IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 25th January 2019, 04:26 PM   #881
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Chain Of Custody

The chain of custody involving the debris found on the club is not hard to follow, but that didn't stop Bost and Potter from purposely mucking up the waters. The following is the chain of custody for the 2 pajama seam threads found on the club.

In 1970, CID chemist Dillard Browning labeled the debris found on the club as CID Exhibit E-205. Browning noted that two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood and he subsequently placed the two fibers in a vial. He concluded that the source of the two pajama fibers was inmate's torn pajama top.

In 1974, FBI physical science technician Shirley Green labeled the debris from the club as FBI Exhibit Q89. Green placed the pajama fibers in a pillbox, and Paul Stombaugh later matched the fibers to the seam threads from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top.

In 1989, the FBI took two color photographs of the seam threads in the pillbox and the photographs were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. In 1990, FBI hair and fiber expert Michael Malone examined various hairs and fibers collected at the crime scene, but it appears that he didn't examine the pajama fibers in the pillbox.

It's important to remember that unlike Stombaugh, Frier and Malone did not examine every fiber that was collected in this case. They simply left the fibers in the pillbox and trusted Stombaugh's conclusions. In the end, Browning and Stombaugh concluded that the source of the two blue fibers found on the club was inmate's torn pajama top.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 25th January 2019 at 04:29 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 26th January 2019, 03:29 AM   #882
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
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.
That's not quite correct either. As MacDonald himself said this is actually what happened:

Quote:
Just in review - Recall that in Shirley Green's 1990 cataloguing of contents of Q89 for Malone, she wrote "pillbox containing 2 purp. thr" (2 purple threads). Yet, Malone still reported only 2 dark woolen fibers. The end result, to me, is very clear: Fred Bost has been correct all along. Paul Stombaugh negligently never bothered to actually study the fibers. He simply assumed 2 dark fibers had to be "purple cotton" from Q89, the pajama top. When Frier did his evaluation in 1979, Frier only saw 2 dark woolen fibers and no purple cotton.
The black wool fibers on the murder club and around Colette's mouth and biceps with no known source indicates intruders. Murtagh made sure that the jury and judge and MacDonald defense and 4th Circuit judges were never informed of those black wool fibers until it was all too late. Murtagh's explanation when the truth came out was that there are photos of Colette once wearing a black dress! If you believe that explanation you must be very credulous.
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 January 2019, 09:15 PM   #883
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Household Debris

Inmate's relationship with Bost and Potter was chaos personified. As pointed out by the Landlord of MacFantasy Island, inmate states that Shirley Green catalogued the fiber evidence in this case whereas Bost/Potter claimed that Kathy Bond completed this task. Incredibly, inmate's position was the correct one, yet Bost and Potter still printed the erroneous claim that Kathy Bond assisted James Frier in the re-analysis of fiber evidence in this case. The 12/21/18 decision by the 4th Circuit Court, put this issue in its proper place by concluding that all of inmate's fiber claims centered on mere household debris.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th January 2019 at 09:19 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 January 2019, 03:32 AM   #884
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
That's nonsense. There used to be some lab notes by Kathy Bond of the FBI lab on the internet in which she described the fibers in the pillbox as "pajama-like fibers" which I now can't find though they may still be there somewhere. The 4th Circuit judges don't understand forensics or forensic fraud. There needed to be some old-fashioned police work. Segal had a bit to say about the matter in an affidavit:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...990-10-13.html

Quote:
40. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten inventory notes and laboratory notes of FBI lab technicians James Frier and Kathy Bond, which document the existence of black, green, and white wool fibers found in debris taken from the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the FBI as exhibits Q-88 and Q-100) and the wooden club murder weapon (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-89). (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th January 2019 at 03:37 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 January 2019, 03:44 AM   #885
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Read It And Weep

HENRIETTA: Read it and weep.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...aff_green.html
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 January 2019, 09:44 AM   #886
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
You can't just say that Kathy Bond had nothing to do with the MacDonald case just because Murtagh told her to keep her mouth shut and not tell the 4th Circuit judges. That's like saying electronic eavesdropping doesn't happen because it's not reported in the media. Her name and handwritten notes are mentioned frequently in Murphy's analysis of the forensics after the trial, who was a paralegal with the Harvey Silverglate law firm, which unfortunately I am unable to copy for some reason. Her analysis was that the fibers on the murder club were 'pajama-like' fibers which the expert examiner Frier at the FBI lab said were black wool fibers with an unknown source.

This is Murphy's affidavit which may be above the heads of an average jury and 4th Circuit judges:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ff_murphy.html
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 January 2019, 10:04 AM   #887
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
There was a sensible posting about the MacDonald case on another MacDonald forum in 2008:

Quote:
yeah, I agree. Fayetteville, NC (which is where this took place) was ran rampant with drugs at the time this occurred.

I know they didn't give alot of merit to Helena Stoeckley as a witness since she was drugged out herself, but she said something that I thought was interesting.

"the t.v. was on, but it was off the air."

That seems like something that only someone in the house could have known. In fact, she seemed to know alot of things that one could have only known had they been in the house that night or researched the case. And Helena Stoeckly didn't strike me as the type that researched unsolved murder cases alot.

I think the main reason that people think Dr. McDonald is guilty is because they believe his injuries were minor compared to that of the rest of the family. Gosh, he had multiple stab wounds, a punctured lung, and severe abrasions and stuff on his head, and other injuries. Sounds like pretty severe to me.

And of course, that farfetched bedwetting theory rears its ugly head again in this case. As if it wasn't farfetched enough in the JonBenet case, it springs up again here. Has there ever been a documented case of a parent flipping out over a bedwetting? I don't know of any.
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 January 2019, 12:10 PM   #888
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Murphy Was Wrong

Shirley Green's 1990 affidavit was one of SEVERAL affidavits and government briefs that point out the FACT that Kathy Bond had NO involvement in this case. The fact that Murphy, Bost, and Potter continued to put forth this erroneous claim speaks to their collective incompetence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
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 January 2019, 04:15 AM   #889
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
I find it extraordinary that people can claim that Kathy Bond of the FBI lab had no connection to the Jeffrey MacDonald case. There were handwritten lab notes which Shirley Green, who was never a real expert, now claims as her own.There are professional forensic document examiners who could clear up the confusion about all this handwriting. It strikes me that Murtagh just coached Kathy Bond and Janice Glisson to keep their mouths shut whenever they had any embarrassing opinions about the case.

There are some sensible opinions about the MacDonald case at this website as well as the usual violent anti-MacDonald prejudice postings. I still consider the judges in the MacDonald case were awful. It's farcical:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...=158957&page=3

Quote:
Oh really? Is that what DNA evidence shows? So, if none of my dad's DNA is found in my house, it proves he was never here?

See what I mean about incompetent handicapping? It's incredible what people actually believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyeTev
And the Judge was correct - there was no evidence of 'intruders' in the home. His rejections were correct.

Hmm. More clever assertions. What do you call the hair with full root under Kristen's fingernail, the one that doesn't match MacDonald? How about the 22-inch wig fiber that was suppressed by the prosecution and doesn't match anything Colette owned, but does fit with the description of the female hippie? The unmatched black fibers that were on the murder weapon and on Colette?

BTW, I'm not sure it has been mentioned in this thread that the MacDonald residence was sealed for more than a decade, then gutted and the contents burned and destroyed in 1984. Defense investigators were never allowed access to look for exculpatory evidence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th January 2019 at 04:19 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 28th January 2019, 04:55 AM   #890
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Henri:

I bet you're actually surprised you're getting nowhere on this dead horse. For the record, the only true things I have ever heard your favorite American criminal say are: He was an Army Captain and Green Beret (when he committed the crime, but he leaves that out because it undermines his "factual innocence" nonsense); he was married but not faithful to Colette; the lights were out and he didn't turn them when he checked them (the family he slaughtered); and he doesn't like being in prison.
desmirelle 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 January 2019, 12:12 PM   #891
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
History Of Incompetence

There is a laundry list of examples where inmate's advocates are either incompetent or simply delusional. Here are just a few examples.

- It wasn't until a 1984 evidentiary hearing when inmate's advocates admitted that correctional records proved that Allen Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70.

- Inmate's defense team has simply ignored the fact that Shirley Green, not Kathy Bond, constructed and initialed lab notes pertaining to the re-analysis of specific fibers collected at the crime scene.

- Ray Shedlick's Gurney Theory. Nuff said.

- Inmate's advocates continue to ignore the fact that prior to the 1984 evidentiary hearing, Shedlick's bizarre Sheet Theory was proven false.

- Bost and Potter never addressed the fact that their claims regarding the unsourced hairs in the fingernail scrapings of both Kristen and Kimberley were erroneous.

- In regards to the 7mm hair fragment in Kimberley's fingernail scrapings, their collective incompetence was in full display. They claimed that the source of the hair was a human female, yet microscopic analysis of the hair fragment in 1999, proved it was an animal hair.

- Inmate's defense team waffled back and forth in regards to whether the 3 unsourced hairs (e.g., no matching DNA profile) were forcibly removed. It took 17 years (e.g., 1999-2016) before the defense appeared to admit that the hairs were naturally shed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th January 2019 at 12:20 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 29th January 2019, 04:01 AM   #892
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
The MacDonald defense were never allowed to examine the hairs and fibers. Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be with regard to the hairs and threads as Murtagh so succinctly put it during a bench conference during the trial. That's not firm evidence. This is another sensible posting on another MacDonald forum which I've previously mentioned:

Quote:
A few scratches? It's always particularly revealing when someone makes a rank ignorant comment then applies a smilie to it. It's almost like you are determined to do what you accuse MacDonald of, slash yourself. Here, I think Cyril Wecht has a slightly more informed opinion than yours:

"Jeffrey MacDonald had multiple stab wounds, a couple in the abdomen, the forearm, one into the chest that did produce a pneumothorax. He was in the hospital for seven days. To say that because he was a doctor, he can calculate exactly the depth of the penetrating wound and be sure that he will survive that, that is absurd. No doctor, including a thoracic surgeon, is going to undertake that kind of a situation."

And once again there's the amazing question, why were MacDonald's injuries different. I've already addressed that in a previous post. Does the phrase caliber of opponent mean anything to you? Are you actually equating the resistance from little girls or a sleeping wife to that of a young military man at his physical peak? If it weren't repeated so often I'd swear it had to be a joke. Scary. Why are some college football teams favored by 40 and others an underdog, against the same opponent? Jeez, I can't figure it out. Isn't every team the same?

The hair found in Colette's hand was a limb hair, not a head hair. MacDonald gave her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and was lying on the left side of Colette's body when he was resuscitated himself. It's hardly a shock that his limb hair could be on her body.

On the other hand, the hair found under Kristen's fingernail does not match Dr. MacDonald. It had a full root and is unsourced. Make no mistake, that hair was considered much more significant by the prosecution. They tried to test it secretly and would have been absolutely giddy if it matched MacDonald, coming from under the fingernail of his daughter, who was in a defensive pose. But since it didn't match MacDonald they downplay it and try to shift focus to the limb hair.

There were unmatched black fibers that were on the murder weapon and on Colette, which are consistent with the third party theory along with the long blonde wig hair. Why are the MacDonald detractors so petrified of a new trial? One where the new DNA evidence can be put forward along with everything suppressed by the original prosecutors, before they had all those unfortunate charges like embezzlement and obstruction of justice

LooksLikeCRicci provided an excellent link, regarding hippies being seen in a 7-11 the morning of the murders but the clerk afraid to come forward in fear they would kill her. Here's a bit more from that link:

* The late Helena Stoeckley, a Haymount girl, did run with the hippie-cult generation and reportedly told prosecutor James Blackburn that she was in MacDonald’s home the night of the murders.

* Jimmy B. Britt of Apex, who was part of the security detail for MacDonald’s 1979 trial, substantiates her claims and says in a recent affidavit that he heard Blackburn tell Stoeckley that he would indict her for murder if she testified that she and her friends were in the MacDonald home on the night of killings. Blackburn denies Britt’s assertion.

* Donald Buffkin from Alabama says in a recent affidavit file by MacDonald’s lawyers that he once drank with Greg Mitchell, Stoeckley’s boyfriend, and that Mitchell told him he killed MacDonald’s family. He reportedly wrote on a farmhouse near Fayetteville, “I killed MacDonald’s wife and children,” before his 1982 death because of liver disease.

* The late Judge Franklin Dupree was the presiding judge, including hearing all appeals, until 1990. In his rejections of appeals, he declared there was no evidence of intruders in the MacDonald home. James Proctor, a co-prosecutor, was Dupree’s son-in-law.

* James Blackburn, a co-prosecutor, was convicted of 12 felony counts of forgery, fraud, embezzlement and obstruction of justice in November 1993. He was sentenced to a seven-year sentence in federal prison and served about 31 months.

Some of that has already been mentioned in this thread. And I'll default to what I've written previously. MacDonald would not have invented such a wild tale involving many people if he were guilty. Far too many permutations to remember and be questioned about. Plus, if he was going to invent that large of a group, why wouldn't he smash up the residence to make it look like 4 or 5 crazy people had been there? It's hysterical the anti-MacDonald group insist he was plotting and concealing to the point he resorts to self-inflicted stab wounds, but he never thinks of trashing the place. Again, truth is stranger than fiction. Like the Ramseys, make sure you are the victim of a normal crime, otherwise the lousy handicappers get involved and the truth is anything they want to twist or invent.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th January 2019 at 04:03 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 January 2019, 06:03 AM   #893
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not quite correct either.
Yes, it is 100% correct. blue pj fibers were found on the murder club, removed from the club for examination, and stored in pill vial. THAT IS FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As "inmate" himself said this is actually what happened:

The black wool fibers on the murder club and around Colette's mouth and biceps with no known source indicates intruders.
No, actually unsourced fibers have no value forensically speaking. in this case especially since inmate himself got rid of the property of the family he slaughtered before CID or FBI could request them for comparison purposes. HOWEVER in this case there is plenty of evidence that the family owned things that were made of dark woolen fibers. Especially the afghan inmate alleged he got tangled in (big bad Doctor couldn't get untangled from an afghan but his wife fought and fought - if what inmate said happened were true which we all know it was not).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh made sure that the jury and judge and MacDonald defense and 4th Circuit judges were never informed of those black wool fibers until it was all too late.
******** the dark woolen fibers were listed in the bench notes. HOWEVER, since they did not use the dark woolen fibers against inmate it matters not. IF the defense truly believed they had some sort of exculpatory value then THEY were the ones who should have raised the point at trial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh's explanation when the truth came out was that there are photos of Colette once wearing a black dress!
Actually, the way I recall things is that Murtagh etal produced numerous photos of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy (even inmate) wearing items of dark wool clothing as well as video taken by Freddy Kassab showing the family in winter garb. The law does not allow for murderers to benefit from bad behavior and in this case, throwing away, selling, or giving away the family clothes and afghans etc was bad behavior and imho shows consciousness of guilt because inmate didn't want to have the fibers compared.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 09:39 AM   #894
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
******** the dark woolen fibers were listed in the bench notes. HOWEVER, since they did not use the dark woolen fibers against inmate it matters not. IF the defense truly believed they had some sort of exculpatory value then THEY were the ones who should have raised the point at trial.

Actually, the way I recall things is that Murtagh etal produced numerous photos of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy (even inmate) wearing items of dark wool clothing as well as video taken by Freddy Kassab showing the family in winter garb. The law does not allow for murderers to benefit from bad behavior and in this case, throwing away, selling, or giving away the family clothes and afghans etc was bad behavior and imho shows consciousness of guilt because inmate didn't want to have the fibers compared.
That's ridiculous. The MacDonald defense were never able to raise the matter of the black wool fibers on the murder club and around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps because they were never told about those black wool fibers at the trial, or previous to the trial. The defense was never able to examine those fibers and so-called pajama fibers in case mistakes or fabrications had been made. Murtagh kept quiet about them as part of his deception and con artist plan. As Harvey Silverglate, a MacDonald lawyer at the time, said later on those black wool fibers indicate strangers.

MacDonald did give away and send to the garbage tip several family possessions like the children clothes and Colette's clothes and the children dolls because he thought quite reasonably at the time that he had been cleared after the Article 32 in 1970. He had no possible way of knowing that those items would then be used later on as so-called evidence against him as the prosecution manufactured specious evidence about hairs and threads.
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 January 2019, 01:46 PM   #895
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Your Boy Lost, Deal With It

The Landlord's fixation with household debris is not only sad, it ignores the fact that this unsourced household debris was introduced in 4 separate court proceedings. They include...

- 1984 evidentiary hearing before Judge Dupree

- 1992 oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court

- 2010 oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court

- 2012 evidentiary hearing before Judge Fox

I think one can assume that the Landlord's continual regurgitation of debunked issues in this case is the result of inmate getting his butt kicked in all 4 court proceedings.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
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 30th January 2019, 07:07 AM   #896
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's ridiculous.
No it is not!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The MacDonald defense were never able to raise the matter of the black wool fibers on the murder club and around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps because they were never told about those black wool fibers at the trial, or previous to the trial.
THIS is RIDICULOUS! The information in the bench notes, investigative notes, interviews, home search etc. was all in the material provided to the defense under the disclosure process. IT IS ENTIRELY BERNIE SEGAL AND THE DEFENSE TEAM responsibility to make THEIR case. IF they thought the wool fibers were so damn important then THEY should have brought them up during the defense portion of the trial. That they did not mention them shows that they paid little heed to the evidence as a whole. Also, since there is plenty of evidence that the family owned items with dark wool prior to inmate throwing everything away the FACT is that the existence of such fibers were of little to no forensic value. UNSOURCED equals forensically useless. THAT IS A FACT.

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...-room-001.html

See the nice afghan on the sofa? See the dark wool it is made from? and that is just 1 piece of probable source material....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The defense was never able to examine those fibers and so-called pajama fibers in case mistakes or fabrications had been made.
That is not exactly accurate information henri and you are well aware of it! Bernie Segal decided to play legal games in an attempt to have the evidence transferred across the country to his choice of experts. THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. (I think he was hoping the Judge would allow it and then he could fight over some chain of custody issue - which is why no Judge of any quality would do such a thing). Lab space and full access was made available in Raleigh long before Bernie ever sent Thorton and Morton to examine anything. Yes, in fact the time they had was limited due to the machinations of Bernie but, they had full access and if they did or did not review certain pieces of evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution nor does it mean that the evidence is not valid. FACT henri - Bernie Segal thought his histrionics and condescending attitude would win the case but he was dead wrong. Blackburn and Murtagh out lawyered him in the best possible way using logic, rational thought, and FACTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh kept quiet about them as part of his deception and con artist plan.
Murtagh was not the lead prosecutor - you do realize this yes? The prosecution has no responsibility to tell the defense about any of the evidence that is listed in the discovery material. the prosecution has no requirement to discuss/present a motive. So, whether Brian M ever told Bernie or Wade about the wool fibers is IMMATERIAL! inmate was not convicted on the wool fibers presence or absence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As Harvey Silverglate, a MacDonald lawyer at the time, said later on those black wool fibers indicate strangers.
actually, Harvey didn't come into the picture until the appeals process. Also, if he claimed that wool fibers indicate strangers then he was over simplifying life in the worst possible means. Firstly, because there is plenty of evidence that dark woolen objects were common in the winter life of the family. Secondly, you have obviously chosen to ignore the Theory of Locard again.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
inmate did give away and send to the garbage tip several family possessions like the children clothes and Colette's clothes and the children dolls because he thought quite reasonably at the time that he had been cleared after the Article 32 in 1970.
Actually, he threw away and gave away there things because he was pleased to be rid of them and happy that at least to that point he had gotten away with his horrific actions.

Also, it was NOT reasonable for him to believe that he had been cleared since the Base Commander stated quite plainly that charges were being dismissed for LACK OF EVIDENCE. That is not even CLOSE to say innocent or even not guilty. Better than half of the evidence had yet to be reviewed at the time of the Article 32 but under the UCMJ the proceedings had to take place within a short span of time after charges had been brought. The Provost Marshall jumped the gun on the charges leaving the CID insufficient time to complete the analysis. HOWEVER, in the real world it was a good thing because the UCMJ punishment for Courts Martial if there had been one, was insufficient for the heinous nature of the crimes inmate committed.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He had no possible way of knowing that those items would then be used later on as so-called evidence against him as the prosecution manufactured specious evidence about hairs and threads.
ha ha haaa ha ha haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa how do you type such ridiculous things without breaking down? First the wool fibers WERE NOT used as evidence "so-called" or otherwise. Secondly, there was no manufactured evidence of any kind and the evidence used to convict certainly was not specious because if it had it would not have held up under all the extra appeals inmate has been allowed to bring forth. Third, by asking for the DNA testing to be done, he had to know that his conviction was going to be more firm. The "Mystery Hair" was a 100% match to inmate and the DEFENSE is the one who always said the wielder of the murder club would be the supplier of that hair.......and they were correct!

Inmate is in jail and he will remain in jail where he belongs.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 04:38 PM   #897
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Similarities

I recently finished watching the Ted Bundy documentary on Netflix and it was interesting to note the parallels between that case and inmate's case.

- Both trials took place in 1979.

- Both cases garnered national attention.

- Both perps were intelligent, handsome, and did not fit the mass murderer stereotype.

- Both perps were world class fabricators.

- Both perps were convicted on new (e.g., bitemark evidence in Bundy case) and/or unusual (e.g., pajama top theory in MacDonald case) forensic techniques.

- Both perps were convicted in six and a half hours.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
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 31st January 2019, 03:22 AM   #898
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
No it is not!



THIS is RIDICULOUS! The information in the bench notes, investigative notes, interviews, home search etc. was all in the material provided to the defense under the disclosure process. IT IS ENTIRELY BERNIE SEGAL AND THE DEFENSE TEAM responsibility to make THEIR case. IF they thought the wool fibers were so damn important then THEY should have brought them up during the defense portion of the trial. That they did not mention them shows that they paid little heed to the evidence as a whole. Also, since there is plenty of evidence that the family owned items with dark wool prior to inmate throwing everything away the FACT is that the existence of such fibers were of little to no forensic value. UNSOURCED equals forensically useless. THAT IS A FACT.

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...-room-001.html

See the nice afghan on the sofa? See the dark wool it is made from? and that is just 1 piece of probable source material....

ha ha haaa ha ha haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa how do you type such ridiculous things without breaking down? First the wool fibers WERE NOT used as evidence "so-called" or otherwise. Secondly, there was no manufactured evidence of any kind and the evidence used to convict certainly was not specious because if it had it would not have held up under all the extra appeals inmate has been allowed to bring forth. Third, by asking for the DNA testing to be done, he had to know that his conviction was going to be more firm. The "Mystery Hair" was a 100% match to inmate and the DEFENSE is the one who always said the wielder of the murder club would be the supplier of that hair.......and they were correct!

Inmate is in jail and he will remain in jail where he belongs.
Have you not heard of the Brady law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense? Murtagh and Dupree concealed the exculpatory evidence, like the black wool fibers with no known source, and made sure the defense were never given access to it until after the trial. That's obstruction of justice. It's strained logic. As MacDonald himself has said Stombaugh never bothered to check the so-called 'pajama -like' fibers in the pill box, and neither did the 4th Circuit judges, even if the whole thing was not a fabrication. That was supposed to be the conclusive evidence for the jury to convict him. Stombaugh only said it could be. He was making it up.
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 31st January 2019, 07:10 AM   #899
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Have you not heard of the Brady law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense?
Yes henri I have but you apparently think it means something that it DOES NOT MEAN. The prosecution is required to give copies of the evidence (bench notes, investigation notes, access to physical evidence etc) BUT THEY ARE NOT REPEAT ARE NOT REPEAT AGAIN ARE NOT required to point out any specific evidentiary items. The defense has to review ALL the evidence. The FACT is that Bernie ignored a great deal of the evidence and/or chose to ignore that evidence. That does not make it invalid nor does it mean the prosecution cannot use it against inmate.

HOWEVER, in this case the black wool fibers WERE NOT exculpatory anyway. From inmate's perspective they were at best neutral because UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh and Dupree concealed the exculpatory evidence, like the black wool fibers with no known source, and made sure the defense were never given access to it until after the trial.
No, they did not. FIRST OFF - the Judge of a case has no action or responsibility for disclosing evidence to either side. The Judge presides over the trial and other legal actions as required. SECONDLY, Murtagh and Blackburn provided the evidence and/or access to the physical evidence as required by law.

THIRD as you have been told numerous times Bernie Segal chose to attempt to have the evidence shipped across country for analysis by his "experts" and wasted a great deal of time in the process. That action was one he KNEW would not be granted. During the entire time he was playing a losing game, the Prosecution had made lab space available to the defense and full access to ALL THE EVIDENCE. The DEFENSE FAILED TO REVIEW/ANALYZE the evidence in a timely manner. that is not a fault of the prosecution and does not constitute a violation of Brady or any other Procedural Rule.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's obstruction of justice.
IF items had been withheld it might constitute obstruction of justice but in this case the access was available and the defense chose to ignore it until the time was so limited. That is the fault of the defense and inmate, if he feels that situation was part of the reason for his conviction should have tried to request a new trial for insufficient council.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As MacDonald himself has said Stombaugh never bothered to check the so-called 'pajama-like' fibers in the pill box,
Stombaugh was not the Expert that testified about the pj fibers in the pillbox.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and neither did the 4th Circuit judges,
Seriously? JUDGES DO NOT REVIEW PHYSICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE. THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS/LAB TECHNICIANS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
even if the whole thing was not a fabrication.
finally YOU realize that inmate's story is a total fabrication!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh only said it could be.
Stombaugh used the legal language that was accepted/acceptable for Experts in forensics. I know someone pointed that out to you earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He was making it up.
No, he was not making things up. The fabricator/liar/murderer inmate and Bernie Segal are the only ones to "make things up" at trial. In more recent years Jimmy Britt also made things up.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2019, 08:34 AM   #900
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Have you not heard of the Brady law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense?
a lot of people have and actually understand it. when are you going to come to this country and free your boy with all your faux knowledge? why are you letting him rot in prison since you have all the answers? that's more criminal than if he had been falsely convicted.

Last edited by Whip; 31st January 2019 at 08:35 AM.
Whip 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 31st January 2019, 03:34 PM   #901
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Sore Losers

The issue of whether the government purposely withheld exculpatory evidence in this case was addressed in the early to mid-80's by the 4th Circuit Court. Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, they ruled that there was no evidence of the government purposely withholding evidence. This has not stopped inmate's advocates from crying foul, and I would argue that their diatribes paints them as sore losers.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 31st January 2019 at 03:36 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 1st February 2019, 11:04 AM   #902
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
Henri is counting dancing angels on the head of a pin

Henri, so what? For the sake of argument, let's concede ALL the purple thread issues, etc..

How does that prove that other people were in inmate's apartment that night? It doesn't. So it's irrelevant. At this point, inmate needs actual proof of something, not more bizarre, extraordinarily unlikely dream-like scenarios. He needs something real. And it doesn't exist because no one else was there: it was just him slaughtering his family.
ScottPletcher 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 1st February 2019, 01:39 PM   #903
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Unsourced Fibers

It's important to note that bloggers, posters, authors, and lawyers have no expertise in fiber analysis. In essence, any "analysis" by these individuals in regards to the significance of unsourced fibers in this case are worthless. Harvey Silverglate quickly found that out in the early 90's when the government put forth the FBI's long standing philosophy or stance that unsourced fibers are "forensically insignificant."

This is especially the case in a lived-in domicile where the residents have frequent visitors and allow neighbors to use their laundry facilities. If you add the fact that fibers are frequently transferred to other locations (e.g., Transfer Theory of Locard), the presence of unsourced fibers in the MacDonald residence is not unusual nor is it evidence of hippie home invaders.

The analysis of fiber expert Paul Stombaugh was significant in that it pointed to 3 undeniable facts.

1) Despite a 72 inch tear in MacDonald's blue pajama top, not a single fiber from that garment was found in the living room where inmate claimed he fought with 3 armed men. This indicated that the garment was not torn in the living room.

2) Seventy-Nine fibers sourced to inmate's pajama top were found in the master bedroom. This indicated that his pajama top was torn in the master bedroom and that the initial assault on Colette was in that same room.

3) Inmate denied wearing his pajama top when he "found" his children in their beds, yet fibers from the garment were found under the bedcovers of his children, under Kimberley's pillow, and under Kristen's fingernail. This indicated that inmate assaulted his children as they lay in their beds.

When inmate was told (e.g., 4/6/70 CID interview) about the proliferation of pajama fibers in all 3 bedrooms, his initial response was "Holy Christmas."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st February 2019 at 01:49 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 1st February 2019, 03:48 PM   #904
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Prime Example

A prime example of Transfer Theory of Locard in this case involves the shag carpet in the master bedroom. One of the 3 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene was found under Colette's body. It was proven that the hair was naturally shed (e.g., not bloody, club root) and that inmate brought the shag carpet from his prior residence. As the government pointed out in several briefs, it is impossible to determine when that hair was deposited on the shag carpet and when that issue was being litigated, the burden of proof (e.g., sourcing the hair to a known intruder suspect) was on inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st February 2019 at 03:50 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 1st February 2019, 11:34 PM   #905
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Lone Argument

In regards to the pajama fiber issue, the lone argument put forth by inmate's advocates revolves around the tear in the crotch of inmate's pajama bottoms. There are a myriad of problems, however, with this particular position.

- Inmate insists that he never got on the master bed, Kimberley's bed, or Kristen's bed.

- Similar to the huge tear in MacDonald's pajama top, the tear in his pajama bottoms did not shed a single fiber in the living room.

- Fiber expert Paul Stombaugh was able to source a majority of the pajama fibers to the torn left front seam and torn left sleeve of inmate's pajama top.

- Fiber expert Paul Stombaugh also sourced a 20 inch warp yarn found on top of Kimberley's pillow to the left front seam of inmate's torn pajama top.

- The fiber embedded under Kristen's fingernail was sourced to inmate's pajamas with the most likely source being his torn pajama top.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st February 2019 at 11:38 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 3rd February 2019, 09:52 AM   #906
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
3) Inmate denied wearing his pajama top when he "found" his children in their beds, yet fibers from the garment were found under the bedcovers of his children, under Kimberley's pillow, and under Kristen's fingernail. This indicated that inmate assaulted his children as they lay in their beds.

When inmate was told (e.g., 4/6/70 CID interview) about the proliferation of pajama fibers in all 3 bedrooms, his initial response was "Holy Christmas."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. CID agent Kearns just 'knew' MacDonald did it and to so-call prove it Kearns ordered a retesting of the urine stain after ninety weeks to 'prove' MacDonald was lying about carrying Kristen to her bedroom and possibly shedding pajama fibers that way. It can't be done. It's a joke. At least that matter was never mentioned at the trial because of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

This is what actually happened and I can't see why people can't believe it. This is his story and he's sticking to it. It's true MacDonald was offered the assistance of a lawyer at that April 1970 interview who could have helped him in the art of discretion, which resulted in trouble for him later on.


Quote:
MacDonald: Let's see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading. And I went to bed about -- somewheres around two o'clock. I really don't know; I was reading on the couch, and my little girl Kristy had gone into bed with my wife.

And I went in to go to bed, and the bed was wet. She had wet the bed on my side, so I brought her in her own room. And I don't remember if I changed her or not; gave her a bottle and went out to the couch 'cause my bed was wet. And I went to sleep on the couch.

And then the next thing I know I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also. And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed.
So, I don't know if I really said anything or I was getting ready to say something. This happened real fast. You know, when you talk about it, it sounds like it took forever; but it didn't take forever.
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 4th February 2019, 07:51 AM   #907
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads.
Which was the scientifically acceptable language for experts in forensic analysis to use when testifying. you've been told this before so stop bringing it up.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
CID agent Kearns just 'knew' MacDonald did it and to so-call prove it Kearns ordered a retesting of the urine stain after ninety weeks to 'prove' MacDonald was lying about carrying Kristen to her bedroom
The time frame of the urine stain testing does not in any way exonerate or even help inmate AT ALL. Antigens would not change with the age of the urine stain. The testing PROVED repeat PROVED that only Kimmie or Colette could have made the urine stain on the master bed. PERIOD. IT IS NOT AND WAS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THAT STAIN TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY KRISTY.

Try and grasp this simple concept henri:

Type A blood contains Antigen A and anti-B antibodies
Type AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B no antibodies
Type O blood contains Antigen H and anti-A and anti-B antibodies

The test results showed Antigen A found no antibodies so that leaves only Kimmie and Colette as possible sources of the urine stain. Add to this SCIENTIFIC FACT is that there was no sign that Colette had urinated on herself and there was SIGNIFICANT evidence showing that Kimmie HAD done.

You have been told this before but I think you choose to repeat disproven nonsense to annoy us. HOWEVER one last time - Kimmie was the one in the master bedroom and there is no evidence that Kristy ever left her bed. INMATE LIED ABOUT WHICH DAUGHTER WAS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. Not surprising since he didn't want to admit he slaughtered his daughter (hit her so hard that she laid slowly dying on the floor of the master bedroom for some time before he carried her back to her bed).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It can't be done. It's a joke.
It can be done, you just don't like the FACT that the testing PROVED that it is scientifically impossible for Kristy to have been the one that wet the master bed. Sorry to disappoint you henri but murderers like inmate often lie.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
At least that matter was never mentioned at the trial because of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Cite your source as to the FRE being why the urine stain testing was not mentioned at trial. It is likely that the government did not consider that bit of evidence as powerful as other evidence they submitted. Since only about 60% of the available evidence was used at trial there are a number of FACTS that were not mentioned at trial and not because of the FRE but because the time to use every single piece of evidence would have stretched an already nearly 7 week trial to much more lengthy and cumbersome levels.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is what actually happened... discretion, which resulted in trouble for him later on.
I didn't finish reading nor quoting the rest....THAT is ridiculous. Inmate slaughtered his family. he has been tried, convicted, and heard before the courts more than any other murderer in US Jurisprudence. the evidence against him is stronger now then it was in 1979.

I suppose it is possible he will request a hearing before the USSC, but I doubt they'd hear him. If he acted as smart as he allegedly is he'd accept his fate and go quietly into the cell and let them lock it tight to stay there until he breathes his last.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2019, 09:31 AM   #908
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
This matter of the black wool fibers has been previously discussed on this forum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...249368&page=38

You don't have to be a 4th Circuit judge in an excellent court to work out that the prosecution would be on to an afghan carpet causing black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and her biceps and on the wooden murder club like a shot if it was true. Even that manufactured evidence specialist Stombaugh never mentioned afghan carpets.

Doesn't it occur to you that afghan carpets sometimes use synthetic fibers? Murtagh said publicly after the trial that any black wool fibers could have come from photos of Colette once wearing a black dress which is specious evidence!

Quote:
This is more from Murphy's affidavit:

"Thus Frier found a total of five black wool fibers, one green wool fiber, and one white fiber, on the body of Colette and the wooden club, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO MATCH TO ANY KNOWN SOURCE."

Al this Frier information was illegally withheld from the MacDonald defense, and judge and jury, by Murtagh in 1979.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 4th February 2019 at 09:34 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 5th February 2019, 12:57 PM   #909
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This matter of the black wool fibers has been previously discussed on this forum:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...249368&page=38

You don't have to be a 4th Circuit judge in an excellent court to work out that the prosecution would be on to an afghan carpet causing black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and her biceps and on the wooden murder club like a shot if it was true. Even that manufactured evidence specialist Stombaugh never mentioned afghan carpets.

Doesn't it occur to you that afghan carpets sometimes use synthetic fibers? Murtagh said publicly after the trial that any black wool fibers could have come from photos of Colette once wearing a black dress which is specious evidence!
So what is your evidence that intruders brought those specific fibers into the apartment THAT MORNING (Feb 17) rather than at any other time when visitors were in the house?
ScottPletcher 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 5th February 2019, 01:12 PM   #910
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
it would appear this question has been overlooked:

Originally Posted by Whip View Post
a lot of people have and actually understand it. when are you going to come to this country and free your boy with all your faux knowledge? why are you letting him rot in prison since you have all the answers? that's more criminal than if he had been falsely convicted.
Whip 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 6th February 2019, 03:33 AM   #911
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
So what is your evidence that intruders brought those specific fibers into the apartment THAT MORNING (Feb 17) rather than at any other time when visitors were in the house?
The point is those black wool fibers with no known source from around the mouth of Colette and her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon were of forensic significance and should have been discussed in front of the jury at the trial. You can't just say it's household debris or that the MacDonald defense should have tortured Murtagh to get the information. The matter should have been explained to the 4th Circuit judges by some medical detectives. This is what Logan thought about the matter in 1999:

Quote:
Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps, and on the murder club found out back.

In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact Black wool fibers that were similar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.
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 6th February 2019, 04:42 AM   #912
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
I propose a new forum rule. "When the facts of a trial are well beyond reasonable doubt, any further debate is deemed to be a waste of bandwidth and threads devoted to these cases will be closed". I can think of a few which would fall foul of this rule, with this one the most prominent.

This is a serious suggestion.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 6th February 2019, 06:08 AM   #913
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is those black wool fibers with no known source from around the mouth of Colette and her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon were of forensic significance
That is just the point henri they WERE NOT OF FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE.

(a) UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS
(b) There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the family had numerous dark wool items (hats, gloves, scarves, sweaters, afghan, pillow trim)

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and should have been discussed in front of the jury at the trial.
Since the dark fibers were of no forensic significance the prosecution didn't not bring them up at trial. HOWEVER, if the defense thought they were significant then THEY should have brought them up at trial. That they did not do so shows quiet plainly that the defense knew they were not significant and were of no value to the defense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't just say it's household debris
Actually we can certainly say the fibers were likely debris from the family living in the apartment. You have been told before, but perhaps you still have not managed to understand yet.....fibers and hairs and even skin cells are shed all day every day. WE pick up and deposit such things as we move through our daily routine. The FACT is that a lot of debris could have ended up landing in all sorts of places since it is obvious that Colette fought HARD to survive. The fact that inmate could bash, beat, stab, and otherwise brutalized the woman he allegedly loved is sickening to most people.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or that the MacDonald defense should have tortured Murtagh to get the information.
I never saw anyone suggest that Murtagh be tortured for any reason. The DEFENSE had the information as soon as they received the disclosure materials. That they did not bring up the dark wool fibers at trial shows that they realized (just as the government had) that UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter should have been explained to the 4th Circuit judges by some medical detectives.
The time to bring up the wool fibers (if they were going to do so) would have been trial. They could also have attempted to introduce them as "new evidence" during the appeals process, but the government would have shown that the information in regards the presence of those dark woolen fibers was included in the disclosure material and thus it was not "new" evidence and it would not be admissible. However, the courts may have let them introduce it anyway, but the conclusion would still be UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. What would medical detectives have to offer in regards to unsourced dark wool fibers? Are you trying to claim the dark wool fibers were the cause of death?
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2019, 06:11 AM   #914
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I propose a new forum rule. "When the facts of a trial are well beyond reasonable doubt, any further debate is deemed to be a waste of bandwidth and threads devoted to these cases will be closed". I can think of a few which would fall foul of this rule, with this one the most prominent.

This is a serious suggestion.
Since this case is technically still ongoing, with the defendant and his few remaining cronies doing their utmost to keep it in the courts. There are some people that actually believed the highly slanted PEOPLE magazine articles and as long as one person remains declaring things to be FACT that are not FACT then we will debate or at least counter the arguments.

IF you do not wish to join in the discussion of inmate then don't come on this thread.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2019, 06:12 AM   #915
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
it would appear this question has been overlooked:
not overlooked but ignored!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2019, 10:54 AM   #916
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Since the dark fibers were of no forensic significance the prosecution didn't not bring them up at trial. HOWEVER, if the defense thought they were significant then THEY should have brought them up at trial. That they did not do so shows quiet plainly that the defense knew they were not significant and were of no value to the defense.
That's a load of crap from a bunch of idiots. Neither Dr. Thornton nor Bernie Segal were ever aware that there were black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon or around Colette's mouth with no known source, not even afghan or shag carpets, before the trial, or during the trial. They were not mind readers and it was deliberately and illegally concealed by Murtagh. The jury and 4th Circuit judges should have been informed. The matter is discussed at this website:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...pic.php?t=2214

Quote:
by jane » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:26 pm
Are you aware of the Puretz memo in the MacDonald case? It is mentioned in the Errol Morris book, A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald.

Puretz, a law clerk for one of the prosecutors was asked to find the outer limits of the Brady requirement and came up with a solution.

.. the prosecutors had given the defense attorneys just enough access to the evidence, in just enough time—and as a result made it difficult to argue that they had been given little or nothing.

Additional info about the MacDonald case and the Puretz memo in this article which is open to the public:

Reflections on the Jeffrey MacDonald Case
By Harvey Silverglate

https://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=28481
jane

Posts: 3968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th February 2019 at 11:18 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 6th February 2019, 11:02 AM   #917
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
More from that website:

Quote:
In 2012, the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence filed a motion for testing of all of the evidence, which was denied in 2014.
“I wanted the testing done because every time tests are done the evidence points to my innocence,” MacDonald told People. “And there’s a reason. I’m innocent.”
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 6th February 2019, 01:33 PM   #918
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
More from that website:
False equivalence much?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 06:56 AM   #919
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a load of crap from a bunch of idiots.
Nope it is the TRUTH and you know it.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Neither Dr. Thornton nor Bernie Segal were ever aware that there were black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon or around Colette's mouth
I cannot confirm or deny what Dr. Thorton knew or did not know. HOWEVER, IT IS FACT THAT THE PRESENCE OF DARK WOOL FIBERS WAS IN THE DOCUMENTATION, LAB NOTES, ETC. THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE UNDER THE DISCOVERY PROCESS.

It was therefore Bernie Segal's responsibility to read ALL that information and cull from it what he thought could be used to defend inmate. The FACT that he did not is not the fault or responsibility of the government.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
with no known source,
UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
not even afghan or shag carpets, before the trial, or during the trial.
inmate got rid of everything he could before there was a chance to gather them and source additional fibers, but there is evidence that shows the presence of dark woolen items in the household. For example:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-room-004.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c.../crime034.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...olette-17.html

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They were not mind readers and it was deliberately and illegally concealed by Murtagh.
Nobody expected them to be mind readers however that does not negate the FACT that if Bernie had bothered to thoroughly review the documentation he received through discovery he would have been aware of the fibers. just because you are stamping your feet and throwing a fit does not make it any less true. Nothing was illegally concealed or deliberately concealed by Murtagh or Blackburn (and by the way Blackburn was the lead counsel).

The prosecution is required to turn over the information THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC ITEMS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The jury and 4th Circuit judges should have been informed.
Then Bernie Segal should have brought it up if he believed they were of value. HOWEVER since the fibers were not SOURCED they were of no forensic value whatsoever.....FACT henri
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 06:57 AM   #920
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
As for the thoughts of Harvey Silverglate - roflmao! utter nonsense
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 09:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.