ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Reply
Old 18th October 2020, 11:43 PM   #1841
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Al sorts of people have made all sorts of claims about these murders yet somehow a bunch of deranged, high "Hippie" home invaders managed to get into the house and kill 3 people in a particularly horrid way and not leave a trace of themselves. Whatever.

The crap is MacDonald's absurd story, which from the get go makes no sense. That so many journalists and lawyers fell and continue to fall for it is hilarious.
The crime scene investigation in the MacDonald murders is now used as an example in Detective schools as an example of how not to do it. You go by the evidence in these cases not just by your opinions in favor of the prosecution:

"Jeffery MacDonald- The Crime Scene

It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.
Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly
secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.
The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to
determine the original position of the bodies.
They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in
the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long
before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.
They also allowed the trash to be picked up without being checked for evidence!
The investigators indicated that MacDonald picked up an overturned flower pot, but Kenneth
Mica, MP, stated it was not MacDonald. At the Army hearing, 6 months after the crime, Mica
testified MacDonald was taken to the hospital early in morning.
Shortly after that, a long haired man wearing jeans and a field jacket, uprighted the overturned
flower pot. Then he sat down on the couch in the living room!
No one knows who this man was, when he came or left.
He was not part of the investigative team.
The children were still on their back when MacDonald was taken to the hospital, but they were
photographed on their sides.
At the scene a medic described seeing wounds in Kristen’s back. These wounds were not
exposed in the photographs or when the bodies were on their backs, as MacDonald last saw
them. This brings up the question of “how many people had the opportunity to change the
positions of the bodies? And why would anyone do that?” Jeffery MacDonald- The Crime Scene
It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.
Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly
secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.
The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to
determine the original position of the bodies.
They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in
the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long
before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.
They also allowed the trash to be picked up without being checked for evidence!
The investigators indicated that MacDonald picked up an overturned flower pot, but Kenneth
Mica, MP, stated it was not MacDonald. At the Army hearing, 6 months after the crime, Mica
testified MacDonald was taken to the hospital early in morning.
Shortly after that, a long haired man wearing jeans and a field jacket, uprighted the overturned
flower pot. Then he sat down on the couch in the living room!
No one knows who this man was, when he came or left.
He was not part of the investigative team.
The children were still on their back when MacDonald was taken to the hospital, but they were
photographed on their sides.
At the scene a medic described seeing wounds in Kristen’s back. These wounds were not
exposed in the photographs or when the bodies were on their backs, as MacDonald last saw
them. This brings up the question of “how many people had the opportunity to change the
positions of the bodies? And why would anyone do that?”
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:02 AM   #1842
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

Judge Dupree invited O’Neill to respond, “Mr. Murtagh is correct. There is a phenomenon of aberrant mental patients, people who read about an event and are looking to take part in this event through this bizarre phenomenon of claiming. Wacky as it is, we know it exists.” Id. Stoeckley, Mitchell, and Perry, are all examples of this phenomenon, and they all have the common denominator of substance abuse.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't think O'Neill was up to much as a criminal defense lawyer. It was only because MacDonald was fearfully aggrieved with Segal at the time.

The police are apt to jump to conclusions and to be idle and incompetent in investigating murders. In many of these murders there is at first a prime suspect which then often changes when more information comes in. You don't have to stick to the same suspect through thick and thin.

I think O'Neill would have done better to have challenged the corrupt bias in the case, and the forensic fraud by the FBI, and Blackburn talking a lot of fraud to the jury about pajama fibers on the murder weapon and Murtagh withholding crucial forensic evidence from the MacDonald defense and jury.

MacDonald needed a senior judge who could put his foot down about that and not be so absurdly credulous as to how innocent Stoeckley and Mitchell and Mazerolle were supposed to be. Fancy judge Dupree writing in the 1985 appeal that Michell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere! It's absurd. Stoeckley was as guilty as hell and it's not just me who thinks that.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:04 AM   #1843
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,321
Partaking In Nonsense

HENRI: Your long winded post reeks of the kind of nonsense posted by MacDonald advocates in the late 90's/early 2000's. Just for shi... ah, fecal matter and giggles.

QUOTE: It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.

COMMENT: Franz Grebner had 19 years of experience as a CID investigator and William Ivory/Robert Shaw did an outstanding job in the supervision/collection of the physical evidence.

QUOTE: Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.

COMMENT: Greatly interfering, eh? More nonsense.

QUOTE: The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to determine the original position of the bodies.

COMMENT: Prior to what examination? It was not difficult to determine the original position of the bodies of Colette/Kimmie, and investigators determined that the baby bottle near Kristen's mouth was moved prior to the processing of crime scene photographs.

QUOTE: They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.

COMMENT: CID investigators and lab technicians from Fort Gordon spent 4 days collecting evidence at 544 Castle Drive. The author of this list of mistakes makes no mention of the fact that 95 percent of the inculpatory evidence was collected in the 3 bedrooms.

QUOTE: Shortly after that, a long haired man wearing jeans and a field jacket, uprighted the overturned flower pot. Then he sat down on the couch in the living room! No one knows who this man was, when he came or left.

COMMENT: To quote a line from the movie Diehard, "You're late to the party, pal." The man who uprighted the flower pot and sat on the couch was one of the ambulance drivers.

QUOTE: The children were still on their back when MacDonald was taken to the hospital, but they were photographed on their sides.

COMMENT: This claim reminds me of an old joke, "What is brown and sounds like a bell? Dung!"

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 01:07 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:05 AM   #1844
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Some of those silly and ill-informed jurors said after the MacDonald trial that the reason they convicted was because there was no blood or pajama fibers found in the living room. That is patently untrue because blood and pajama fibers were found at the entrance to the living room where MacDonald says he fell unconscious. Murtagh now admits this himself in the prosecution response to the 2012 hearing:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...aring_memo.pdf

"Shaw had seen at the end of the hallway. Shaw stated, “I remember seeing a tangled bunch or
ball of threads or fibers. As I recall they were a blue color.” TTr. 2480-81.55
During cross-examination Ivory was asked if there was a speck of blood on the step leading
to the hallway, and stated that there was. TTr. 2056-2057. On direct examination, Shaw
described searching the living room for possible blood stains with Craig Chamberlain. “There
was a spot on the entrance to the hallway—that would really be the hallway floor. There was a
spot there we collected. TTr. 2377. During the cross-examination of Chemist Craig
Chamberlain, Segal sought to adduce that there was a “place in the living room in the
MacDonald house where there was blood recovered and which was later on subject to
examination for dried blood stains in the laboratory.” TTr. 3474. Segal could not recall the
exhibit number, which Chamberlain needed in order to find the results in his notes. TTr. 3474.
Chamberlain also asked Segal to define what he meant by “living room.” TTr. 3475. After
much back and forth, Segal asked Government counsel to supply the exhibit number. TTr. 3476-
3478. Prosecutor Murtagh stated, “I believe counsel is referring to D-144, which... Mr.
Chamberlain would know by the same number.” TTr. 3478. Chamberlain then testified, “[t]here
was a stain on the hall floor as I described it at the west entrance to the living room.” TTr. 3479.
Segal then had Chamberlain mark on the crime scene model (GX 1) where Exhibit D-144 was
55 MacDonald now points to the Government’s final argument that “no blue pajama top threads and yarns” and “no
Type B blood” were found in the area of the living room, where MacDonald claimed to have been attacked, as being
an improper suggestion “that proved the lie to [MacDonald’s] account.” DE-126 at 7, 23; DE-343 at 87.
MacDonald’s claim is based on two assertions: that based upon Shaw’s testimony, supra, MacDonald’s pajama top
“fibers” were found on floor of the hall at entrance to the living room, and post-trial release of USACIL reports
under FOIA “show that ‘Type B’ in Exhibit D-144 was found precisely where Macdonald said he struggled.” Id.
Neither of these factual assertions withstands close scrutiny. There was no further testimony elicited at trial to
establish what these threads or fibers described by Shaw were made of or whether any of them matched the
composition of MacDonald’s pajama top. In 1974, Specimen Q94 (#32), described as a “Vial w/ yarns from hall,”
was examined at the FBI Lab by Shirley Green. GX 3062.99. As her notes reflect, she mounted 1 slide of fibers,
and placed in a pillbox “1 long drk blue yn (9", 1 ply Z, del acrylic-not like Q12).” Id. (emphasis added). “Q12"
was the FBI’s exhibit number for MacDonald’s pajama top (GX 101). In other words, Green found a 9 inch long
dark blue delustered acrylic yarn which was dissimilar to MacDonald’s pajama top. Id. Regarding D-144, see supra
at 76, and infra at 104 n.56."

MacDonald was convicted on false evidence. MacDonald was supported by police in California and the nuns from his hospital in California.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 05:11 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:08 PM   #1845
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,321
The Game Remains The Same

HENRI: When you began posting on this case in the early 2000's, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to you genuinely believing in MacDonald's innocence. Fast forward to 2020, and your posts indicate and/or demonstrate that there is not a genuine bone in your body. Your intent was to simply create a persona whose only goal is to take contrarianism to new heights. You clearly enjoy this little game of repeatedly copying/pasting defense related claims that have been addressed/debunked for decades. So be it.

QUOTE: Some of those silly and ill-informed jurors said after the MacDonald trial that the reason they convicted was because there was no blood or pajama fibers found in the living room. That is patently untrue because blood and pajama fibers were found at the entrance to the living room where MacDonald says he fell unconscious.

COMMENT: There was not a single fiber sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top nor a drop of his Type B blood found IN the living room. I repeat, no pajama fibers or Type B blood was found IN the living room. In terms of evidence found on the hallway floor, yup, there was a single spot of Type B OR Type O blood on the top step of the stairs at the end of the hallway and 2 pajama fibers were found in that same area. Ya know what else was found in the hallway? Two bloody footprints matching exemplars from MacDonald's left foot were found on the hallway floor. The two bloody footprints were formed in Colette's Type A blood and both footprints were exiting Kristen's bedroom. There were also several drops of Kimmie's Type AB blood found on the hallway floor. Those blood drops formed a trail that began at the entrance to the master bedroom and ended at the entrance to Kimmie's bedroom.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday 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 Yesterday, 01:29 PM   #1846
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,030
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The crime scene investigation in the MacDonald murders is now used as an example in Detective schools as an example of how not to do it. snipped
First of all, wtf is "Detective school?" It for sure isn't in the curriculum at FLETC:

https://www.fletc.gov/training-catalog

And unless you've got an actual cite that an accredited institution (FLECT would be a great start) used the JM investigation as a negative example, I'm calling ******** on your post. It's in the same realm as your earlier assertion that JM was the "go-to" doctor for SoCal SWAT units.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; Yesterday at 01:30 PM.
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 Yesterday, 01:36 PM   #1847
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,030
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Snipped MacDonald was supported by police in California and the nuns from his hospital in California.
I should have read the thread before posting above - I could have killed two silly posts in one go.

The Juror's who heard the case and viewed the evidence quite rightly convicted your mancrush.

The less anyone knows about the actual evidence, the more they like JM - you being the primary example at hand
__________________
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 Yesterday, 02:53 PM   #1848
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
First of all, wtf is "Detective school?" It for sure isn't in the curriculum at FLETC:

https://www.fletc.gov/training-catalog
In the past in the UK detectives used to be given training in dealing with crime scenes. I grant you that may no longer be the case. There was a fashion a few years ago for rotation which meant that a detective would rotate from murder squad to traffic cop to patrol officer which resulted in a lack of detectives who were in murder. That could be the reason why the Madeleine McCann case now lacks good murder investigators.

There is a good website about the MacDonald case at:

https://www.crimetraveller.org/2017/...e-of-the-case/

"For example, as detailed earlier, candle wax had been discovered on one of the slats of the upturned coffee table in the living room. The laboratory had tested this wax and found it to be recent and did not match the wax from any of the 14 candles found in the home. MacDonald had said from the very beginning, that one of the intruders was a woman “carrying a flickering light” which he assumed to be a candle.

When questioned on the candle wax, William Ivory replied, “as I recall, that wax that was found there was old wax on the table and it was similar to some candle wax of candles found within the house.” Defense attorney Segal was aware that this statement from Ivory contradicted the CID laboratory report given to Colonel Rock at the army hearing in 1970. But, since Judge Dupree had ruled the “Rock Report” inadmissible in court, Segal was unable to show the jurors that Ivory’s statement was a lie. He was not allowed to present the report, or mention anything from it.

As William Ivory remained on the witness stand, the prosecution brought in the exhibits. These included – “vials, bloody bedsheets, photographs, flipcharts of body outlines, pieces of rugs, sections of wall, boards sawn out of the floors, surgical gloves, magazines, a bed slat, and a pocket torn off MacDonald’s pajama top.” As each new exhibit was carried into open court and placed on a table, the prosecution made use of grandstanding and showmanship, by calling out the name and details of each – as though each individual item proved that MacDonald, and no one else, was somehow guilty."

That website is most severe in its criticism of the FBI pajama folding experiment in the MacDonald case. Personally, I am a bit in disagreement with MacDonald's forensic scientist, Dr. Thornton, who testified that the pajama top must have been moving when the holes were made. That muddied the waters, in my opinion.. My own theory is that either Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry COULD have stabbed the pajama top with an ice pick when MacDonald was stationary unconscious on the ground.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 02:56 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:05 PM   #1849
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,321
The Debunking Continues

HENRI: Meet the new debunked claims, same as the old debunked claims. Sorry, I'm a huge Who fan.

QUOTE: For example, as detailed earlier, candle wax had been discovered on one of the slats of the upturned coffee table in the living room. The laboratory had tested this wax and found it to be recent and did not match the wax from any of the 14 candles found in the home.

COMMENT: The CID lab reports on the candle wax found underneath the coffee table determined that the wax was old, brittle, and mixed with debris.

QUOTE: MacDonald had said from the very beginning, that one of the intruders was a woman “carrying a flickering light” which he assumed to be a candle.

COMMENT: In other interviews, MacDonald claimed he was never sure that the source of the flickering light was a candle.

QUOTE: When questioned on the candle wax, William Ivory replied, “as I recall, that wax that was found there was old wax on the table and it was similar to some candle wax of candles found within the house.” Defense attorney Segal was aware that this statement from Ivory contradicted the CID laboratory report given to Colonel Rock at the army hearing in 1970. But, since Judge Dupree had ruled the “Rock Report” inadmissible in court, Segal was unable to show the jurors that Ivory’s statement was a lie.

COMMENT: Long story short, Ivory's testimony mirrored the CID lab report, so the author of this claim is either ignorant or a liar.

QUOTE: As William Ivory remained on the witness stand, the prosecution brought in the exhibits. These included – “vials, bloody bedsheets, photographs, flipcharts of body outlines, pieces of rugs, sections of wall, boards sawn out of the floors, surgical gloves, magazines, a bed slat, and a pocket torn off MacDonald’s pajama top.” As each new exhibit was carried into open court and placed on a table, the prosecution made use of grandstanding and showmanship, by calling out the name and details of each – as though each individual item proved that MacDonald, and no one else, was somehow guilty.

COMMENT: Long story short, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary exhibits that were sourced to members of the MacDonald household and the MacDonald household only.

QUOTE: My own theory is that either Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry COULD have stabbed the pajama top with an ice pick when MacDonald was stationary unconscious on the ground.

COMMENT: Long story short, there is no evidence that Stoeckley or Perry ever stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive. No DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no fingerprints, nothing, nada, zip.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:55 PM   #1850
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI:

QUOTE: For example, as detailed earlier, candle wax had been discovered on one of the slats of the upturned coffee table in the living room. The laboratory had tested this wax and found it to be recent and did not match the wax from any of the 14 candles found in the home.

COMMENT: The CID lab reports on the candle wax found underneath the coffee table determined that the wax was old, brittle, and mixed with debris.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
At the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 Browning, the forensic chemist at the Army CID lab testified that candlewax which had come from Helena Stoeckley was in no way similar to the candles, or candlewax which came from the MacDonald family. It only became similar to MacDonald candles after the forensic fraudsters at the FBI had a go at the problem and Judge Dupree prevented the jury from hearing what was said about the matter at the Article 32 on the grounds that the information was ten years old!:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-browning.html

Q We've also talked about wax, and you've compared the wax in these exhibits against six candles, you say?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you know whether there are other candles yet to be compared against?
A Yes, last Thursday I received six more candles from the apartment for comparison. I have not done analytical work on these as yet.
Q Are any of those candles multi-colored?
A Yes, one is multi-colored.

CPT SOMERS: I have nothing further.

Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q So the point of your testimony today, your testimony is that the wax found is not similar to any wax found on the candles you have been supplied thus far by the criminal investigation. Is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q And the reason why -- isn't it preferable to have the hair samples from the head of the person you are trying to compare it with?
A Yes, I would prefer this.
Q And in this case they were not provided because someone did not take hair samples. Is that correct?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 11:59 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:51 AM   #1851
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 31
I think Henri is what in the old days was known as a "stirrer" ("a person who deliberately causes trouble by spreading rumours or gossip", Oxford Dictionary).

Maybe it's just a hobby, but his proliferation of fake news these days instead of proven facts, is disappointing. I was brought up to believe that it was better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Not a good look at all. Anyway, the killer is still guilty and in a cage where he belongs.
GiSEQ 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 Today, 09:16 AM   #1852
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,030
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Cavalier hand-waving snipped
You can't prove your assertion that the JM case is taught as an example of bad "detective" work.

We can add that assertion to the long list of falsehoods you've posted in this thread.
__________________
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 Today, 10:23 AM   #1853
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
I think Henri is what in the old days was known as a "stirrer" ("a person who deliberately causes trouble by spreading rumours or gossip", Oxford Dictionary).

Maybe it's just a hobby, but his proliferation of fake news these days instead of proven facts, is disappointing. I was brought up to believe that it was better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Not a good look at all. Anyway, the killer is still guilty and in a cage where he belongs.
I notice on some other anti-MacDonald forums that some posters are now raising the libel matter of MacDonald supposedly having sexually assaulted the two little girls because Freddie Kassab and Bob Stevenson thought so, as well as their discredited amphetamine psychosis theory. This seems to coincide with this American crap Smerling TV documentary. There was never any medical or any other evidence of such sexual assault.

The matter was never raised at the Article 32 or the Grand Jury or the trial. There were never any violent arguments in the MacDonald family. Bob Stevenson, Colette's brother, still seems to believe the Army CID theory without facts that his sister Colette murdered one of the little girls. He can't be well.

Something needs to be done about Murtagh coaching witnesses. It's a mistrial. The North Carolina judicial system is like a third world country. The innocent should not get convicted.

There is a bit about all this in the British book The Rule of Law by Tom Bingham:

"There are countries in the world where all judicial decisions find favour with the powers that be, but they are probably not places where any of us would wish to live."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 11:11 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 Today, 10:50 AM   #1854
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,030
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
FIFY
__________________
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 Today, 11:08 AM   #1855
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,694
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You can't prove your assertion that the JM case is taught as an example of bad "detective" work.

We can add that assertion to the long list of falsehoods you've posted in this thread.
I can assure you that Segal did make that remark about the crime scene once but I never noted an exact reference then. It seems to be no longer available on the internet. This is what I wrote in 2013 on this forum when I first seem to have mentioned the matter, and I stand by this:

Henri McPhee 19th September 2013 11:20 PM

"Americans are an emotional people rather like most Britishers are sentimental softheads........

Just because the two little girls suffered horrific injuries doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald did it. The Army CID failed to photograph Dr. MacDonald's injuries until many months later when his injuries had practically healed . That was poor police work.

A military policeman knelt on the pajama top when he first arrived at the scene which must have shed pajama fibers all over the place, and even under bodies. We don't know for certain if any bodies were moved at the same time. There was no proper crime scene manager or protection of the crime scene. Segal once remarked that the MacDonald case crime scene is now used in police training schools as an example of how not to do it.

A complete stranger sat on the couch before it had been examined for blood spots or pajama fibers. It's just like saying Dr. MacDonald could not have made the emergency phone call because none of his fingerprints were found on the phone.

The surgical glove fragment was described by a world expert at the trial to be "exceedingly unlikely" to have come from a MacDonald surgical glove. The bath mat was moved when Dr. MacDonald was in hospital.

Hairs and fibers have been described as junk science in the past. It's exceedingly weak evidence and in the MacDonald case there are doubts about accuracy. Browning of the Army CID at first described the blonde synthetic hair-like hairs as female which can't be scientifically correct. The FBI lab technician Kathy Bond talked about "pajama-like" fibers which isn't a definite opinion to me."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 11:16 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:25 AM   #1856
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,030
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
FIFY again.

You're citing yourself as the source for your assertion that the JM case is taught as an example of poor police work? No wonder actual evidence and investigatory procedure is beyond your understanding.

And FTR, citing British police procedure or 70 year old British legal commentary wrt the JM (or any other U.S.) case is a waste of bandwidth.
__________________
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.