide. It's like having it explained exactly what happened by a thick Irishman, or shady layer, or an amateur lawyer. You sound like Shaw or Kearns with their theories without facts about the MacDonald case.
|
16th November 2018, 05:38 AM | #722 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No, he is not. IN FACT he is a cowardly, vicious, sociopathic ba$tard that slaughtered his family and then tried to blame somebody else. Despite the overwhelming evidence that he indeed butchered his family he still cries and whines about his fate that he earned. Luckily there are not that many people who buy into his phoney baloney.
No, in fact it is NOT easy to murder someone and make it look as if a different person was responsible (unless 1st look counts) because the forensic evidence doesn't lie and that includes the DNA that proved AGAIN that inmate slaughtered his family. stamping your feet and throwing a temper tantrum because we all know better is a waste of time. Pretty damn smart 10 year olds! The murders are investigated. Your problem is that you don't want to believe your sweetheart inmate is guilty. the FACTS have proven it again and again. |
17th November 2018, 03:36 AM | #723 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's ridiculous indignation. The job of a jury and judge in a fair trial is to make sure that the innocent are not convicted and that the guilty do not go free. I agree that judges are human, but they must not have corrupt bias as in the MacDonald case. I also agree that juries can be useful in helping judges come to a right judgment in a criminal trial, though many civil cases may be too complex and technical for an average jury. Prosecutors must not be legal tricksters, like Murtagh and Blackburn, and they must not fabricate and manufacture and withhold the forensic evidence like the Army CID lab and the FBI lab.
I also agree that the defense must not present false evidence and false testimony as well, and that the defense must also abide by the rules of evidence and procedure. That's only fair on the police and the victims. The defense in the MacDonald case followed the rules and regulations. There is a bit about this sort of thing in that English Justice book published in 1932 by a police court solicitor:
Quote:
|
17th November 2018, 07:19 AM | #724 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
These Questions Three
HENRIETTA: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Speaking of evidentiary items, I have a few questions for ya. Considering that Colette's blood was found spattered on Kristen's wall, on top of Kristen's bed near the wall, formed the three bloody footprints found exiting Kristen's room, and formed bloody fabric impressions on the blue bedsheet...
QUESTION #1 Was Colette assaulted in Kristen's room and carried back to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet? QUESTION #2 If you answered yes to Question #1, who was the individual that carried Colette in the blue bedsheet? QUESTION #3 If your answer is someone other than Jeffrey MacDonald, what piece or pieces of evidence links that individual to Colette's bloody pajamas and/or the bloody bedsheet? http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
17th November 2018, 09:48 AM | #725 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I can't copy what Shaw had to say about this matter at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 because the Jeffrey MacDonald information website is now out of action. It seemed to boil down to the fact that Shaw didn't know. The most logical explanation from my point of view is what Helena Stoeckley was supposed to have said once that for some reason Kris and Colette were together in the master bedroom when they were murdered by Mitchell and Mazerolle and that Kris was then carried to her own bedroom dead which caused contamination with Colette's blood.
Shaw testified he didn't think Kris left her bed but he didn't know and it was conjecture. The point is that there is no real evidence that MacDonald knew what happened or that he carried any bodies anywhere. Shaw was cross-examined about the matter if you scroll down towards the end: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...rt32_shaw.html |
17th November 2018, 04:36 PM | #726 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
MacFantasy Island
HENRIETTA: So, you can't or won't answer any of the questions. Got it.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
18th November 2018, 03:35 AM | #727 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The answer to your question 1 is "no". I don't believe Colette was assaulted in Kristen's bedroom. That's just guesswork and pure speculation. The problem is the blood contamination involved, but nobody can be certain that Kristen never left her bed as Shaw seemed to be at the Article 32 proceeding. Anybody who knows for certain is now dead, like Mitchell and Stoeckley and Cathy Perry or they are categorically denying they were involved like Mazerolle and Don Harris and Dwight Smith. The clothing they were wearing that night should have immediately been seized to search for bloodstains before it was lost forever.
There is a sensible website at: http://whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thr...ngly-convicted
Quote:
|
18th November 2018, 08:17 AM | #728 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Alone On MacFantasy Island
HENRIETTA: I didn't think you could top yourself, but I was wrong. I get that you and other MacDonald advocates have the impossible task of providing a non-inculpatory explanation for the presence of Colette's blood in Kristen's room. You, however, are the ONLY advocate to ever postulate that Colette was not assaulted in Kristen's room. I'll be a nice guy and not produce a list of the evidence found in Kristen's room. Why? Well, because producing such a list would prove that you enjoy being the lone contrarian and/or you have a fixed delusion.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
18th November 2018, 09:29 AM | #729 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It's not just me who thinks there is a logical explanation for the blood types in Kristen's bedroom . The Army CID had a wild and wonderful theory without facts that Colette murdered one of the little girls and then MacDonald somehow moved bodies to their resting place. It's pathetic. Colonel Rock explained the matter after the Article 32 proceeding in 1970, and he had right judgment:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...rt32_rock.html
Quote:
|
18th November 2018, 06:25 PM | #730 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Sticking Your Chin Out
HENRIETTA: It appears that you are bound and determined to stick your chin out. My philosophy is that once you stick your chin out, you're going to get hit.
Colette's Type B blood •Two direct bleeding stains found on top of Kristen's bed •Blood spatter found on Kristen's wall next to her bed •Formation of Jeffrey MacDonald's left footprint found exiting Kristen's room The only salient explanation for the two direct bleeding stains was Colette being in a sitting position near the left hand corner of Kristen's bed. Colette's slumped head bled out and deposited the two stains on Kristen's top sheet. Analysis of the blood spatter pattern on Kristen's wall indicates that the wielder of the club was swinging the weapon in a downward motion. Analysis of the bloody footprints found exiting Kristen's room indicates that the source of the footprints was carrying something heavy. Again, by ignoring this concrete evidence, your posts point to you having a fixed delusion and/or embracing the role of the lone contrarian. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
19th November 2018, 05:57 AM | #731 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
he had it coming
JTF henrietta must have gotten you all turned around because Colette's blood type is Type A and the stains you mentioned were all in Type A blood. ALL OF THESE STAINS WERE IN COLETTE'S TYPE A BLOOD EXACTLY Scientifically correct...... Again, scientifically correct..... he either ignores the truth or he is determined to be the biggest troll on the forums.... |
19th November 2018, 06:06 AM | #732 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
I am not at all sure what you mean by this comment.....I am not sure you understand either word, personally....
Yes, and in this case that is EXACTLY what happened. The guilty bastard was convicted and he did not go free. Well, isn't that interesting. Since there WAS NO BIAS it certainly couldn't have been "corrupt"..... How nice of you to accept the premises of our justice systems. neither Murtagh or Blackburn were "legal tricksters" and while I KNOW you don't want to hear it but Murtagh is one damned good lawyer and he knocked Mr. Bernie "arrogant histrionic" Segal down a peg or two and he saw right through the lying sack of ***** - inmate. Well then it is a GOOD THING that they did not manufacture nor withhold evidence. Too bad Bernie Segal apparently didn't agree and that is why he pushed a poor addict over and over showing her crime scene Wade Smith followed the rules and regulations....I think there is a good argument showing that Bernie Segal did not follow them to the letter of the law. |
20th November 2018, 01:05 AM | #733 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Liar
Testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing proved that Bernie Segal would not hesitate to commit perjury in a Court of Law. At trial, Segal told Judge Dupree that Stoeckley implicated herself during the defense interview, but Wade Smith testified at the evidentiary hearing that Stoeckley did no such thing. His testimony on this issue was echoed by Joe McGinniss.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th November 2018, 04:43 AM | #734 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Wade Smith is too much of a pal with the convicted and imprisoned fraudster prosecutor Blackburn for my liking. He is supposed to play golf with him. It could be that Wade Smith is no longer supporting Segal and the defense side now that Segal is dead and their business relationship has ended. It's a bit like the absolute judicial corruption in North Carolina with both Judge Dupree and Judge Fox being in bed with the prosecution.
Segal could not prove Stoeckley was involved because she categorically denied it in court. She told a different story to her own lawyer and at least six other witnesses at the time. This is a newspaper report about the matter: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-continue.html
Quote:
|
20th November 2018, 09:37 AM | #735 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Colette's blood in the Kristen bedroom proves absolutely nothing. It's strained logic. The footprints are the biggest load of crap of all. MacDonald never denied it was his footprints. He went into the Kristen room and exited it to see if she was still alive. This is the prosecution OPINION about the matter and it's pure conjecture to put a man in prison for the rest of his life:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...pa32-shaw.html
Quote:
|
20th November 2018, 10:04 AM | #736 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I still think Wade Smith is too close for comfort to the crooked MacDonald prosecutor Blackburn. To my mind it's a conflict of interest which is unfair on MacDonald, but perhaps not for Blackburn, and it can undermine MacDonald's defense advocacy in the court of public opinion. MacDonald's only hope now seems to be the tax deductible (as far as I know) MacDonald Defense Fund to pay for his legal fees, and some real private homicide investigators, and then hope that there is an impartial judge on the case when the veteran biased Judge Fox dies. Fox is well into his eighties now:
https://www.superlawyers.com/north-c...fb9e1c7be.html
Quote:
|
20th November 2018, 10:26 AM | #737 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
The Answer Is...Contrarian With A Hint of Madness
Henrietta: The following evidence "proves absolutely nothing."
Type A blood (e.g., Colette's blood type) found in Kristen's room. •Two direct bleeding stains found on top of Kristen's bed •Blood spatter found on Kristen's wall next to her bed •Formation of Jeffrey MacDonald's left footprint found exiting Kristen's room Is that your final answer? If so, your thought process indicates you're a contrarian with a hint of madness. It seems that in your world, one can derive satisfaction from being the ONLY individual who has taken the stance that Colette wasn't severely beaten in Kristen's room. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
21st November 2018, 03:54 AM | #738 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I agree it is confusing but the point is that there isn't a shred of evidence that MacDonald transported any bodies anywhere, if in fact they were transported. From what I can make out Ivory and Grebner contradicted each other at the Article 32 proceeding:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...2-grebner.html
Quote:
|
21st November 2018, 05:17 AM | #739 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Colette's Type A blood in Kristen's room PROVES A LOT OF THINGS. For example it proves that Colette was IN Kristen's bedroom. Other things it proves are:
(1) Colette was beaten with the club in Kristen's room (2) Colette was ON Kristen's bed (3) Colette DID NOT/COULD NOT have exited Kristen's room under her own power. (4) The MB sheet and spread were used to prepare Colette for transfer back to the master bedroom and FOR the actual transfer of Colette back to the master bedroom. (5) It absolutely proves that inmate killed Colette. |
21st November 2018, 07:50 AM | #740 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Type A Blood On The Bedding
HENRIETTA: Who exactly are you speaking to when you state that the Type A blood found in Kristen's room is "confusing?" In the real world, this evidence tells a simple, but brutal story. Inmate battered Colette with the club in Kristen's room, he used the multi-colored bedspread to shield Kristen's floor from Colette's bleeding body, and he used the blue bedsheet to transport Colette from Kristen's bedroom to the master bedroom.
Not only are bloody cuff impressions from the pajama sleeves of BOTH Colette and inmate found on the bedsheet, 26 of the 28 blood stains found on the bedsheet were formed in the Type A blood of Colette. Many of the stains were massive, direct bleeding stains. The other two blood stains were Type AB, the same blood type as Kimberley MacDonald. The multi-colored bedspread also contained several massive, Type A direct bleeding stains. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
21st November 2018, 09:53 AM | #741 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is an interesting website about the disagreements with regard to the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers by an expert which I have not seen before at:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._frishman.html |
21st November 2018, 10:11 AM | #742 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It does not absolutely prove that inmate killed Colette. That's just a theory and opinion about what could have happened, like the quite ludicrously unsatisfactory Army CID theory without facts that Colette murdered one of the little girls first.
Personally, my own opinion is that the two little girls may have run to Colette in the master bedroom when the alarm and commotion was raised. After they were all murdered Mazerolle and Mitchell, and perhaps the other real culprits, staged for Kim and Kris to be in their own bedrooms with all that stuff about Kris being found with a baby bottle. The prosecution never proved that MacDonald moved any bodies anywhere. Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to discuss fabric impressions and bloodstains and fabric damage in court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. He was making it up. The matter is discussed at this website: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1...case_of_dr.pdf
Quote:
|
21st November 2018, 11:16 AM | #743 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes, it does absolutely prove it. Blood splatter is as good as an eyewitness. They can tell where the body was and directionality of the weapon swing PLUS hippies or any other invader would have left the bodies where they fell. Thus, Kimmie would have been in the master bedroom on the floor and Colette would have been found on top of Kristen in her bed.
no, sorry henri it is FACT. FIRM SCIENTIFICALLY BASED FACT. It was not a CID theory. 1 Agent thought, very very very early in the process that it MIGHT repeat MIGHT have been a plausible scenario, but that scenario was deemed implausible very early in the investigation. Well, your personal opinion is not possible. First, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Kristen ever left her bed. Second, Kimberley was a timid child and would not have gone towards commotion. Third, Kimberley was in the master bedroom because she had fallen asleep in the bed and wet the bed (her urine was found on the master bed....well, either hers or Colette's and there was no evidence that Colette evacuated her bladder). Fourth if Kristen had gone into the MB there would have been no reason for Colette to go to her room to check on her and it is FACT that Colette did go into Kristen's room where she was severely beaten and landed on top of Kristen. Well that is again impossible since neither Mazerolle or Mitchell were inside 544 Castle Drive. IF any intruders had been in that apartment the bodies would have been found where the dropped and NOT in their own rooms. It is not "stuff" that a baby bottle was found near Kristen's face/mouth there are photos showing as much....the REAL CULPRIT was inmate. Read up on criminal profiling....inmate did it we all know he did it he was convicted the evidence proves it. Yes, they did.....the blue bedsheet had both Colette's pj cuffs and inmate's pj cuffs....only way that would happen, inmate lifted Colette in the bedsheet to take her back to the MB. Any profiler would tell you that strangers would leave the bodies where they dropped....that the bodies were moved is further proof of inmate's guilt. period. Yes, Stombaugh WAS QUALIFIED as an expert. Judge Dupree accepted him as an expert and thus he testified as an expert. Since defense Expert Thorton agreed with most of Stombaugh's fabric impression, bloodstain, fabric damage analysis why do you refuse to accept it? Just because you don't LIKE the facts of this case because the FACTS show that your man crush is guilty doesn't mean they don't exist. |
21st November 2018, 03:28 PM | #744 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Quitter
HENRIETTA: Can't stand the heat, eh? At least your approach to being cornered by the evidence has been consistent in the past 15 years. Changing the subject and refusing to provide a salient rebuttal to the issue or issues at hand is your bread and butter move. Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
22nd November 2018, 04:03 AM | #745 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Both Shaw and Kearns said publicly that they thought Colette murdered one of the little girls first. The rest of the CID never publicly disagreed with that. I don't know what Colette's brother Bob Stevenson thinks about that theory. He probably doesn't know about it.
I still think my own theory could be plausible that the two little girls may have run to the master bedroom, and to Mom, when they heard her screaming, where they were all murdered by Mazerolle and Mitchell, and perhaps some of the rest of them. The two little girls would then have been moved back to their own bedrooms by the real culprits which might explain the blood contamination with Colette's blood. The FBI and Stombaugh and Shirley Green twisted the facts with piffle about things like footprints to suit their own theory that MacDonald may have moved bodies and that Colette was supposed to have been murdered in Kristen's bedroom. The Army CID could not detect shoplifting or burglary let alone a difficult murder. They were very inexperienced. The clothing of the real culprits would have been bloodstained. Ivory explained his theory without facts at this website: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html
Quote:
|
22nd November 2018, 09:44 AM | #746 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Thanks
HENRIETTA: Thanks for providing an example of why William Ivory was inducted into the CID Hall of Fame. Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett were so impressed with Ivory's investigative abilities that they asked him to join their reinvestigation team. The results of the CID's reinvestigation was a major factor in the Ice Pick Baby Killer having to clean prison toilets for the rest of his life.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
22nd November 2018, 09:47 AM | #747 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald was convicted on opinion. Evidence? It's Arab justice, or Russian justice. You will never catch the Stoeckley Seven if you don't bother to investigate them. The matter is discussed at this website by a Fayetteville Observer reporter, with some silly remarks from JTF at the bottom of the page:
http://insidestoryobs.blogspot.com/2...-his-1979.html
Quote:
|
22nd November 2018, 11:54 AM | #748 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Open And Shut
HENRIETTA: You state that the following remarks are silly, yet you are unwilling and/or unable to construct a rebuttal in your bizarre (e.g., Arab justice) post.
Philip said... Rick, this is a case of concrete data vs supposition. At trial, the prosecution presented 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. All of the SOURCED evidence in this case points to MacDonald as the perp. This includes DNA, blood, fiber, hair, bloody footprints, fabric damage, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions. There is also no evidence of Helena Stoeckley's presence at the crime scene. No DNA, no hairs, no fingerprints, nothing. Jeffrey MacDonald is not a tortured innocent. He is a coward, a psychopath, and a convicted mass murderer. November 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM |
22nd November 2018, 01:29 PM | #749 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
CID Hall Of Famers
Three members of the CID Hall of Fame played a major role in the eventual conviction of the Ice Pick Baby Killer.
William Ivory: CID Duty Investigator, lead agent in the original investigation, and a member of the CID reinvestigation team. Jack Pruett: Colonel Pruett was the CID's Director of Internal Affairs and the supervisor of the CID reinvestigation from 1970-1972. Robert Brisentine: Lead polygraph examiner for the CID. He conducted exams on Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, Janice Fowler, and William Posey. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
23rd November 2018, 04:35 AM | #750 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Ivory was a bad cop.
There were reasonable doubts about the MacDonald verdict besides the foreman of the jury saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial started. This an opinion from the internet which I have previously posted on this forum:
Quote:
|
23rd November 2018, 09:48 AM | #751 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I don't know much about Pruett except that he accompanied Kearns to New York to turn Kassab against MacDonald by saying MacDonald had been seeing other women. In the reinvestigation there is a long and boring interview with Segal, along with MacDonald, in which Pruett was involved in the questioning.
Brisentine was one of the six witnesses who provided evidence against Stoeckley in secret session at the trial with his voodoo polygraph information, which often clears the guilty and sometimes accuses the innocent. It is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence but Brisentine was suspicious of Stoeckley. Ivory was very young and inexperienced. It was his first murder case. The matter is explained at this website: https://www.crimetraveller.org/2017/...e-of-the-case/
Quote:
|
23rd November 2018, 12:13 PM | #752 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Lone Resident On MacFantasy Island
HENRIETTA: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to member of the Stoeckley Seven. Speaking of evidentiary items, the use of red herrings and other non-evidentiary arguments has never put a dent in the mass of inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction. The 2012 evidentiary hearing was the epitome of a legal butt kicking and the inculpatory evidence presented at that hearing is the main reason why inmate remains in prison.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
23rd November 2018, 07:45 PM | #753 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Good at murdering innocent defenseless victims and lying his ass off.
Other than that... My personal opinion? I don't wish the man any ill will, But if he could be transferred to the facility where Whitey Bulger died of natural causes that would be a step in the right direction. |
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
24th November 2018, 03:30 AM | #754 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald needed an impartial judge and an excellent court at that 2012 evidentiary hearing. Somebody with a strong personality.There was some interesting new information about Stoeckley's confidential confession to her lawyer, Leonard, when she was alive and another confession from Mitchell when he was alive which had not previously been disclosed. There is an interesting posting on another MacDonald forum about the matter with which I agree, and some more silly remarks and comments and violent prejudice about it from JTF:
http://earonsgsk.proboards.com/threa...-xiulan?page=2
Quote:
|
24th November 2018, 03:44 AM | #755 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald lawyer. Harvey Silverglate, wrote some sense about that 2012 evidentiary hearing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveys.../#6300c09c4e3e
Quote:
|
24th November 2018, 12:46 PM | #756 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Sour Grapes And A Failure To Meet The Daunting Burden
HENRIETTA: Silverglate's commentary is simply a case of sour grapes. He got his butt kicked 3 consecutive times (e.g., Judge Dupree in 1989, 4th Circuit Court in 1992 and 1998), so his opinions on the 2012 evidentiary hearing are worthless. The two of you are kindred spirits in regards to burying your heads in the sand.
Judge Fox was beyond fair to inmate at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. Heck, he wasn't even required to hold an evidentiary hearing, yet he allowed inmate to introduce all of his "evidence" at the hearing. He gave inmate and his lawyers a golden opportunity to present the proverbial smoking gun. The problem for the defense was that they had no smoking gun, only a water pistol that was half empty. No sourced evidence linking a mythical hippie home invader to the crime scene was presented at the hearing. They knew that 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony wasn't going to meet their "daunting burden," but that was the only hand they could play. The bigger problem for inmate and his newest group of lawyers was that the government was given the same evidentiary freedom. This included testimony that destroyed the credibility of Jimmy Britt and the introduction of inculpatory DNA test results. Brian Murtagh took apart inmate's tortured innocent persona by presenting ALL of the DNA exhibits and ALL the major evidentiary items presented at the 1979 trial. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
25th November 2018, 03:21 AM | #757 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Judge Fox is in bed with the prosecution, and with Murtagh who perverts the course of justice. Their telephone conversations should be tapped to detect their collusion. Judge Fox never wanted any evidentiary hearing, or any DNA investigation. He had to be forced by the 4th Circuit so that the 4th Circuit judges could rubber stamp it all after the usual law's delay. It's corrupt bias. Just because the real culprits categorically deny it all does not mean they are innocent. That's bad police work.
The matter is discussed at this website: https://newrepublic.com/article/1091...c-murder-trial
Quote:
|
25th November 2018, 11:52 AM | #758 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Fifteen Years Of Trolling
HENRIETTA: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. For the past 15 years, you've refused to engage in a salient debate regarding several true crime murder cases and have replaced critical thought with trolling tactics, conspiracy narratives, and a touch of madness.
Your special brand of unfettered nonsense relies on opinion-based data contained in blogs, articles, and other true crime forums. When you decide to insert data or documentation put forth by the the CID, FBI, and the District/Circuit Courts, your points of emphasis lack context and clarity. This results in your inability to get even the little things right. For example, you state that the 4th Circuit Court forced Judge Fox to have an evidentiary hearing. You either didn't read the 4th Circuit's decision to remand the case to Judge Fox or you don't care about the details of the decision. In essence, the 4th Circuit Court simply asked Judge Fox to consider the "evidence as a whole." In 2008, Judge Fox made a decision based on the most recent evidence presented to him (e.g., DNA test results, Jimmy Britt claims), but the 4th Circuit Court ruled that Judge Fox needed to engage in a more searching inquiry of the evidence or the "evidence as a whole." They put no parameters on HOW Judge Fox would go about this more searching inquiry. Judge Fox had several options (e.g., oral arguments, legal briefs) that allowed him to avoid an evidentiary hearing, yet he choose the perfect scenario for the defense. Judge Fox provided the defense with another legal gift by telling them there were no boundaries on what they could present at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. As I mentioned in a prior post, the defense didn't take advantage of this gift because they never had the goods (e.g., evidence sourced to a specific individual) to meet inmate's "daunting burden." The defense basically constructed a Dog and Pony Show that argued that 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony met this burden. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
26th November 2018, 03:58 AM | #759 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The problem is that Stoeckley was never thoroughly or properly investigated except by MacDonald private investigators Gunderson and Detective Beasley. The next logical step would have been to investigate all Stoeckley's pals, and Mazerolle, but this was never done by anybody. It's a pity that their bloodstained clothing was never found because it was never searched for by anybody. They can now just say they vehemently deny everything with no comments and "I don't remember" defensive mechanisms or else say they were painting the bathroom at the time of the MacDonald murders.
Judge Fox is in bed with the prosecution. He is not impartial. MacDonald will never get out of prison or be exonerated while Fox is still in power. You can't just ignore the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers or say like Malone of the FBI that they came from dolls. They were too long for dolls. There is a bit about judicial corruption at this website: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ts-court-cases
Quote:
|
26th November 2018, 10:38 AM | #760 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Old Song And Dance
HENRIETTA: Thank you for proving my point about not being able to deliver the goods. Neither the defense nor any of MacDonald's advocates have ever been able to provide a single evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. For whatever reason, you've decided to take this failure to another level by repeating arguments that, in some cases, were settled or debunked as far back as 1971.
One of your favorite claims is that members of the Stoeckley Seven were "never thoroughly or properly investigated" by the CID. The fact that the CID reinvestigation team spent over a year investigating 6 of the 7 members of this group speaks to your penchant for fantasy narratives. You then add your own special brand of madness by leaving out the fact that a decade later, the FBI investigated all 7 members of this group. I understand that you simply don't like the outcomes of these investigations, but ignoring the data contained in these investigation indicates that your connection to reality is quite tenuous. I also understand that you're going to continue to copy and paste the same arguments you made in 2003, with the only difference being that you posted under a different name and/or persona. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
Thread Tools | |
|
|