|
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. |
19th February 2019, 09:48 AM | #961 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
This is the way the prosecuting attorneys and trial judge withheld the exculpatory evidence and prevented the defense attorneys from finding out if the prosecution was making it up. It's highly technical but an average jury or 4th Circuit judge might be able to understand it:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...aff_segal.html
Quote:
|
19th February 2019, 12:12 PM | #962 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Denied:
"The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc." S/Clerk |
19th February 2019, 12:17 PM | #963 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
key phrase NO KNOWN SOURCE aka FORENSICALLY USELESS
There was a calm and coll presentation of the facts - it is called A TRIAL. Inmate was convicted as charged because the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. UNSOURCED FIBERS ARE USELESS forensically speaking. try reading the actual documentation rather than the cut and paste, misrepresentation, revisionist history, and outright lies as told by the defense in FJ or WOE or even inmate's own website (if it still exists). statements by the murderer do not constitute documentation especially since convicts tend to lie and inmate is no exception. |
19th February 2019, 06:00 PM | #964 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Great News
BYN: Thanks for the update. Inmate will die in prison and that's how it should be.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
19th February 2019, 06:01 PM | #965 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Obsession With Household Debris
Again, no matter how inmate's advocates attempt to spin the fiber/hair analysis, the simple fact is that no hair or fiber collected at the crime scene was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. The best overview of this household debris was put forth by the government in their 5/20/91 supplemental memo.
"Nonetheless, we demonstrated that of the synthetic fibers, claimed by petitioner to have been shed from the wig of a female intruder, one originated from a wig owned by Colette MacDonald and the others were used in the manufacture of children's dolls. We also showed that other allegedly exculpatory hair and fiber evidence found in the MacDonald household was nothing more than inconsequential household debris--some of which plainly originated in the MacDonald home--and that it possessed no exculpatory value whatsoever." http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th February 2019, 12:30 AM | #966 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
No Surprise
Despite a 2-1 vote, the government's 1980 petition for a full hearing before the 4th Circuit Court was denied.
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._decision.html This decision was a prime example of why inmate should not have been surprised by the 4th Circuit's recent denial of a full hearing. In this instance, the vote was 3-0, and the 1980 decision had nothing to do with the trial verdict. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th February 2019, 03:43 AM | #967 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
20th February 2019, 03:58 AM | #968 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That is nonsense. Malone made it up that the synthetic blonde hair-like fibers came from children dolls like he has done in other murder cases. Malone is a total liar. You could just as easily say that any pajama fibers found were household debris, and that was supposed to be inculpatory according to the prosecution. One juror said afterwards that he convicted because no blood or pajama fibers were found where MacDonald fell unconscious which is patently untrue. I suppose you could fault Segal for not getting the truth into that juror's thick head and making it clear. The matter was covered at the Article 32 in 1970 which Murtagh and Blackburn withheld from the jury with objections because it was supposed to be ten year old information!
The matter is discussed at this website: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.ed...y_publications
Quote:
|
20th February 2019, 09:00 AM | #969 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Mistakes are made by the Supreme Court and they were made in the MacDonald case. It undermines security and confidence in the judicial system. This is a blog about the matter:
https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html
Quote:
|
20th February 2019, 01:20 PM | #970 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Quote:
The other q was essentially whether the Florida Supreme Court could re-write Florida law to allow their own preferences for vote recounts or whether to follow existing state law, and the Constitution's specification, on rules for voting. It's actually shocking that 4 Supreme-Court-level justices thought it was OK for a single set of judges to arbitrarily ignore state law in order to try to change the outcome of an election just because they didn't prefer the winner. Needless to say, the media still kept counting anyway ... and Bush won every version of every recount they did. Luckily, Al Gore was a very sore loser and drug the thing out forever trying to steal enough votes -- in 4 heavily Dem counties with Dem apparatchiks, who he presumably felt could go secretly into rooms and come out, perhaps with a whiff of white smoke, and just declare him as having suddenly "won". If he'd instead immediately conceded, I'm 100% convinced he could have run in 4 years and become the next POTUS. JFK truly stole the election, in IL, from Nixon, and even Nixon conceded gracefully to spare the country. |
20th February 2019, 04:44 PM | #971 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
It's Ova
Again, inmate should not have been surprised by the 4th Circuit's recent denial of a full hearing. Unlike the 1980 vote (e.g., vote was 2-1) that led to 18 months of freedom for inmate, this same court voted 3-0 (e.g., 12/21/18) to deny inmate a new trial. The 1980 vote revolved around speedy trial issues whereas the 2018 vote focused on whether inmate met the "daunting burden" of proving that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of murder. Putting forth the claim that two separate District Court judges and two separate Circuit Court three judge panels were "in bed with the prosecution," is akin to believing that the Earth is flat.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th February 2019, 06:20 PM | #972 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
|
20th February 2019, 06:22 PM | #973 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
|
21st February 2019, 01:32 AM | #974 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Underrated
James Blackburn's closing arguments at the 1979 trial were brilliant, but one of the more underrated aspects of the prosecution's case was the closing arguments put forth by Brian Murtagh. His approach to presenting the mass of inculpatory evidence in this case was simplistic, yet thorough.
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...h_opening.html The 4th Circuit's 12/21/18 decision has vindicated Brian's efforts in obtaining justice for Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
21st February 2019, 03:25 AM | #975 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The so-called evidence presented to the court by Murtagh and Blackburn was made up and the real culprits were disregarded . This matter was mentioned in an old legal book called English Justice by a police court solicitor published in 1932:
Quote:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/20...-carolina.html
Quote:
|
21st February 2019, 03:34 AM | #976 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It's very relevant to the MacDonald case in that six very bad justices in the Supreme Court put MacDonald into prison in about 1982 for good, on specious evidence. It's true that three Supreme Court justices did dissent from that decision, Justice Marshall, Blackman and Brennan. Justice Marshall made the remark in a legal document at the time that the MacDonald case was one of strained logic and judicial illusion.
|
21st February 2019, 10:27 AM | #977 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
21st February 2019, 01:23 PM | #978 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Not A Whisper
The 12/21/18 decision by the 4th Circuit Court not only ended the legal phase of this case, it appears to have silenced inmate's high profile advocates. Not a word from Harvey Silverglate. Not a whisper from Errol Morris. Their collective silence speaks to the strength of the government's case against inmate. The last two appellate decisions were thorough and beyond fair. In 2014, Judge Fox's decision encompassed 169 pages, and the 12/21/18 decision by the 4th Circuit Court totaled 154 pages. Inmate had more opportunities than he deserved to prove his innocence, yet he consistently failed to meet the "daunting burden" put before him by the appellate courts.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
21st February 2019, 01:45 PM | #979 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
|
21st February 2019, 05:22 PM | #980 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Sound Of Silence
WHIP: Prior to the 4th Circuit's decision (e.g., 12/21/18) to deny inmate a new trial, inmate's high profile advocates never missed an opportunity to spew their propaganda to members of the media. In 2011, I spoke at length with Errol Morris about his upcoming book on this case and despite his assertions to the contrary, his book ended up being an advocacy piece for a mass murderer. The 4th Circuit's decision demonstrates that his con job failed at every level. It appears that Morris and his fellow MacDonald advocates have decided to curl up into a ball and lick their wounds. All that is left are the rantings of a handful of message board trolls.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
22nd February 2019, 03:14 AM | #981 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Those 4th Circuit judges and the Supreme Court need to look at the evidence. It's Nazi justice. An experienced High Court judge in the UK might be able to help. I expect Silverglate and Morris just feel they are beating against the wind now. Some Americans can be arrogant and aggressive and narrow minded. It was bad police work.
|
22nd February 2019, 05:36 AM | #982 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
They DID look at the evidence. They reviewed it thoroughly. READ the decision and you can see the in-depth full scrutiny given to each and every piece of evidence. Inmate is guilty and he will remain guilty - he will not get a new trial. ALL OF THE SOURCED EVIDENCE POINTS TO HIM AND HIM ALONE AS THE SOLE PERPETRATOR OF THESE HEINOUS CRIMES.
No, actually it is good old fashioned criminal justice - JUSTICE FOR inmate's VICTIMS. No, actually nobody would even begin to seek the assistance of a jurists from Great Britain because this is an American case. Also, plenty of esteemed, well-educated, experienced, and smart Judges here in the US have been involved in this case. The most recent being the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. As a lawyer who posts on at least 1 board pointed out, the decision from 12/21/18 said in essence "don't bring us this crap anymore". In other words inmate is guilty as convicted and will remain guilty as convicted. I think MAYBE they have finally realized that backing a murderer is not the wisest course. So can internet trolls. A poster on a different board asked someone "why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?" Now, I am asking you! No it was not bad police work. The overwhelming evidence of inmate's guilt was the result of a lot of good investigation. It has withstood all the appeals and inmate remains where he belongs - IN PRISON. |
22nd February 2019, 09:28 AM | #983 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
22nd February 2019, 10:10 AM | #984 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Well that is too bad! Of course, the only ones who disagree are the ones who choose to support the narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer.....
So....when are you going to answer the question "Why do you HATE Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?" |
22nd February 2019, 11:57 AM | #985 | ||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Judges with nothing to do with your murdering mancrush took bribes, and you cite that as evidence?
Using your (ahem) logic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime...=.e6b40f73ab95 By Avi Selk Avi Selk November 19, 2018 A Colorado father was sentenced to three consecutive lifetimes in prison after a prosecutor detailed for the first time how Christopher Watts planned the August murders of his pregnant wife and two young daughters — apparently in the hope of starting a new life with his girlfriend. But neither prosecutors nor the surviving relatives of Shanann, Bella and Celeste Watts who spoke at Monday’s hearing expected to ever understand how “a seemingly normal person [could] annihilate his entire family” and then methodically cover his tracks, as Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke put it. “You buried my daughter Shanann in a shallow grave, and then you put Bella and Celeste in huge containers with crude oil, you heartless monster,” Frank Rzucek told the court as his son-in-law sat behind him clenching and unclenching his jaw, having already pleaded guilty to the murders.
See how easy this is? He murdered his family, your mancrush murdered his. Apples to Apples. |
||
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|||
22nd February 2019, 12:38 PM | #986 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
|
22nd February 2019, 12:54 PM | #987 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
22nd February 2019, 04:59 PM | #988 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Playing Dumb
The Landlord's conflation and/or flip-flopping of the legal issues contained in the 1982 Supreme Court/1998 4th Circuit Court decisions is yet another example of his penchant for playing dumb. For the past 17 years, he has focused on purposely distorting the documented record in order to elicit pointed responses from posters on this and other true crime discussion boards. He knows he is spouting nonsense on discussion boards, but playing dumb about the documented record feeds the monster. In regards to his latest nonsensical post...
- The 1982 Supreme Court decision had NOTHING to do with the evidence (e.g., "specious evidence") presented at the 1979 trial. Their decision was based on whether inmate's right to a speedy trial was violated. - The Landord's reference to "specious evidence" was lifted directly from the 1998 decision by the 4th Circuit Court to deny inmate a new trial. - In that decision, the 4th Circuit deemed the arguments put forth by the DEFENSE as being "specious evidence." http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
23rd February 2019, 03:25 AM | #989 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's not the point. MacDonald testified, I think at the Grand Jury, that he loved his wife and kids then and he still loves them now. There was never a shred of evidence of domestic abuse, or child abuse, or violent arguments in the MacDonald family. That idiot Stombaugh surmised that MacDonald did it after a violent argument over bedwetting, and then Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush, and Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads!
This matter was touched on at the Article 32 in 1970, which Murtagh was so keen in keeping it dark, with CID agent Ivory who I think went into more detail later on. The CID could find no examples of violent arguments in the family: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html
Quote:
|
23rd February 2019, 04:08 AM | #990 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I agree that the 1982 Supreme Court case which put MacDonald into prison for the rest of his life was mainly concerned with this speedy trial legal technicality, but it touched upon other aspects as well, like Stoeckley and the coaching of witnesses by the prosecution. I think Segal was gambling that this speedy trial matter would get MacDonald acquitted, and even prevent a trial from taking place:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/456/1
Quote:
|
23rd February 2019, 10:35 AM | #991 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Yeah, right.
Hilighted: Yeah, I bet it was Colette's name he screamed out as he climaxed while committing adultery with a woman other than his wife. {That's sarcasm, because if I don't point it out, you'll take me seriously.} If you love someone, you avoid causing them that kind of emotional pain.
You're partially right about Stombaugh (he's not idiotic, stop projecting): he could have been wrong about the bedwetting argument - it could have been about a non-existent trip to Russia your man crush was on and on about - she could have found out that Russia was code for "going on a boxing trip near New Jersey, USA, and I get to see my old girlfriend as a bonus" - that wouldn't go over well, especially since Colette knew about other affairs (source: her sister-in-law Pep). Your quote shows that they did have arguments, but any physical abuse of Colette would not be reported by her - she was a very private person. (However, that argument could have been about him raising his hand to one of the girls - Kimberley maybe, whose urine was found on the MB sheet. She might not fight for herself, but she would for her girls.) So, you've contradicted yourself again; the neighbor did say she heard fights. |
23rd February 2019, 11:14 AM | #992 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The point is that there was never any evidence of violent arguments in the MacDonald family. This matter was discussed at the Article 32 but not at the trial in order to keep the jury and 4th Circuit judges ill-informed. The prosecution case was that MacDonald was supposed to have had a violent argument and that Colette murdered one of the little girls, which then enraged MacDonald in a fit of temper!
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html
Quote:
|
23rd February 2019, 04:08 PM | #993 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
In order for someone outside the participants in an argument could determine if it was "violent" was to be watching it. Verbal arguments can be considered violent/abusive, your man crush didn't have to smash chairs.
Highlighted: Jeffrey Macdonald was charged with the murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristin; the theory you're pimping was dismissed almost as soon as it was spoken. So, the prosecution's case was not - as you well know, but chose to ignore - that Colette killed one of the girls and Jeffrey killed her and the other girl to show her! Take a reading for comprehension course, Henri, it'll give you a true prospective on your favorite American murderer. |
24th February 2019, 04:28 AM | #994 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I hope this doesn't get censored.
I can't quite see that people can't believe what MacDonald said happened did happen, and with regard to that urine stain. The fact remains that it can't be scientifically proved that it was Kimberley's urine stain, as the prosecution and desmirelle insist. You can't retest a urine stain after ninety weeks unless I'm very much mistaken. Ken Adachi had a few words to say about that urine stain which is on the internet http://educate-yourself.org/lte/macd...s29jan11.shtml
Quote:
|
24th February 2019, 08:13 AM | #995 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Lunatic Fringe
Ah, good old Ken Adachi, conspiracy nut and right hand man for fellow lunatic, Ted Gunderson. Leave it to the Landlord to cull from the late 90's archives of an individual who has not ranted about the MacDonald Case since the early 2000's. Adachi probably had a minor stroke after the DNA profile of his pet suspect (e.g., Greg Mitchell) did not match any of the 29 evidentiary exhibits tested by the AFIP.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
24th February 2019, 10:25 AM | #996 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
|
24th February 2019, 10:59 AM | #997 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Those forensic scientists should never have been allowed to lie in court, and withhold their evidence, and told by Murtagh and Blackburn to shut their traps after being coached as to what and what not to say in court. It's morally wrong. This is some legal waffle about the matter which Murtagh and Blackburn should read:
http://www.barristermagazine.com/bar...-coaching.html
Quote:
|
24th February 2019, 08:39 PM | #998 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
The only thing close to funny is your apparently inability to understand, mentally grasp or comprehend the facts while insisting your man crush is innocent based upon his own say-so.
You have NEVER cited anything that is relevant; you've libeled people because they haven't testified or come up with the forensic evidence you (and your boy Jeffy) wanted them to. According to a judge I'm acquainted with, witnesses on both sides are often reminded/advised to answer only the question they are asked. If the attorney wants further clarification, the attorney will ask. It's not asking them to lie, it's to keep opinions and armchair quarterbacking by witnesses not qualified in whatever field they have an opinion on or listing things 'the other side' has done wrong up until time of the testimony. You, as we all know, cannot back your obscene position in this case with fact, only with your disgusting, illogical opinion. I call it obscene because the slaughter of a faithful and pregnant wife and two bright, lovely girls has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers (one that he hired an expert to select) and denied redemption in myriad court hearings (he's not repented of the crimes) and there you sit in the UK, defending this depraved, immoral adult human male (he's not worthy of the word man). JTF has been asking for how long for you to put up or shut up, you've done nothing to answer him. You consistently avoid the hard questions - the ones that were answered in court and damned Inmate Macdonald for the things he did against the women (and unborn child) he was supposed to love, cherish and protect. |
25th February 2019, 06:12 AM | #999 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Really? that fact that he obviously LIED doesn't give you a hint? The FACT is that what inmate said happened COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. It is medically impossible.....
technically you are correct, we cannot say it was Kimberley's urine HOWEVER we can say it was either Kimberley's or Colette's urine on the master bed. SCIENTIFICALLY and DEFINITIVELY we can say it WAS NOT Kristen's as that would be scientifically impossible. I've explained it to you before but I will try one more time: There are 4 Blood Types and they are as follows: A - antigen A and anti-B antibodies AB - antigen A and Antigen B no antibodies B - antigen B and anti-A antibodies O - antigen H and anti-A and anti-B antibodies The urine stain was tested and Antigen A was found. Therefore, the only two possible contributors were Colette (Type A) and Kimmie (Type AB). The evidence shows clearly that Kimmie HAD urinated on herself (her nightgown and panties both had urine on them) and Colette showed no signs of urinating on herself. Yoy CAN test the urine stain. Age would not, REPEAT, would not and could not REPEAT could not change Antigen A into Antigen H (Kristen). In fact, the testing report stated that it could have been either Colette or Kimberley that made the stain because of the age of the stain testing could only eliminate inmate himself and Kristen as the contributors. PERIOD. Scientific FACT henri and just one more proof that inmate LIED. Ken Adachi was not involved with this case so his opinions count for nothing. |
25th February 2019, 06:23 AM | #1000 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes, it is VERY MUCH the point. Answer the question...."Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?
the man slaughtered his family that is not love that is narcissistic sociopathy. He also told people he was "relieved" they were gone. there is plenty of evidence to SUGGEST abuse. There were witnesses who stated there were loud arguments in the apartment. HOWEVER, just because the outside world did not SEE any abuse that doesn't mean there was not any abuse. In those days especially abuse was something that was hidden, the victims were made to feel ashamed and in the wrong. It was not until much later that there were ways for others who suspected abuse to be able to report such safely. perfectly reasonable reasonable to assume, most probable reason for (1) hairbush on the floor, (2) mild abrasion on inmate's forehead, (3) signs that Colette was getting ready for bed when the fight started What did Stombaugh say "could be"? You do realize that is the perfectly acceptable terminology used in courts all over the US (and probably elsewhere)? So What? The Article 32 was held before most of the evidence had been analyzed and the Base Commander dismissed the charges for INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. In the end, it was a blessing because the rest of the evidence was analyzed and inmate was tried in a Civilian Court thus better punishment was available although I WISH the death penalty had been an option. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|