Continuation Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting comment on that website with regard to forensic fraud in the MacDonald case:

[quote] Frederic Whitehurst
November 10, 2010
To determine the truth behind Malone’s position on the saran fibers you might want to talk to an individual named Lucia Bartolli, a friend of Jeffrey McDonald, who talked to me years ago about Malone’s connection with the saran fibers. Lucia knew nothing about such fibers but while investigating the issue found that Malone had approached individuals in the saran fiber industry who told Malone that such fibers were actually found in wigs and Malone had ignored their information. I am sure that Kathryn McDonald could tell you how to reach Lucia Bartolli out in California.

jamison
November 10, 2010
Mr. Whitehurst: I am very familiar with your name. It is an honor to have you commenting on this site.

[JTF]

DESMIRELLE: C'mon now, a broken, bloody brown limb hair was found clutched in Colette's left hand. Although photographs from that time period depict inmate as having light brown hair, didn't he allegedly have blond hair? Although pictures from that time period depict Greg Mitchell as having light brown hair, didn't he allegedly have brown hair? Wasn't Mitchell left-handed? The source of that limb hair has to be Greg Mitchell? Right? Here we go, the DNA test results have come back and, ah, wait a minute. It says here on the AFIP's DNA chart that the broken, bloody limb hair matched the DNA profile of the Ice Pick Baby Killer. So, the source of the "mystery hair" and the wielder of the club was Jeffrey MacDonald. Imagine that.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[JTF]

I have not heard Freddy's name mentioned in a long time and for good reason. His obsession with being perceived as some sort of anti-hero came back to bite him a big way. He was so in love with this persona that he was unable to simply stick to his station. He anointed himself as being the only FBI agent that was an expert in every single investigative discipline. This arrogant and semi-delusional thought process actually hurt his career path, and few in the FBI had any sympathy for his self-inflicted plight.

In terms of Freddy's comments regarding Malone interviewing "individuals in the saran fiber industry," he is overstating Malone's involvement in this process. Malone attended a few of these interviews, but most of his work involved lab analysis of the saran fibers. Notice how Freddy doesn't mention the FACT that Malone matched one of the saran fibers to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection? Lucia Bartoli certainly worked hard on the saran fiber issue, yet she was unable to produce a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

Lucia Bartoli certainly worked hard on the saran fiber issue, yet she was unable to produce a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

I don't think that's quite true. Bartoli explained her efforts in regard to researching saran in wigs here:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...f_bartoli.html

Helena Stoeckley wore a blond wig at the MacDonald murders and left 22 inch strands at the crime scene.

Malone of the FBI was making it up and inventing it when he said those blond synthetic-hair like fibers came from a MacDonald doll. There was never any real proof of that. It has never been presented to a court to verify it. The new FBI building should be called the Malone forensic fraud building. Malone is a total liar.

[JTF]

HENRIBOY: Stop trying to think. You'll hurt yourself. For all her efforts, Lucia was unable to produce a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear. The only type of saran wig she was able to produce was a BLACK wig used to cover the head of a museum exhibit. Well, that museum was located in the United States, right? Wrong! That wig was obtained from a museum in Mexico City. Stating for the 100th time that "Helena Stoeckley wore a blond wig at the MacDonald murders and left 22 inch strands at the crime scene," doesn't magically eliminate the specious nature of that claim. In addition, you can't even get the little things right. The 3 saran fibers were actually 24, 22, and 9 inches in length.

The 22 inch fiber differed in chemical composition to the 24 and 9 inch fibers, so the 3 fibers came from 2 SEPARATE sources. Even you haven't made the absurd claim that two wig wearing home invaders entered 544 Castle Drive on 2/17/70. The defense also had several chances to dispute Malone's conclusion that the 24 inch fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection. Not surprisingly, the defense never challenged Malone's conclusion. A big reason for that decision was Malone's use of side by side color photographs of the 24 inch fiber and the doll hair exemplar. Even to a layman, they are very similar and to a fiber expert, they are nearly identical. In terms of your claim that "this evidence has never been presented to a court," again, you're wrong.

1990 Evidentiary hearing before Judge Dupree

1992 Oral arguments session before the 4th Circuit Court

1998 Multiple government briefs to the 4th Circuit Court

2006 Government briefs to Judge Fox

2012 Evidentiary hearing before Judge Fox

2013 Multiple government briefs to Judge Fox

2016 Multiple government briefs to the 4th Circuit Court

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Whip]

Quote:

Helena Stoeckley wore a blond wig at the MacDonald murders

impossible so we can stop right there.

[JTF]

WHIP: Agreed. The wig argument is moot because there is no evidence that Stoeckley ever stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive. Even the CID acknowledged that Stoeckley sometimes wore her roommates blond wig in public, but the cosmetic wig fibers collected at the crime scene did NOT include the 3 blond saran fibers. A cosmetic blond wig fiber was sourced to a fall owned by Colette and several cosmetic BLACK wig fibers remain unsourced to this day. The defense, however, didn't care about those fibers because of their color and the fact that Mildred Kassab once owned a black wig.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

. A cosmetic blond wig fiber was sourced to a fall owned by Colette and several cosmetic BLACK wig fibers remain unsourced to this day. The defense, however, didn't care about those fibers because of their color and the fact that Mildred Kassab once owned a black wig.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Without being a public speaker who goes on for too long a bit like Segal, and to try to get to the point, the forensic evidence in a murder case must be scientifically correct. It's not a question of Murtagh's "probably" or Stombaugh only said it could be. That was manufactured evidence from the Stombaugh and Malone school of FBI forensic fraud.

Even if you accept all that piffle about a fall owned by Colette, and about different chemical compositions in the manufacture process, there are still serious doubts about blond synthetic hair like fibers at the crime scene. For Malone to just say it probably came from a MacDonald doll without ever presenting the evidence for it to be verified, or tested, is just making it up.

This is Murtagh's explanation for the matter, and it's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...hief_1993.html

Quote:

The source of the "blond synthetic hair" from the clear handled hairbrush posed more of a problem. Again, the same microscopic, optical and instrumental techniques were used, ultimately determining that the "blond synthetic hairs" were composed of saran fibers. Due to problems in manufacturing and the physical properties of saran fibers, they are not suitable for human wigs. They do not look like or "lay" like human hair, therefore, they are not used to make human hair goods.

One of the main uses of saran fibers during the same time of the murders was for doll hair. These "blond synthetic hairs" were very similar to the blond doll hair in the FBI reference collection. In fact the early "Barbie" dolls made by Mattel had hair made of saran fibers.

Since the MacDonald girls were know to have owned dolls with blond hair, and since little girls are known to brush the hair of their dolls, it can be inferred that the "blond synthetic hair" found in the hairbrush probably came from a doll belonging to the MacDonald girls or one of their friends. Unfortunately, none of the dolls originally belonging to Kimberley or Kristen are available today for testing purposes.

[desmirelle]

Actually, the explanation about the saran fibers in the hairbrush is rational, logical, and likely Which explains why Henri doesn't understand it.

[JTF]

DESMIRELLE: Henriboy has been posting on various MacDonald Case forums under various poster names for the past 15 years, yet there is no variety to his responses to documented fact. This indicates that he doesn't really believe in his position on inmate's innocence. If he was a true believer, his arguments would mirror those of other MacDonald advocates, yet he continues to put forth claims that other MacDonald advocates wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. This is why I've labeled him as the Landlord of MacFantasy Island.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[desmirelle]

JTF: I was there for Arthur and Albert, back on the A&E board. He makes no more sense now than he did then. He couldn't answer a straight question then, either. I don't believe he thinks Mac is 'factually innocent', either.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There were doubts and a mystery about that hair in Colette's left hand right from the start.

Yes, doubts about the hair in 1970....the defense dubbed it "The Mystery Hair" and said whoever matched that hair was the wielder of the club.

As you have been told numerous times (too many to count) only HEAD AND PUBIC HAIR have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared. The "Mystery Hair" is the distal or tip portion of a limb hair. Thus no microscopy identification.

WHEN DNA testing became available that limb hair was tested an matched 100% the DNA profile of Jeffrey Robert MacDonald. No longer a mystery! AND as most sentient beings already KNEW the DNA results proved who the wielder of the club was - inmate himself.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh and the FBI lab hoped to put the matter to bed for the 2006 DNA tests at the AFIP lab

EVERYONE hoped to put the matter to bed. ESPECIALLY those of us who remember the VICTIMS in this case Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn son.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

by the legal trickery of substituting a MacDonald hair in place of the original forensic evidence.

First IF such a swap could have taken place it WOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

Second, no such swap took place. HOW EXACTLY do you propose that either Murtagh or anyone from the FBI got close enough to inmate to grab a limb hair, break it off to the exact size of the one found clutched in Colette's hand, and got it covered in Colette's dried blood without inmate knowing it?

This is a ridiculous argument to make! Good thing inmate has no computer access, he would be more than a little embarrassed by one of the few supporters he has making such nonsensical claims. Really, it is long past time you stop making claims that even the defense doesn't try to argue.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That kind of forensic corruption, or perverting the course of justice, is very difficult to detect or prove.

The reason you cannot prove such a nonsensical event is because IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Please, explain to me HOW you think someone could have gotten close enough to inmate to grab a hair, break it to size, and cover it in Colette's blood (since there is no blood of Colette's left - except what is dried evidence) but inmate knows nothing about it?

[desmirelle]

Originally Posted by byn63

(snip of non-poetry)
Please, explain to me HOW you think someone could have gotten close enough to inmate to grab a hair, break it to size, and cover it in Colette's blood (since there is no blood of Colette's left - except what is dried evidence) but inmate knows nothing about it?

I'd be happy if he could do the highlighted.

[JTF]

Fred Bost was the first MacDonald advocate to publicly state that the FBI/AFIP reported several evidentiary containers (e.g., vials, slides) being damaged in some form or fashion. In stark contrast to the Landlord's laughable "switching hairs" claim, Bost argued that this was simply another example of CID/FBI sloppiness. Bost basically charged the CID/FBI with improperly packaging the evidentiary containers which resulted in some of the containers being damaged in transit. This included the CID sending the evidence to the FBI and the FBI sending the DNA exhibits to the AFIP.

Trust me, if Bost thought that this damage was the result of intent by the CID/FBI to alter trace evidence in this case, he would have screamed from the rooftops to any media member who would listen. When I spoke with Bost about the DNA exhibits in this case, he told me that the broken, bloody limb hair found in Colette's left hand was THE most important DNA exhibit. He also predicted that this hair would match the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. When the 2006 DNA test results matched that hair to inmate, Bost was uncharacteristically silent and that public silence lasted for the rest of his life.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

If such a swap could have taken place it WOULD NOT BE LEGAL.

Second, no such swap took place. HOW EXACTLY do you propose that either Murtagh or anyone from the FBI got close enough to inmate to grab a limb hair, break it off to the exact size of the one found clutched in Colette's hand, and got it covered in Colette's dried blood without inmate knowing it?

This is a ridiculous argument to make! Good thing inmate has no computer access, he would be more than a little embarrassed by one of the few supporters he has making such nonsensical claims. Really, it is long past time you stop making claims that even the defense doesn't try to argue.

The reason you cannot prove such a nonsensical event is because IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Please, explain to me HOW you think someone could have gotten close enough to inmate to grab a hair, break it to size, and cover it in Colette's blood (since there is no blood of Colette's left - except what is dried evidence) but inmate knows nothing about it?

This may come as a surprise to you but the FBI have been accused in the past of using illegal methods. Malone of the FBI has been accused in anther murder case of being a total liar. As far as I know the Army CID obtained samples of Jeffrey MacDonald hairs in the initial investigation. They would not have thrown those samples away. They could have easily swapped one of those hairs for the mystery hair in Colette's left hand and then got rid of the mystery hair, which was then submitted to the AFIP for DNA testing. There is a similar sort of controversy now with regard to samples of drug cheats by Olympic athletes.

The matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings with that stupid cop Ivory:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html

Quote:

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Have you had occasion to make any affidavit as to any physical evidence which you wish to obtain at this time?
A (Affirmative nod.)
Q What was this affidavit pertaining to?
A Hair samples.
Q Hair samples from whom?
A Captain MacDonald.
Q What did you want to take hair samples for?
A For comparison.
Q With what?
A With a yet unknown hair.
Q Where was that hair found?
A In the hand of Colette.
Q Can you tell which hand?
A The left hand.
Q When was the hair found in the hand of Colette? Are you saying in the hand or in the area?
A In the hand.
Q When was this hair found inside of the hand of Colette MacDonald?
A At the morgue.
Q Is there any reason why there was some type of delay of something like two and a half months before the Criminal Investigation Division decided they wanted hair samples from Captain MacDonald?
A No. You have got the laboratory report back, all known hair samples, Colette and the children, and we exhausted all those samples and it is still an unknown hair.
Q Where was it found, clinched in the hand, or under the fingernails?
A I can say in the hand.

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q From what part of the body was this hair?
A That is why we wanted hair samples.
Q You do not know what part of the body this hair was from?
A No.
Q Is it a human hair? Are you certain of that?
A Yes.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

This may come as a surprise to you but the FBI have been accused in the past of using illegal methods.

As has many other law enforcement organizations. whether or not they ever did anything illegal is irrelevant.

I asked you TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW THEY COULD GET A LIMB HAIR, BROKEN AND SIZED EXACTLY TO MATCH E-5 AND GET IT COVERED IN COLETTE'S BLOOD.

So, since this seems to be a task too large for you to grasp how to do it, here is the first step:

How would the FBI, or anyone else, get a sample of Colette's blood to cover the item, and make it appear to be dried?

Second:
How would ANYONE get a limb hair of inmate's and break it to exact size and description as the evidentiary item?

Third:
In so doing, how would they keep inmate unaware of this "swap"

and

Fourth:
How would the video taped packaging AND the defense witness get fooled so that they didn't notice this swap?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Malone of the FBI has been accused in anther murder case of being a total liar.

IRRELEVANT ~ has no bearing on this discussion

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

As far as I know the Army CID obtained samples of Jeffrey MacDonald hairs in the initial investigation.

Perhaps they did, but even if they gathered limb hairs (legs, arms, armpits) they would not have "broken them". They would not have matched the description (detailed as it was and it would NOT have had Colette's blood on it)

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

They would not have thrown those samples away.

they would have created exemplars

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

They could have easily swapped one of those hairs for the mystery hair in Colette's left hand

No, they could not have EASILY done any such thing. The limb hair would have required being broken (like the one found in Colette's hand) and it would have had to be covered in Colette's blood. HOW exactly would they get it covered in Colette's blood, and that blood would have to be dried and look exactly as E-5 was described in 1970.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and then got rid of the mystery hair, which was then submitted to the AFIP for DNA testing.

You don't seriously believe this nonsense.....even you couldn't possibly be that far off the beam.....I asked for a REASONABLE explanation of how they could have gotten a limb hair, broken to size, exactly matching the description INCLUDING being covered in Colette's blood. This is not even close to being reasonable......since Colette's blood no longer exists - it would not be possible......

Once again, the Article 32 hearing was BEFORE most of the evidence was analyzed and 9 years prior to the trial......try using the TRIAL transcripts because the Article 32 doesn't mean anything....

[JTF]

BYN: In addition to inmate's arm hair being broken and bloody, Brian Murtagh presented a color photograph of that hair at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, and pointed out that a small piece of tissue was adhering to the 1 inch hair. This speaks to the depth of the Landlord's fantasy world.

In his world, Murtagh somehow obtained a broken limb hair from inmate that was in the SAME condition as reported by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh. Same length, broken end, Colette's blood on the broken end, and debris/tissue on that broken end indicating that it was torn from it's source.

What did the AFIP's test results tell us about its source? Well, the results of the DNA tests proved beyond ALL doubt that the source of that hair was Jeffrey MacDonald. The condition/location of that hair tells us that Colette used her left hand to rip the hair from inmate's arm. Fred Bost's post-2006 silence regarding the forensic significance of this hair speaks volumes.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[JTF]

In my prior post, I forgot to mention the fact that adhering to inmate's broken, bloody arm hair was some debris that included a fiber. This further demonstrates how the Landlord places fantasy above reality.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

Fourth:
How would the video taped packaging AND the defense witness get fooled so that they didn't notice this swap?

Murtagh and the FBI lab rejected and ignored the Judge Fox ruling in about 1999 that any tampering with the MacDonald case forensics, for whatever reason, should be videotaped with a defense witness there. They disregarded it. Murtagh may have had a color photo of the mystery hair which was supposed to be DNA tested by the AFIP lab, as JTF says, but no such color photo of the hair exists which was actually tested by the AFIP lab exists that I know about.

The point is that if some kind of mystery hair is to be used by the prosecution, and a judge like Judge Fox in bed with the prosecution, to keep a man in prison for the rest of his life, then the MacDonald defense lawyers should have been allowed to retest that mystery hair to make sure it's honest and scientifically correct. No wonder Fred Bost was speechless about it.

The matter is discussed in general at this website:

https://www.bendbulletin.com/news/13...endable-as-you

Quote:

Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.
In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.

As a result, hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh and the FBI lab rejected and ignored the Judge Fox ruling in about 1999 that any tampering with the MacDonald case forensics, for whatever reason, should be videotaped with a defense witness there.

Judge Fox DID NOT RULE that "any tampering" be videotaped. TAMPERING would be illegal and no Judge is going to make that kind of comment in his decision. Judge Fox ORDERED that the sorting, preparing, and packing of the exhibits to be DNA tested be VIDEOTAPED AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHED and AUTHORIZED A DEFENSE WITNESS TO BE PRESENT FOR ALL THESE PREPARATIONS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

They disregarded it.

Provide PROOF of your claims that this order was not followed and remember THE DEFENSE DOES NOT CLAIM ANY TAMPERING OR SWITCHING OUT OF HAIRS AND FIBERS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh may have had a color photo of the mystery hair which was supposed to be DNA tested by the AFIP lab, as JTF says, but no such color photo of the hair exists which was actually tested by the AFIP lab exists that I know about.

roflmao! the hair that Murtagh has a color photograph of IS THE HAIR THAT WAS TESTED. What part of the hair was exactly as described in the original forensic bench notes including Colette's blood on it (and as JTF reminded me skin fragment attached) do you not understand? We are still waiting for a REASONABLE explanation of how they could have gotten a limb hair from inmate with skin attached and Colette's blood on it? It sure wasn't from any samples collected at the time of the Article 32.....certainly a meticulous being such as inmate had long since showered and would not have had Colette's blood on him (literally) any longer (although he has to this day figuratively speaking her blood on his hands still).

[Henri McPhee]

As an outsider it seems to me that American courts can sometimes be a bit relaxed when it comes to accepting expert evidence and opinions with regard to blood and hairs and fibers, and things like handwriting, and even other forensics, and psychiatric evidence. The American courts can be rather lax with regard to the federal rules of evidence. Colonel Rock was strong minded and firm about all this at the Article 32 in 1970 and so was Judge Carnes in the JonBenet Ramsey case, but Judge Dupree seemed to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to express an opinion at the MacDonald trial and to perjure themselves.

I still think Murtagh and the FBI cheated MacDonald with forensics. He was screwed as Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard put it.

There is some highly technical waffle on the internet about the MacDonald case hairs from somebody who admits he is not a real expert, but which seems to indicate the hair evidence is rather inconclusive, and that it is not the definite opinion which the prosecution always seems to imply:

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

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

As an outsider it seems to me that American courts can sometimes be a bit relaxed when it comes to accepting expert evidence and opinions with regard to blood and hairs and fibers, and things like handwriting, and even other forensics, and psychiatric evidence.

Well, you would be wrong. experts are just that "experts" and since the court accepted the persons who testified at inmate's trial as EXPERTS than that is what they were/are.....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The American courts can be rather lax with regard to the federal rules of evidence.

Again you are WRONG. The courts adhere to the FRE strictly.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Colonel Rock was strong minded and firm about all this at the Article 32 in 1970....,

What would Colonel Rock know about it? Not a damned thing! Colonel Rock was an Infantry Officer with absolutely no legal education or training. He wouldn't know diddly about the FRE or for that matter the USCMJ under which the Article 32 was held.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

but Judge Dupree seemed to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to express an opinion at the MacDonald trial and to perjure themselves.

No, Judge Dupree vetted the expert witnesses both for the defense and the prosecution. The only person who perjured himself in front of the jury was inmate. Posey, of course, perjured himself in chambers.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I still think Murtagh and the FBI cheated MacDonald with forensics.

you can think what you want but you'd be wrong.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is some highly technical waffle on the internet about the MacDonald case hairs from somebody who admits he is not a real expert,

you know, in America if you call something "waffle" that is NOT a good thing. technical or otherwise....and if even they admit they are not expert than what good is there commentary?

[JTF]

It appears that the Landlord has not read Brian Murtagh's closing arguments at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

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

He presents color photographs of every single DNA exhibit, he describes the condition/forensic significance of each exhibit, and he provides clarity to each exhibit by presenting lab documentation (e.g., CID/FBI lab documents) for each exhibit.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

As an outsider it seems to me that American courts can sometimes be a bit relaxed when it comes to accepting expert evidence and opinions with regard to blood and hairs and fibers, snipped...

There is some highly technical waffle on the internet about the MacDonald case hairs from somebody who admits he is not a real expert, but which seems to indicate the hair evidence is rather inconclusive, and that it is not the definite opinion which the prosecution always seems to imply:

Paragraph one: complain about unqualified expert testimony.

Paragraph three: cite a non-expert.

See why your credibility rating is in negative numbers?

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

It appears that the Landlord has not read Brian Murtagh's closing arguments at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

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

He presents color photographs of every single DNA exhibit, he describes the condition/forensic significance of each exhibit, and he provides clarity to each exhibit by presenting lab documentation (e.g., CID/FBI lab documents) for each exhibit.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

It's true that Widenhouse seemed to have abandoned any cross-examination about the hair in Colette's left hand at that 2012 evidentiary hearing. I still think the chain of custody of that hair is suspicious and that it's a miraculous piece of forensic trickery. I suppose it's difficult for Widenhouse to detect and prove it unless some kind of whistleblower comes along. There were at least three other mystery hairs which seemed to be connected to the little girl Kristen and another in the 'trunk' area of Colette which were discussed by Widenhouse at that hearing.

I always understood to start off with that Glisson was going to attend that evidentiary hearing,but Murtagh says that for some unknown reason the Macdonald defense lawyers never insisted on it. One reason to my mind could be that she is now too old.

This is how Murtagh explains himself about the mystery hair in the left hand at that 2012 evidentiary hearing and I don't think it's satisfactory evidence:

Quote:

NEXT. AFDIL SPECIMEN 51A.2 WAS THE HAIR FOUND IN9 THE LEFT HAND OF COLETTE MACDONALD, WHICH WAS THE REASON WHY10 STUFF WAS SENT TO JANICE GLISSON IN THE FIRST PLACE. 11 AND AT TRIAL PAUL STOMBAUGH TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS12 THE DISTAL PORTION OF A CAUCASIAN LIMB HAIR. IN OTHER WORDS,13 NOT SUFFICIENT FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES. 14 NEXT. AND TO JUST DIGRESS A SECOND. REMEMBER, YOUR15 HONOR, WHEN WE POSTED OR PUBLISHED BERNIE SEGAL'S THE16 GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF INTRUDERS. AND HE17 ARGUED REFERRING TO THIS HAIR BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY HAIR OF18 ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN THE TRIAL THAT IT WAS EVIDENCE OF19 INTRUDERS. 20 OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE. AFDIL CALLS IT21 51A.2. NEXT SLIDE. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS IT'S MOUNTED22 BETWEEN TWO KNOWN HAIRS OF MACDONALD BY JANICE GLISSON,23 INCIDENTALLY. SO, IT'S THE SECOND HAIR ON THE SLIDE. 24 NEXT. NEXT. NEXT. OKAY. WELL, THERE YOU CAN SEE25

[JTF]

Not one member of the defense team nor any high profile MacDonald advocate ever challenged the chain of custody of any of the 29 DNA exhibits. This speaks to the FBI's meticulous documentation (e.g., photographs, videotape) of the DNA exhibits in this case.

The Landlord only included a portion of Murtagh's testimony regarding inmate's broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in his wife's left hand. As I mentioned in a prior post, Murtagh also presented a color photograph of that hair and he pointed out that debris, tissue, and a fiber was adhering to the 1 inch hair.

What did the AFIP's test results tell us about its source? Well, the results of the DNA tests proved beyond ALL doubt that the source of that hair was Jeffrey MacDonald. The condition/location of that hair tells us that Colette used her left hand to rip the hair from inmate's arm. A splinter from the club located in Colette's left hand proves that inmate was the wielder of the club.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

You must take into consideration that the MacDonald case prosecutor, Blackburn, is a convicted and imprisoned fraudster in a case that does not involve MacDonald. Murtagh got it wrong in the Lockerbie case with invented and fabricated and manufactured evidence.

Malone of the FBI should be in prison because of his proven false forensic evidence and testimony in other murder cases. It's only because he is being protected by Trump and the industrial and military and media complex that he is still out of jail for perverting the course of justice. There are some journalists still who are closing in on him, and Whitehurst, formerly of the FBI, seems willing to testify against him. Stombaugh of the FBI lab in the MacDonald case was just as bad.

You assume that Murtagh presents satisfactory evidence to courts and that he's honest. It's a false assumption. That hair in the Colette left hand should have been sorted out as soon as the use of DNA in murder cases was invented, instead of it later becoming a 'miracle' swap in the 2006 AFIP DNA tests. Then there is the skin under the fingernail which that lousy detective Ivory 'lost' in the preliminary investigation and the list goes on and on. Colette never murdered any of the little girls as the Army CID, or CID agent Shaw in particular, testified at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970, and an "enraged" MacDonald never murdered Colette or Kristen either, as the Army CID and FBI still seem to believe.

There are plenty of confessions by affidavit by Stoeckley and Mitchell which the jury and 4th Circuit judges and journalists never heard about because the evidence was held in secret by Judge Dupree, or it came far too late. Evidence was withheld from the defense by Murtagh and that has been proven. That was illegal. It was clearly erroneous and a mistrial and reversal should have been ordered.

[Henri McPhee]

There used to be something on the internet where Murtagh and the FBI lab admitted that they fiddled about with the MacDonald case forensic evidence on some kind of pretext that they wanted to check something. There was never any mention of a video or defense witness being there at the time. Perhaps JTF can remember that?

The matter is touched on in some legal waffle:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...r_murtagh.html

Quote:

We propose that the chain of custody you establish will be shown to each and every laboratory technician and investigator who personally handled the evidence (other than those persons who merely carried or transmitted the evidence) during the course of laboratory investigation. We would expect that each and every laboratory technician would verify that he or she gathered the evidence (if that is the case) labeled it, removed it for testing, performed certain tests, returned all unused portions of the material, labeled the material, and recorded the results of the tests he or she ran. We would expect that each laboratory technician could verify that he or she accurately transcribed laboratory findings, and that those finding have been accurately transcribed on the final consolidated laboratory report. We would expect that you will produce an affidavit from each and every laboratory technician that the technician has personally verified his part in the chain of custody, and if called upon to testify, would so testify under oath.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

You must take into consideration that the MacDonald case prosecutor, Blackburn, is a convicted and imprisoned fraudster in a case that does not involve MacDonald.

No, we DO NOT have to consider Blackburn's later issues when we discuss this case. IT IS IRRELEVANT. Also, unlike inmate Blackburn admitted his wrong doing and served his time. He now spends time speaking to lawyers, law students, and others trying to help them keep from falling into the same trap.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh got it wrong in the Lockerbie case with invented and fabricated and manufactured evidence.

No he didn't and the Lockerbie case is irrelevant to these discussions.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Malone of the FBI should be in prison because of his proven false forensic evidence and testimony in other murder cases.

what Malone did or did not do in any case other than inmate butchering his family is immaterial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's only because he is being protected by Trump and the industrial and military and media complex that he is still out of jail for perverting the course of justice.

roflmao! ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa
ha ha ha ha ha haaaa ha haaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha ha haaa ha ha ha

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There are some journalists still who are closing in on him, and Whitehurst, formerly of the FBI, seems willing to testify against him.

cite your source

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Stombaugh of the FBI lab in the MacDonald case was just as bad.

Stombaugh was an expert. An EXPERT, by the way, that defense experts agreed with in large portions of his analysis and testimony. So if Stombaugh was "bad" so were Drs Thorton and Morton.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

You assume that Murtagh presents satisfactory evidence to courts and that he's honest. It's a false assumption.

It is NOT a false assumption. Brian Murtagh is an honest man and he does produce satisfactory evidence to the courts. FACTS henri....the FACT is that Brian Murtagh is an outstanding lawyer and VICTIMs advocate for the VICTIMS of this case Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and unborn son.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That hair in the Colette left hand should have been sorted out as soon as the use of DNA in murder cases was invented

DNA testing is not just "authorized" in murder (or any other criminal cases) from pre-DNA days. Inmate filed for and was granted DNA testing appropriately and in consideration of all applicable laws of the US.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

, instead of it later becoming a 'miracle' swap in the 2006 AFIP DNA tests.

there was no "swap" and you know it. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON ARGUING POSITIONS THAT EVEN THE DEFENSE DOESN'T CLAIM? The chain of custody was meticulously maintained. There is no REASONABLE explanation of how such a swap could have taken place. The E-5 exhibit had debris, fiber, Colette's blood, and tissue adhering and that is what is shown in the color photograph shown at the 2012 evidentiary hearing depicts.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Then there is the skin under the fingernail which that lousy detective Ivory 'lost' in the preliminary investigation and the list goes on and on.

There is no proof that "skin" existed. All that was noted was that something that "could have been skin" was scene in the test tube, but when the tube was emptied and analyzed no skin was found. Ivory didn't open the tube so he couldn't have "lost" the skin even if it HAD been in the tube. We will never know, but Ivory was not lousy he is a CID Hall of Fame member. But, it is irrelevant because inmate was not convicted on "lost" skin. He WAS convicted on the over 1,100 pieces of evidence presented at trial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Colette never murdered any of the little girls as the Army CID, or CID agent Shaw in particular, testified at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970,

I don't recall if Shaw actually "testified" that Colette murdered anyone EVER but you are correct Colette NEVER MURDERED ANYONE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and an "enraged" MacDonald never murdered Colette or Kristen either, as the Army CID and FBI still seem to believe.

YES INMATE DID MURDER COLETTE, KIMBERLEY, KRISTEN, AND UNBORN BABY BOY. It is no longer a matter of anyone "thinking" he murdered them it is PROVEN. That is why inmate is a CONVICT - he was convicted. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There are plenty of confessions by affidavit by Stoeckley and Mitchell

there are not a lot of confessions by Mitchell (he did once say he did something terrible while in the Army but that is NOT the same thing as a confession to murder.) There are just as many recantations made by Helena. Her 1 consistent statement was that she was too doped up to remember where she was that night. Also, her stories do not match the evidence or inmate's stories. Not only that there is absolutely no evidence to place Helena or Greg at 544 Castle Drive.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

which the jury and 4th Circuit judges and journalists never heard about because the evidence was held in secret by Judge Dupree, or it came far too late.

why would journalists be given evidence? the 4th Circuit is an APPELLATE court so they would not review evidence that was not part of the case. HOWEVER, Helena did testify and she said she was not involved, she was not there, she was heavy on mescaline. Judge Dupree didn't hold anything secret.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Evidence was withheld from the defense by Murtagh and that has been proven.

It is impossible for "withheld evidence" in this case to have been proven because there was no evidence withheld. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN in the courts that there was no withheld evidence.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

cite your source

There is at least one article on the internet about journalists closing in on Malone false evidence and testimony at the FBI lab:

http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/...?cuecard=47887

Quote:

Jeffrey MacDonald Seeks New Trial, Citing FBI’s "Perjured" Analysis of 1970 Murder Scene

MATT LAUER, co-host:

When the Justice Department released its report last week criticizing the FBI crime lab and some of its agents for sloppy work, it was widely believed that many of those convicted of crimes involving the FBI crime lab would appeal. That's exactly what will happen tomorrow in North Carolina in a triple murder case that dates back to 1970. Here's NBC's Pete Williams.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

No he didn't and the Lockerbie case is irrelevant to these discussions.

Yes he did and there are several internet articles about it and it's relevant to the MacDonald case:

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleV...84786&rel_no=1

Quote:

US attorneys Brian Murtagh and Dana Biehl were representatives of their nation's Department of Justice at the trial. Murtagh drew up the indictment against Al-Megrahi and Fhimah. The two would sit close to the prosecution team, and pass across advisory notes and legal papers, or to lean over with whispered advice.

"For a person, other than the advocate examining him at the time, to attempt to communicate with a witness in the witness box in such a way as to influence his evidence, is both contempt of court and the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice," Pr Black argues.

"The defence believed that Murtagh and Biehl were engaging in such behaviour, particularly when Giaka was in the witness box. They brought their concerns to the attention of the court, which simply noted them and took no further action," Pr Black adds.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

I don't recall if Shaw actually "testified" that Colette murdered anyone EVER but you are correct Colette NEVER MURDERED ANYONE.

CID agent Shaw testified at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 that in his opinion Colette murdered one of the little girls which so enraged MacDonald that he then killed Colette and the other little girl. It's a joke, unless the transcript has got it wrong, which I doubt. I don't know if Colette's brother Bob Stevenson has ever been told about it, or believes it. This is an example of what he said, and he expands his theory without facts later on:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...pa32-shaw.html

Quote:

A Well, you are asking me for my opinion?
Q Yes.
A I am not absolutely certain Captain MacDonald murdered that child.
Q What is your opinion as to who might have murdered that child?
A Well, I think that Captain MacDonald murdered his wife and murdered his oldest daughter. Something had to start it off; and we are all married men, but I do know that the stresses of daily married life can sometimes become almost unbearable, as we all know from our experience; in many cases it does become unbearable for persons and they go under the strain and some of them pack up and leave home and some cause violence in the home, both men and women. And it has been my opinion and I have nothing to back it up, that perhaps Colette MacDonald did something to this child that caused Captain MacDonald to become enraged, and it is only my personal opinion; I think that perhaps after he lost, when he came out of this fit of passion, he began to think rationally again, he may well have come back to this child and may have reinjured her and he might not.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

why would journalists be given evidence? the 4th Circuit is an APPELLATE court so they would not review evidence that was not part of the case. HOWEVER, Helena did testify and she said she was not involved, she was not there, she was heavy on mescaline. Judge Dupree didn't hold anything secret.

The 4th Circuit judges are rubber stampers for very bad judges. Publicity can be important in murder cases. Those sort of cases should not be held in secret, except for very good reasons otherwise it's clearly erroneous. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. The evidence against Helena was held on voir dire, which means in plain English in secrecy. Judge Dupree just described her as a "poor befuddled creature" which is a form of bias and lack of interest and it should not have been allowed. Helena was not unintelligent.
There must be an impartial judge and jury.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is at least one article on the internet about journalists closing in on Malone false evidence and testimony at the FBI lab:

What INMATE claims is immaterial. That DOES NOT constitute proof. IF all an inmate had to do was "claim" there was false evidence the prisons would be empty. Not only that, but Malone was not involved until AFTER inmate was convicted. Malone came into the situation during APPEALS so evidence that convicted him was analyzed by someone else.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Yes he did and there are several internet articles about it and it's relevant to the MacDonald case:

No he did not use false evidence. BUT even if he did IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL TO THE DISCUSSION. IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPACT inmate's case.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by byn63

No he did not use false evidence. BUT even if he did IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL TO THE DISCUSSION. IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPACT inmate's case.

Oh, and by the way the article you cited DOES NOT CLAIM THEY USED FALSE EVIDENCE. And, more importantly, attorney's on the same side at trials often discuss what is happening and pass notes etc during proceedings. It IS NOT ILLEGAL and is perfectly acceptable. You just cannot resist conspiracy theories.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

CID agent Shaw testified at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 that in his opinion Colette murdered one of the little girls which so enraged MacDonald that he then killed Colette and the other little girl. It's a joke, unless the transcript has got it wrong, which I doubt. I don't know if Colette's brother Bob Stevenson has ever been told about it, or believes it. This is an example of what he said, and he expands his theory without facts later on:

okay so he said it at the Article 32 it is irrelevant to the discussions at hand. Once again, the Article 32 is NOT the end all be all of evidence....LOOK AT WHAT WAS PRESENTED AND TESTIFIED TO AT TRIAL! Inmate slaughtered his family - he was finally and fairly convicted. PERIOD.

haven't you learned yet that OPINION is NOT the same thing as FACT? Also, the Article 32 occurred long before all the evidence was analyzed. Once it was analyzed it was obvious to anyone with at least 2 functional brain cells that inmate did it.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The 4th Circuit judges are rubber stampers for very bad judges.

No, they are not rubber stampers for ANY judges. BUT, since you obviously have no concept or grasp of even the most basic processes of the American judicial system, you should REALLY stop commenting on it.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Publicity can be important in murder cases.

Publicity can be important and it can be a problem. At the beginning of this case, the defense used the publicity to put their half-truths, misrepresentations, cut and paste presentation, and outright lies out to the public. The prosecution chose to NOT try the case in the media and court of public opinion. This is one major reason some of the most nonsensical, illogical, unreasonable nonsense still gets brought up by people who prefer to ignore fact.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Those sort of cases should not be held in secret, except for very good reasons otherwise it's clearly erroneous.

This case was not held in secret (after the GJ of course, which is always done in secret). The trial was public, although it was NOT a case covered by cameras in the court room (that didn't start until much later here in the US). The trial was covered by news media from all over the country and was not erroneous.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.

Justice for Colette, Kimberley, Kristen and unborn baby boy was done. Inmate was rightfully convicted.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The evidence against Helena was held on voir dire, which means in plain English in secrecy.

No, actually voir dire (vwahr) "nearly silent R" (deer) is a noun and it is from FRENCH meaning "to see to speak". In most cases it consists of question of potential jurors by a Judge and/or attorney's in court.

SOMETIMES it is used in chambers to determine the credibility of the proposed witnesses and their claims. In this case, the determination was to NOT allow them to testify. Good thing to since Posey later admitted that he'd made up his Article 32 to testimony and the voir dire testimony being basically the same thing was obviously STILL A LIE (and thus not credible).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Judge Dupree just described her as a "poor befuddled creature"

which is exactly what Helena was and BY THE WAY HELENA DID TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY. SHE STATED SHE WAS NOT INVOLVED AND WAS NOT THERE. Bernie Segal even admitted (ungraciously) that Helena had testified the same as she had discussed with the defense the day before her testimony when they had the conference with her BEFORE she talked to the prosecution (who noted she testified exactly as she had in their interview as well).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

which is a form of bias and lack of interest and it should not have been allowed.

No, actually that is part of what a Judge is supposed to do, determine the credibility of witnesses and their statements.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Helena was not unintelligent.

She was intelligent prior to ingesting so many illegal substances but she was also so totally doped up it is unlikely she had very many functional brain cells left.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There must be an impartial judge and jury.

There was an impartial Judge and an impartial JURY. inmate was justly and fairly convicted. He is to this day a base coward who will not admit to his actions and I think that makes him less than human.

[JTF]

For the past 15 years, the Landlord has gone on these disjointed rolls when backed into an evidentiary corner and/or asked to provide documented proof of his fantasy narratives. The simple fact is that inmate's conviction was due to a mass of inculpatory evidence presented at trial and that same evidence has kept him in prison for 37 of the past 39 years.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[JTF]

This is the most litigated murder case in history. This simple fact has resulted in an opening of the evidentiary floodgates rarely seen in the annals of true crime. IMO, only 3 other high profile murder cases are comparable to this case. They include cases involving double-murderers Lee Harvey Oswald and O.J. Simpson, and convicted murderer Steven Avery.

Despite the open and shut nature of these 4 high profile murder cases, each case has its own devoted group of advocates who see a conspiracy around every corner. Each case has its own Bellwether Fallacy with the Simpson case being on the lower end of the advocate intensity spectrum.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bellwether.html

The MacDonald Case, however, stands out in regards to the the sheer number of times that previously litigated issues have been re-addressed/rebutted by the government. The same is true with visual and print media. Media members serving as MacDonald advocates were not deterred by the fact that several books/magazine articles/television shows presented a mass of data that inculpated inmate. They were almost cavalier in disregarding this data and reveled in regurgitating debunked claims.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com