|
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. |
10th January 2019, 04:54 PM | #841 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
|
11th January 2019, 12:29 PM | #842 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
So does anyone (other than possibly henri) think inmate will appeal to the USSC to be heard on this last decision?
|
11th January 2019, 04:13 PM | #843 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
It's A Lock
BYN: I would be shocked if inmate doesn't appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Considering that they've already heard the case (e.g., 1977 and 1981), the chances of them hearing the case a 3rd time are remote.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
12th January 2019, 03:17 AM | #844 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Pure Gold
Considering inmate's current legal plight, portions of his rant to Jerry Allen Potter are pure gold.
"And, poor thing, she even thinks she was in my house that night, watching Colette struggling with Greg Mitchell, and Mitchell's a, guess what? A brown-haired, left-handed guy and the experts say that Colette was killed by a left-handed guy." COMMENT: Interesting how inmate clarifies that Stoeckley "thinks" she was present at the crime scene and that Mitchell merely struggled with Colette. When inmate refers to "the experts," he is referring to a whopping 2 experts. What inmate doesn't say is that both of these experts admit that the wielder of the club could have used a two-handed grip when swinging this brutal weapon. "Then they find fresh candle wax, and not just anywhere, mind you. They find it where? On the coffee table, and in Kimmie's room." COMMENT: All 3 wax samples were dry, one sample found in Kimmie's room resembled birthday candle wax, and the other sample found in her room resembled wax found on a wine bottle in the dining room. The 3rd sample was not found on the coffee table, but was located on the underside of the table. That sample was the oldest of the 3 unsourced wax samples as evidenced by the fact it contained household debris. "Now, the army lab techs find a bloody syringe, a piece of skin on Colette's fingernail, four bloody gloves, blond wig hair, all kinds of unmatched fingerprints, and a hair in Colette's hand that isn't mine, hey a brown hair, by the way, and I'm blond, but they cover all this up..." COMMENT: Inmate does his usual mixing and matching of debunked claims and evidence that doesn't have any real exculpatory value. The bloody syringe never existed, it was never proven that the evidentiary item was a piece of skin, the four bloody (e.g., blood transfer, too minute to type) gloves were oven mitts and dish gloves, there is ample evidence that the source of the "wig" hair were dolls owned by the MacDonald children, finding unmatched prints in a lived in/ground floor residence is not unusual, and the brown hair eventually was sourced to inmate via DNA. "And the foreign hair they found in Colette's hand, the one thing that clobbered them in the army hearing, has now become nothing. Somebody had cut it till it's too small to test." COMMENT: Like Bost and Potter, inmate doesn't understand the basics of microscopic hair comparisons. The only hairs that are comparable under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. The hair that matched his DNA profile is a limb hair, so the cutting theory is just another example of amateur hour in the MacDonald Camp. Potter: "But you can't prove Murtagh changed the evidence." Inmate: "Can't prove anything until you can get your hands on it, and get him on the stand in an evidentiary hearing, which they aren't going to let me have." COMMENT: The AFIP's DNA test results blew that "gotcha" moment out of the water. The results proved that Murtagh changed nothing, that inmate was the source of the broken, bloody limb hair, and that the defense didn't have the stones to put Murtagh on the stand at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The lone government expert on their original witness list was CID lab technician Janice Glisson, but the defense never called Glisson to the stand. The defense knew that Glisson was more apt to hurt their case, so they focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
12th January 2019, 09:51 AM | #845 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The Army CID are bent cops and the FBI lab are forensic fraudsters.
|
12th January 2019, 04:42 PM | #846 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
|
12th January 2019, 05:50 PM | #847 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
|
16th January 2019, 05:44 AM | #848 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
just like when he used the term "alleged intruders" he is telling the world that the intruders did not exist and that he in fact was the murderer, but you won't get the few remaining macolites to see that very simple FACT.
I have always wondered where inmate got the idea that the wax was "fresh" because none of the descriptions I read came even close to calling the wax deposits fresh. Fresh wax is not brittle.....Oh, and not finding candles matching the drippings? I don't know anyone who saves the stubs of candles when they are past use as candles (unless they make their own candles or are going to make candles as a craft for Girl Scouts or similar). an imaginary bloody syringe is equal to the imaginary bloody partial palm print the defense tried to claim was on the foot board of the master bed. I STILL can not believe the gall of Bost and Potter to claim the oven mitts and dish gloves "as bloody gloves" as if anyone would have worn them while committing murder! geez, I don't know anyone with at least 2 functional brain cells that would even handle a knife while wearing an oven mitt! I see desperation in the claims made by the defense about the "lost skin fragment" because Bill Ivory although a great investigator is NOT a forensics expert and he is the only one who 'thought' there was a skin fragment in the vial, no one qualified as a forensic tech of any kind ever saw the alleged skin fragment. I agree - they are grasping for an anchor that is going to sink them but they didn't realize that it would take them down. I don't understand how allegedly intelligent people can not understand the basics of hair analysis. I don't know how many times I've replied with the simple fact that microscopy was not an option on that hair fragment just to have another person come back and question this basic FACT. Some of the remaining macolites still claim that Murtagh switched that hair. I am waiting for any of them to explain exactly how this occurred without inmate being aware of it AND how did they get it to the exact size, shape, color, and dried blood of Colette as E-5 has been described from the beginning.....just like your time line challenge JTF it has gone unanswered. |
17th January 2019, 03:45 AM | #849 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's manufactured evidence.This matter of the candle wax was discussed the 1979 trial and at the Article 32 with the Army CID lab idiot so-called forensic chemist Browning who insisted the fibers in the wooden club murder weapon were pajama fibers in direct contradiction to the opinion of the expert examiner at the FBI lab, Frier, who insisted they were black wool fibers from an unknown source.
The defense were never allowed to examine that hair in Colette's left hand which magically became a MacDonald hair to be tested at the AFIP lab in 2006 after being considered inconsistent and dissimilar to a MacDonald hair from the start of the investigation. The MacDonald case needs a judge with a strong personality who can seize the situation like a man: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._browning.html
Quote:
|
17th January 2019, 07:20 AM | #850 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
What is manufactured evidence? That they found wax? That is a FACT. That the wax on the coffee table was old, brittle, and had household debris inbedded? That too is FACT.
Yes the wax was discussed at it was stated that the wax in the bedrooms and the wax on the coffee table came from different sources. It was also mentioned that the coffee table wax was brittle and had household debris embedded. Not only that, but the wax from Kimmie's room was found to be the type used to make birthday cake candles (which differs from other wax). Chemist Browning had worked for DuPont prior to his service in CID. He was uniquely qualified to identify the pajama fibers since the pajamas were made of a patented DuPont poly-cotton fiber blend. What part of "removed the fibers from the murder club and put them into a vial marked...." in the bench notes do you fail to understand. The black wool fibers were left on the club by Browning as he was not examining those fibers. It was not and is not and never was a matter of "this or that" but BOTH types of fiber were initially found on the murder club. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this very simple principle. What part of the basics of hair analysis to you NOT understand? 1. FACT: ONLY HEAD AND PUBIC HAIR CAN BE MICROSCOPICALLY COMPARED. 2. FACT: THE HAIR FOUND IN COLETTE'S HAND WAS THE DISTAL OR TIP PORTION OF A LIMB HAIR. (this means Arm, Leg, Armpit, possibly chest) 3. FACT: A TRAINEE IN HAIR EXAMINATIONS ATTEMPTED TO USE MICROSCOPY ON THE HAIR WHICH WAS USELESS. 4. FACT: EVEN THE DEFENSE ADMITTED THAT WHOEVER WAS THE CONTRIBUTOR OF THAT HAIR WAS THE WIELDER OF THE MURDER CLUB. 5. FACT: 100% DNA MATCH TO INMATE. 6. FACT: NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT IT Well a good Judge does not have to be male. HOWEVER, that point is moot because they are not going to assign another Judge to hear the case. Inmate has been convicted and the conviction has been upheld and there is no evidence to suggest he didn't commit the murders PLUS the evidence even stronger now with the DNA results would get him convicted again. Maybe inmate lawyers will apply to the USSC for a hearing in an attempt to over turn the latest decisions, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. |
17th January 2019, 10:07 AM | #851 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.
|
17th January 2019, 10:54 AM | #852 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
It began on 4/6/70 and should have ended in 1975
During the 4/6/70 CID interview, investigators pointed out to inmate there was nothing to indicate that 4 or more home invaders were responsible for murdering his family. This line of questioning was in regards to the condition of the apartment (e.g., no property damage) and the fact that theft was not a motivation for this horrific crime.
That alone should put inmate's ridiculous story in its proper perspective, but once the CID eliminated potential suspects through print/hair comparisons (e.g., 1971 and 1975), inmate's cell door should have been slammed shut. Unfortunately, this case morphed from an open and shut forensic analysis to a convoluted legal battle that lasted for 42 years. Yes, inmate was in prison for 37 of those 42 years, but the legal system provided him with the kind of hope/freedom that mass murderers should not receive. A big part of this legal circus was inmate's attempts to manipulate the definition of sourced evidence. The fact that not a single evidentiary item was sourced to an alternative suspect didn't deter inmate from asserting that the source of a specific fiber or hair was a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Inmate's weak hand included the following evidentiary items. 3 unsourced fibers found on Colette's body 2 unsourced fibers found on the club 1 unsourced fiber found on inmate's glasses 1 unsourced hair found under Colette's body 1 unsourced hair found on Kristen's bed 1 unsourced hair found in Kristen's fingernail scrapings 30 unsourced finger/palm prints 3 unsourced candle wax drippings Compare that ball of nothing to the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial and 3 hairs that were sourced to inmate via DNA testing. One of those hairs was a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. Located next to inmate's broken, bloody arm hair was a splinter from the club. This links inmate to the club used on Colette in the master bedroom and in Kristen's room. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
17th January 2019, 12:13 PM | #853 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
|
18th January 2019, 03:51 AM | #854 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The fact is that the Army CID decided MacDonald did it from the first day and then they set about trying to 'find' the evidence against him, and covering up any exculpatory evidence. What Stombaugh and Malone and Browning said isn't evidence. The defense were never allowed to test or examine or weigh that evidence, apart perhaps from the bedsheet and pajama top. Malone is a total liar and Murtagh is a legal trickster. Stombaugh "only said it could be" as Murtagh so succinctly put it at a bench conference. The judges were crap.
The matter is explained at this website: http://whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thr...ds-last-chance
Quote:
|
18th January 2019, 05:56 AM | #855 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Actually, the CID didn't decide inmate was the perp until the 2nd or 3rd day. Although, they DID get very suspicious when the FBI agents sent to question the survivor at Womack found that he was not even CLOSE to death and had only 1 wound that required medical treatment while his pregnant wife and 2 very young daughters were BRUTALLY SAVAGED and headed to the morgue rather than a hospital.
How exactly? The CID crime scene personnel WOULD NOT have been told who was suspected.....they gathered evidence, it was analzyed, the results were used at evidence at trial (9 years later than it should have happened) and there were over 1,100 pieces of evidence used against inmate. As you have been told more times than I can count it was only 60% of the evidence available at the time. Now the case against inmate is even better with the DNA results. FACTS henri not delirium.... Yes, actually it was just as what Terry Laber said is evidence and what Chamberlain said was evidence......the JUDGE decides what is admissible evidence and Bernie Segal didn't even TRY to keep most of the evidence out at trial which is when he should have at least tried because all of the evidence was damning his guilty client. Not so henri. That the defense DIDN'T GET ENOUGH TIME TO TEST EVERYTHING is totally and fully the fault of Bernie Segal. The FACT that Bernie wasted MONTHS on machinations attempting to get evidence shipped across country for testing is not a fault of the prosecution/government. He KNEW it would not be allowed...Bernie is the "legal trickster" in this case. Malone had nothing to do with the trial he wasn't involved until years after conviction and I don't believe he lied.....funny how inmate the one who is guilty claims everyone else in the case is lying. (not really but you are never going to admit he did it any more than inmate will despite the overwhelming proof that he did) Murtagh is not a trickster however he is a professional highly skilled lawyer and inmate (and you) dislike him because he saw through inmate from the beginning and he took him down. inmate thought he was the smartest kid in the sandbox and found out that he wasn't even close. Only said what "could be"? |
18th January 2019, 07:35 AM | #856 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
No Chance
When your big guns are hearsay testimony and unsourced household debris, you haven't come close to meeting your burden of proof. That burden is to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found you guilty of the murders of your wife and daughters.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
18th January 2019, 09:58 AM | #857 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
No reasonable fact finder would find MacDonald guilty if they listened to the evidence and did not believe that two and two make five. Men of any business, trade or profession may make good magistrates. Suitability depends entirely on the character of the individual man. If he is honest, fair-minded, able to concentrate sufficiently to listen to the evidence, and capable of making up his mind at the finish, he will make a useful Justice of the Peace. Drunken Irish sons of bitches and hysterical silly cow women are no use.
The judges just keep repeating false evidence which has been demolished years ago, like Stoeckley and Mitchell could have been courting on a bridge at the time of the MacDonald murders! This matter of Dupree saying old Stombaugh only said it could is mentioned in the 1979 Shirley Green trial testimony: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html
Quote:
|
18th January 2019, 01:30 PM | #858 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
|
19th January 2019, 01:43 PM | #859 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Research Is A Dirty Word In The Troll Community
Stombaugh's wording was spot on as evidenced by the 2014 Justice Department Report on proper scientific terminology. This report chided hair and fiber experts who used the word "matched" in lab reports and trial testimony. The appropriate terminology used in hair/fiber comparisons is "similar" and, for the most part, Stombaugh stuck to that terminology in this case.
As Murtagh pointed out to Judge Dupree, Stombaugh couldn't definitively state that Colette was stabbed through the pajama top with the ice pick nor could he state that specific fibers matched a singular garment. Stombaugh was a professional and his testimony at trial adhered to the scientific standard. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th January 2019, 08:18 AM | #860 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Trolls/Advocates Want It Both Ways
Bernie's pot shots at Stombaugh's qualifications became laughable after his Stombaugh (e.g., John Thornton), agreed with the real Stombaugh's conclusions on 3 separate bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet. Bernie also never explained why his Stombaugh did not analyze two other bloody fabric impressions found on that same bedsheet. Was it because he didn't want his fake Stombaugh to agree with the totality of the real Stombaugh's bloody fabric impression analysis? Maybe that is why he added a 2nd fake Stombaugh (e.g., Charles Morton) to the bloody fabric analysis equation.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th January 2019, 09:55 AM | #861 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Bernie Segal used Charles Morton as a real blood expert to back up Dr. Thornton. Morton was in disagreement with Stombaugh, who was really just an ordinary FBI agent who called himself a hair and fiber man. Stombaugh should never have been allowed to testify in court on the blood evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence which states that only experts can give their opinions. The matter was explained by Fred Bost:
http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html
Quote:
|
20th January 2019, 04:11 PM | #862 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Old Fashioned Butt Whipping
The trial verdict clearly demonstrates that Thornton/Morton got their butts handed to them by Stombaugh/Murtagh. Examples include...
- Thornton's infamous "ham" experiment. - Thornton's admission that he agreed with Stombaugh's bloody fabric impression analysis. - Morton admitting that a bloody impression on the blue bedsheet matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
22nd January 2019, 04:15 AM | #863 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That is not quite correct. The 4th Circuit judges, or the Supreme Court, do not understand all this:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...15-morton.html
Quote:
|
22nd January 2019, 09:40 AM | #864 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
I must say, ridiculing the "ham" experiment is unfair to Thornton. Ham is in fact used in tests as a reasonable work-around replacement for human flesh. Morton's admission was indeed devastating to MacDonald. Segal's comment on it was pathetic ("no one knows when that stain was made"; uh, yeah, we do, it had to be THAT NIGHT). |
22nd January 2019, 12:55 PM | #865 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
All Over The Map
In terms of the bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet, Stombaugh's analysis was streamlined, yet thorough. The same cannot be said of Segal's dubious strategy to have multiple experts analyzing different bloody impressions.
Stombaugh labeled each bloody impression found on the blue bedsheet with a letter designation. The following are the impressions that Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial. Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff The conclusions drawn by Thornton and Morton were as follows: Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F. Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G. Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Area G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size. Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F. This lack of cohesion was not lost on jurors and was a factor in their final decision. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
23rd January 2019, 04:16 AM | #866 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I can't quite see that Morton's admission was devastating in any way to MacDonald. Segal tried to explain it all to the jury in his closing speech but it was too academic and a bit like trying to explain to an American jury about foreign policy or military conflict. Those 4th Circuit judges can't see further than their noses and Murtagh and Blackburn are crooks. From Segal's closing argument:
Quote:
|
23rd January 2019, 05:55 AM | #867 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
It was not the use of "ham" that was the ridicule inducing part of the experiment. it was the poorly thought out/executed "movement" of the ham that did not in any way replicate human motion. The point the defense wanted to prove was that the pj top was not stabbed through while Colette was down and unconscious but stabbed through while inmate allegedly used it as a shield while it was "bunched" around his wrists and hands. The ham on a sled in no way proved the defense point of view. In fact, it made the courtroom demonstration of Brian M using a similar pj top to deflect knife or ice pick (don't remember which) thrusts made by Blackburn. Not only were all the holes "torn and ragged" but Brian M ended up with a bleeding injury on his wrists (of which inmate had none - and the prosecution could/did point out that the courtroom was a pretend attack - a real attack inmate would have had defensive wounds on his wrists and hands at least if things had happened in the manner he claimed).
|
23rd January 2019, 09:40 AM | #868 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It's true that Dr.Thornton did conjecture and speculate that the holes in the pajama top could have been caused in some sort of defensive motion by MacDonald. He may not have been quite correct about that because he didn't know exactly what happened. Fred Bost was on the right murder trail in what he said about the matter on his short study:
http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html
Quote:
|
23rd January 2019, 11:34 AM | #869 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
|
23rd January 2019, 11:36 AM | #870 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
FV made a point of the ham itself being "silly".
Quite right, though, that the "sliding sled" would not at all have equaled the force, misdirection and trauma of a person trying to deflect a crazed attacker ... but then we all knew anyway that didn't happen. For the record, the demo was with an ice pick. |
23rd January 2019, 10:34 PM | #871 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Location, Location, Location
Bernie Segal studiously avoided the fact that Stombaugh was able to identify the source of a majority of the 79 blue fibers found in the master bedroom. That source was the torn left front seam of inmate's pajama top and the two pajama fibers found on the club were also shed from that location of the garment. Segal also gave a hand wave to the significance of the tear in the garment. The tear began at the yoke of the pajama top and extended down through the left cuff. This tear measured a whopping 72 inches. Segal and Thornton knew that a tear of that size would have resulted in most of the threads being shed in the location where the garment was originally torn. The fact that not one thread from that garment was found in the living room casts a huge shadow on the validity of Thornton's ham on a sled experiment.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
24th January 2019, 09:29 AM | #872 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The fibers found on the murder weapon were black wool fibers with no known source, and not pajama fibers as Blackburn in a clearly erroneous way informed the jury. JTF keeps repeating that story that Browning of the Army CID lab and Stombaugh of the FBI removed pajama fibers from the murder weapon and then put them in a pillbox and then photographed them but they were inventing it. The defense were never allowed to examine or test those fibers and according to Kathy Bond of the FBI lab they were "pajama -like" fibers.
The lost pajama bottoms were crucial evidence and should never have been disregarded by the 4th Circuit judges. There is an interesting discussion about the pajama bottoms at this website, though not very profound or academic: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/jeff...oms-t1126.html
Quote:
|
24th January 2019, 09:42 AM | #873 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald didn't know how the holes in the pajama top got there because it all happened so quickly. Dr. Thornton put forward a theory that the holes could have been caused in motion based on the directionality of the thrusts which Murtagh tried to demolish in court. Personally, I think Fred Bost had right judgment with his theory that the holes were made when MacDonald was unconscious on the ground and he would have known nothing about it:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html
Quote:
|
24th January 2019, 10:53 AM | #874 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
No Real Change
In their 1998 decision to deny inmate relief, the 4th Circuit Court ruled that the defense fell far short (e.g., "specious evidence") of meeting their burden of proof. This didn't stop inmate's rotating band of lawyers from rinsing and repeating those same arguments for the past 20 years. Even DNA testing on 29 exhibits could not move the legal arrow in a positive direction for inmate. In many respects, the DNA test results actually lessened his chances (e.g., inculpatory test results) at receiving a new trial, and eventually led to the end of the legal phase of this case on 12/21/18.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
25th January 2019, 03:55 AM | #875 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It's the evidence against MacDonald that is 'specious evidence' and, in my opinion, much of it was fabricated out of whole cloth. How can you possibly say now that people like Blackburn or Malone were honest prosecutors? It's a pity that DNA had not been discovered at the time of the MacDonald murders. There is a discussion of this at this website:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...gal-fictions/#!
Quote:
|
25th January 2019, 05:12 AM | #876 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
henri why do you insist on ignoring the FACT that there were pj fibers found on the murder club? the bench notes clearly state that they were found, removed from club, examined, and placed in pill bottle for storage. FACT henri. The evidence AGAINST inmate is solid, verifiable, and points directly at inmate as the sole perp FACT FACT FACT. the "specious evidence" inmate and his rotating lawyers keep bringing up (res judicata) are NOT worth the length of time it takes to type them out. FACT
|
25th January 2019, 08:41 AM | #877 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The point is that Blackburn at the trial swayed the jury by saying the conclusive evidence was that pajama fibers were found on the murder club. Blackburn also asked MacDonald to explain why there were pajama fibers on the murder club. The trouble is it was a lie. They were black wool fibers with no known source. The matter is explained at this website:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...996-06-02.html
Quote:
|
25th January 2019, 08:51 AM | #878 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Christina who is very anti-MacDonald made some interesting comments about the lost pajama bottoms which are probably beyond the comprehension of the 4th Circuit judges but indicates that the pajama bottoms should never have been disregarded or ignored by the 4th Circuit judges:
Quote:
|
25th January 2019, 12:19 PM | #879 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Again henri you are IGNORING THE FACT THAT BLUE PJ FIBERS WERE FOUND ON THE CLUB. REMOVED FROM THE CLUB FOR EXAMINATION AND THEN STORED IN PILL VIALS. FACT! The black wool fibers were unsourced (mainly because inmate got rid of the family property so there was nothing to compare them to) and unsourced equals forensically useless.
|
25th January 2019, 01:26 PM | #880 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|