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

[Henri McPhee]

The evidence against MacDonald is not overwhelming as some people suggest. It's underwhelming manufactured evidence.

[Henri McPhee]

Can you say you honestly say you agree with CID agent Shaw's testimony at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970? It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence:

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

Quote:

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q In your opinion, then, Colette attacked the child in the north bedroom and again, you feel that Captain MacDonald possibly saw this or came in and became enraged because he saw this and thereupon attacked Mrs. MacDonald, is that correct?
A If you will bear in mind that I have no real basis for that opinion, just a thought. It is a theory I don't believe can be destroyed without -- with the evidence we have.
Q Did he attack her in the north bedroom or east bedroom, with the club?
A Initially, or with the club initally --
Q You say he attacked her with the club initially?
A I do not know.
Q Well, what instrument did he use?
A I think probably the club was used before the knives ever entered into it. I think he probably could find a club or piece of wood readily available in one of the children's bedrooms rather than in the master bedroom, if that be the case.
Q So the attack took place in the north bedroom?
A Yes, I think so.

[AnimalFriendly]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The evidence against MacDonald is not overwhelming as some people suggest. It's underwhelming manufactured evidence.

Nope. It's thoroughly overwhelming, and multi-type, evidence. Which rightfully convicted JM and is why he's been in prison since 1982.

[Henri McPhee]

Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were silly old fools.

[Henri McPhee]

There is a fair and just summary of the MacDonald case at this website:

http://truthmegasite.com/dr-jeffrey-...govt-cover-up/

Quote:

The “evidence” convicting him in 1979 was simply “forensic” evidence of a confusing nature that did no more than place him in his own home on the night of the murders. There is no evidence that says he committed murder — and there is voluminous evidence that points to the guilt of Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell and their co-assailants. Yet, as of this date, Dr. MacDonald remains in federal prison, a victim of injustice of the worst sort.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The evidence against MacDonald is not overwhelming as some people suggest. It's underwhelming manufactured evidence.

The evidence IS overwhelming, that is why inmate was convicted. The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert at a trial that lasted about 7 weeks. This evidence was only about 60% of the available inculpatory evidence. The jury convicted in just under 7 hours.

No evidence was manufactured and, IF a new trial was granted (improbale as that is) the DNA test results would lower the boom even harder than the first trial. I'd not be surprised to see inmate convicted of first degree murder for ALL of the victims that he can be tried for murdering (sadly, the unborn baby's death can not be charged).

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is a fair and just summary of the MacDonald case at this website:

roflmao! that quote is the most untrue piece of claptrap! inmate had his presumption of innocence for 9 very long years before FINALLY being brought to justice. the evidence was presented before a jury of his peers and he was rightfully convicted of brutally and savagely slaughtering Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. News articles and op ed pieces are NOT qualify sources.

The conviction has stood all these years because inmate is guilty, convicted, and imprisoned. He is lucky that he is now in a prison that houses lower security prisoners - he should be in higher but proximity to release address apparently trumps prison security levels.

[Whip]

Quote:

The evidence against MacDonald is not overwhelming as some people suggest. It's underwhelming manufactured evidence.

when will you finally be presenting alleged real evidence in court instead of trolling here? every day you wait is another day he rots in jail. don't know why you'd want that for your buddy

[JTF]

For the past 15 years, the Landlord of MacFantasy Island 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

[BStrong]

Want a concise, fair and just summary?

A narcissistic sociopath murdered his family and attempted to blame the crime on imaginary individuals.

He was convicted and sentenced to prison.

All is right in the universe and the crime hobbyists that adopted the handsome murderer and campaign for his exoneration are going to die disappointed.

[JTF]

BStrong: The Landlord's definition of a concise, fair, and just summary is any claim or claims that portray inmate as a tortured innocent. The fact that inmate has had more chances at freedom than any convicted murderer in history, speaks to the Landlord's fantasy driven thought process.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Granted, the Landlord's Bellwether Fallacy is far more bizarre than any other MacDonald advocate, but they all share a common cognitive thread.

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

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Want a concise, fair and just summary?

A narcissistic sociopath murdered his family and attempted to blame the crime on imaginary individuals.

He was convicted and sentenced to prison.

All is right in the universe and the crime hobbyists that adopted the handsome murderer and campaign for his exoneration are going to die disappointed.

That's just your opinions. It isn't facts or evidence. You decide according to the evidence, not according to opinions, unless they are the opinions of real experts. Stombaugh of the FBI was never a blood man or a fabric impression expert. Malone of the FBI is a proven total liar in other murder cases. You need to separate opinions from facts and evidence.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That's just your opinions.

No, actually it is NOT just BStrong's opinion it is FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It isn't facts or evidence.

It is FACT BASED on the EVIDENCE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

You decide according to the evidence, not according to opinions, unless they are the opinions of real experts.

That is a laughable comment coming from the troll who bases his entire position on various cases on his OPINION. There is overwhelming EVIDENCE that PROVES inmate guilty.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Stombaugh of the FBI was never a blood man or a fabric impression expert.

Stombaugh was an expert. He was accepted as an expert by the Courts thus he was a REAL EXPERT. Also, you should stop saying bad things about Stombaugh's work on this case since inmate's "experts" agreed with LARGE PORTIONS of Stombaugh's testimony/analysis. So, if Stombaugh wasn't a real expert what does that say about Thorton and Morton?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Malone of the FBI is a proven total liar in other murder cases.

I do not believe that is the case, BUT even if it were what Malone said or did in relation to other cases is irrelevant to our discussions.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

You need to separate opinions from facts and evidence.

roflmao! once again a very funny and laughable comment from the one who ALWAYS comments on his "opinion" and totally ignores every FACT. The FACT is that over 1,100 pieces of evidence were presented at trial consisting of only about 60% of the evidence available at the time of trial. Every single SOURCED piece of evidence points to the lone perp - inmate. That is why he was convicted and why is conviction has stood all these years.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

Stombaugh was an expert. He was accepted as an expert by the Courts thus he was a REAL EXPERT. Also, you should stop saying bad things about Stombaugh's work on this case since inmate's "experts" agreed with LARGE PORTIONS of Stombaugh's testimony/analysis. So, if Stombaugh wasn't a real expert what does that say about Thorton and Morton?

It's beating against the wind, but Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to testify about fabric impressions, or the blood evidence, or the pajama top which all helped to wrongly convict MacDonald. That was the fault of Judge Dupree who was in bed with the prosecution. It was illegal under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it should have resulted in a reversal and mistrial, even at the 2012 evidentiary hearing which JTF is so proud never happened on his website.

There was one of those numerous Bench Conferences about the matter at the 1979 trial which the jury and journalists, and 4th Circuit judges never heard:

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

Quote:

B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, we have no further objection that this witness be heard by the Court as a witness on hairs and fiber identification.
We think there is an inadequate basis to qualify him as an expert in the so-called area of fabric damage or fabric impressions. We can find nothing in the examination to support his claim of being a certified expert in those areas.

He can't name a single case where he has ever been accepted by any court as an expert in those areas. And absent such corroboration, it is generally vague and self-serving to call himself an expert in those matters. He has no academic training that he can point to. He says he read some FBI bulletin in that regard.

For those reasons, I would suggest most seriously that he should not be received in that area.

[Henri McPhee]

There is another fair and just website about the MacDonald case at:

http://whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thr...ds-last-chance

The way the MacDonald defense were never allowed to retest the forensics which convicted him, like the mystery hair in Colette's left hand, raises doubts and inconsistencies about FBI illegal methods, and tampering and destruction and tampering of the evidence and cheating.

Quote:

But MacDonald’s defense team argued that the case was botched from the beginning with a contaminated crime scene and evidence that was withheld from the defense. “I’ve never feared the evidence in this case,” insists MacDonald. “I’m fearful of the government’s manipulation of the case.” Richard Fox, a crime-scene expert who examined the case post-trial, had this to say in a video prepared for MacDonald’s defense team: “The crime scene investigation was a travesty.”

Members of the defense team also contend they weren’t allowed adequate time to test the evidence themselves – or even notification that some of it existed. “I would have had all the bloodstain evidence retested,” says Dr. John Thornton, MacDonald’s forensic expert at trial. And he indicates he had no idea about the existence of long blonde wig hairs found in the apartment that night. “I wasn’t able to say, ‘I want to look at that blonde wig hair,” because we didn’t know there were any blonde wig hairs,” he continues. MacDonald claims he discovered additional evidence through Freedom of Information Act requests that he believes bolsters his version of events. “I found a witness statement no one had ever seen before,” MacDonald explains. “It says that morning, somewhere around 5:30 a.m., a neighbor walks into the crime scene and notices a sheet on Colette. I didn’t put the sheet on her.”

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's beating against the wind, but Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to testify about fabric impressions, or the blood evidence, or the pajama top

You are wrong henri....as usual! What part of "the presiding Judge determines if someone is an expert" do you fail to understand? Also, what part of the FACT that Thorton and Morton BOTH agreed with large portions of Stombaugh's analysis and testimony do you fail to grasp? IF Morton and Thorton were experts and they agreed with Stombaugh that further strengthens the FACT that he was an expert.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

which all helped to wrongly convict MacDonald.

Once again you are WRONG. inmate was RIGHTFULLY CONVICTED.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That was the fault of Judge Dupree who was in bed with the prosecution.

The fault in this case lies with inmate and inmate only. IF HE HAD NOT SLAUGHTERED Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and his unborn son he would not have been tried fairly and convicted rightfully.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It was illegal under the Federal Rules of Evidence,

I don't know what you claim was illegal under FRE or perhaps you meant the Federal Rules of Prosecution.....however, the time to debate or object was at trial or during appeals. No evidence was presented illegally and inmate was convicted rightfully.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and it should have resulted in a reversal and mistrial,

nothing happened to deserve a mistrial and obviously since the conviction has held all these years nothing happened deserving a reversal.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

even at the 2012 evidentiary hearing which JTF is so proud never happened on his website.

incomplete thought here...not sure where you were headed with this....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There was one of those numerous Bench Conferences about the matter at the 1979 trial which the jury and journalists, and 4th Circuit judges never heard

Bench Conferences ARE NOT PUBLISHED to the outside world otherwise there would be little point in calling for a bench conference. Just like the Bench Conference when Bernie Segal tried to claim that Helena told him more/different than what she'd testified to when on the witness stand....at the 2012 hearing it was shown that Bernie LIED.....

[JTF]

The mass of inculpatory evidence in this case allows me to play the Landlord's regurgitation game at a much higher level.

The Article 32 decision resulted in the formation of the CID reinvestigation team in the winter of 1970. The reinvestigation team reviewed the original CID investigation, requested that the FBI re-analyze the forensic evidence, and proceeded to interview 699 people in 32 states. The final reinvestigation report took two years to complete and it recommended that MacDonald be prosecuted for the murder of his family.

In 1974, MacDonald was brought before a Grand Jury in North Carolina, and he was indicted on three counts of murder in 1975. Due to several legal motions, the trial did not get underway until the summer of 1979. In a trial that lasted over six weeks, the government introduced over 1,000 evidentiary items, and MacDonald was convicted of three counts of murder in less than seven hours. MacDonald spent a year in prison before speedy trial issues garnered him 18 months of freedom. The speedy trial decision was overturned in 1982 and MacDonald has remained in prison ever since.

For the past 15 years, the Landlord of MacFantasy Island 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

[ScottPletcher]

Henri, again, all your spiel is irrelevant.

For example, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the blond hair in the brush did come from a human wig. There is still NOTHING that connects it to HS. Most women in the country had blond wigs then. Any of the people the McD's invited over in the prior days/weeks could have left that hair.

As to the sheet impressions, there were some there, and something made them. Again, there is NOTHING to connect them to anyone other than inmate. In that context, they extremely strongly point to his guilt.

[JTF]

SCOTT: The Landlord is fully aware of the fact that there WAS a blond wig hair found in Colette's hairbrush. The source of that hair was a fall owned by Colette. The defense NEVER formulated a rebuttal to that issue nor did they formulate a rebuttal to the fact that one of the blond saran fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's massive exemplar collection.

In terms of the inculpatory fabric impression evidence, the Landlord is fully aware of the fact that his pet forensics expert (e.g., John Thornton) agreed with the following conclusions leveled by Paul Stombaugh at trial.

•Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by ScottPletcher

Henri, again, all your spiel is irrelevant.

For example, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the blond hair in the brush did come from a human wig. There is still NOTHING that connects it to HS. Most women in the country had blond wigs then. Any of the people the McD's invited over in the prior days/weeks could have left that hair.

As to the sheet impressions, there were some there, and something made them. Again, there is NOTHING to connect them to anyone other than inmate. In that context, they extremely strongly point to his guilt.

That's not strictly true. There is some legal waffle in a 4th Circuit ruling about all this which is in disagreement with Judge Fox and which is perhaps too highly technical for this forum:

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

Quote:

In 1997, MacDonald filed a motion to reopen the proceedings on his second postconviction motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), on the ground that the government and one of its witnesses (the FBI forensic examiner responsible for analyzing the blond synthetic fibers) had perpetrated a fraud on the court. In support of his motion, MacDonald claimed that he had discovered evidence establishing that the FBI forensic examiner had falsely testified that the blond fibers -- because they were made from a substance called "saran" -- likely had come from a doll rather than a wig. MacDonald's evidence reflected that, contrary to the FBI forensic examiner's testimony, the FBI's own reference collection contained a text stating that saran was used in the manufacture of wigs, and that, prior to filing its response to the second motion, the government had interviewed two doll experts who opined that the blond fibers probably did not come from a doll. MacDonald also proffered affirmative evidence "consisting of recently obtained statements of wig and fiber industry executives" that saran was used to make wigs before 1970. In conjunction with his Rule 60(b) motion to reopen proceedings, MacDonald sought access to all items of physical evidence analyzed by the FBI forensic examiner, plus other unsourced hairs, fibers, and blood debris found in critical locations, so that he could conduct independent laboratory analyses including newly available DNA tests.

[Henri McPhee]

There is an affidavit on the internet from somebody called Robert Webb of he FBI with regard to those blonde synthetic fibers, which might or might not make it clearer to a reader:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html..._webb_aff.html

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

SCOTT: In terms of the inculpatory fabric impression evidence, the Landlord is fully aware of the fact that his pet forensics expert (e.g., John Thornton) agreed with the following conclusions leveled by Paul Stombaugh at trial.

•Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Dr Thornton flatly disagreed with Stombaugh about a bare left shoulder impression and on areas C and D:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html...ton_trial.html

Quote:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Dr. Thornton, I would like to ask you about the areas that you had sort of gotten into, "C" and "D," which were described by Mr. Stombaugh at page 4141 of his testimony. I am going to ask your opinion about those.
He stated at that time that, "Area 'C' conforms to a bloody handprint." He then said, "Area 'C' on the sheet...conforms to a bloody left hand -- the two portions of it, here, here and here." He said, "As to Area 'D,' it conforms to a bloody right hand." Let me ask you, first of all, do you agree with his opinion and his conclusion?
A No, I think that is exceedingly unlikely.

[JTF]

The Landlord's reliance on John Thornton's conclusions cuts both ways. Sure, he disagreed with Stombaugh's conclusion that bloody impressions on the blue bedsheet were made by a human hand and bare shoulder, but in terms of the bloody fabric impression evidence, Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on the following:

•Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff

Yikes, that is a bitter forensic pill to swallow for inmate and his advocates. It's also important to note that Thornton never studied the following impressions.

•Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

Hmm, I wonder why?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

There is quite an interesting website from somebody who used to be a trial lawyer and, like JTF and Byn thinks MacDonald is guilty. He is critical of the Morris book 'Wilderness of Errors' for no good reason, in my opinion. The trouble is he doesn't come to grips with the problems of prosecuting an innocent man, or defending an innocent man, or what to do about a gross miscarriage of justice.

He does make some interesting points which are true:

http://www.tourolawreview.com/2013/0...-unpersuasive/

Quote:

The real focus of Morris’s philosophical musings and ours should be: do we resolve our differences of opinion on the guilt or innocence of an individual by conducting competing public relations campaigns? To me, an affirmative answer is unthinkable. Whatever we mean by “justice” is not achieved by following “fair and balanced” contradictory narratives in the press and media. We cannot subcontract our court system to the PBS NewsHour any more than we can do so by casting Fox News as an explainer and arbiter of the evidence in a deadly serious criminal case. I am not alone in thinking that long ago we formulated a far different and certainly more disciplined method of resolving momentous factual disputes when we enacted Article III of the United States Constitution.

[JTF]

As I mentioned in a prior post, the only high profile murder cases that compare to this case involve psychopaths Lee Harvey Oswald, O.J. Simpson, and Steven Avery. If one keeps it simple (e.g., focus on the inculpatory physical evidence), the unavoidable conclusion is that all 4 perps are guilty beyond ALL doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is quite an interesting website from somebody who used to be a trial lawyer and, like JTF and Byn thinks MacDonald is guilty. He is critical of the Morris book 'Wilderness of Errors' for no good reason, in my opinion. The trouble is he doesn't come to grips with the problems of prosecuting an innocent man, or defending an innocent man, or what to do about a gross miscarriage of justice.

Why should he? Considering that he believes MacDonald guilty the whole issue of prosecuting an innocent man, defending one etc., simply doesn't arise for him at all.

Quote:

does make some interesting points which are true:

http://www.tourolawreview.com/2013/0...-unpersuasive/

The book Wilderness of Error is utter crap. Morris' near absolute refusal to deal with the physical evidence makes his book nonsense.

[JTF]

PACAL: In November of 2011, I contacted Morris on the phone after being told by a fellow case researcher that Morris was intending to write a book about the MacDonald Case. Considering the fact that Morris constructed an endorsement on the back cover of Fatal Justice, I knew his book would proclaim inmate as a tortured innocent.

I didn't share these thoughts with Morris and decided that the best course of action would be to debate the facts of this case. Morris asked me for permission to tape record the call and I told him that I was ok with this request. Morris claimed that he wasn't writing a MacDonald Is Innocent book and that the book would focus on why this case continues to interest the general public.

I didn't buy this claim for one minute and proceeded to tell him why inmate is guilty beyond all doubt. Morris then admitted that the authors of Fatal Justice "got some of the facts wrong," but he stopped short of dismissing the book. We spoke for about an hour and he told me he would contact me if he had any further questions about this case.

Well, he never did contact me and we all know how his book turned out. In several interviews, Morris seems to take pride in giving a hand wave to most of the evidence that led to inmate's conviction. The only evidentiary item he is willing to discuss/debate is the Pajama Top Theory. Morris' line of argument is that directionality issues (e.g., direction of the ice pick thrusts into the pajama top) makes every other issue moot.

I processed with Morris that due to the excessive handling of the garment, there was no way to know the original condition of the yarns in each hole. I added that this resulted in the directionality of the holes being a non-issue. When he asked me what I thought was the most important part of this theory, I quickly pointed to Shirley Green being able to find a matching pattern (e.g., puncture holes with ice pick wounds in Colette's chest) using 3 different forensic techniques.

He stated, "that's interesting" and left it at that. He never mentions this issue in Wilderness of Error and for good reason. Any scientist worth a salt knows that your ability to prove your theory hinges on your ability to replicate the outcome of each experiment. Green's conclusions were drawn up in 1974, and she was able to replicate this pattern in 1979. Ballgame over.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...op_theory.html

[Henri McPhee]

Look here. The legal trick in the MacDonald case was to con the jury and the 4th Circuit judges, and to falsify the forensic evidence, and to get your pal, Judge Fox to take over the case when you died so that he could use the law's delay to keep an innocent man in prison. Also to withhold evidence from the defense and to use Brady violations with impunity, and to prevent any retesting of the forensics. Then for MacDonald to try to appeal to a dour Irishman on the Supreme Court. It's clearly erroneous.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

I processed with Morris that due to the excessive handling of the garment, there was no way to know the original condition of the yarns in each hole. I added that this resulted in the directionality of the holes being a non-issue. When he asked me what I thought was the most important part of this theory, I quickly pointed to Shirley Green being able to find a matching pattern (e.g., puncture holes with ice pick wounds in Colette's chest) using 3 different forensic techniques.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...op_theory.html

Even the very bad trial judge, Judge Dupree, was skeptical about FBI Shirley Green's theories without facts and the FBI lab contrived and conceptually unsound and impossible pajama folding experiment:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html

Quote:

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, could we merely have for the clarification of the record that Ms. Green has not been qualified as an expert and has merely testified as to what she did?

THE COURT: If you want to bring that out on redirect, of course, you will be in a position to do it. I don't want to make speeches to the jury when I don't have to.

MR. MURTAGH: Let me say this: I refrained from making this reference in front of the jury. But we can put it in as to which seam is where and to what fold is what. It takes her about an hour to do it.

THE COURT: Just tell her to reconstruct the whole thing?

MR. MURTAGH: She can -- yes, sir.

MR. SEGAL: You can prove your case the way you want to, Mr. Murtagh.

THE COURT: Here is one thing: since I am wondering, I am wondering if the jury is wondering about it too. But I got as far into it this morning -- well, I just thought I had misunderstood that man's answers. But apparently I had not. I had misunderstood him as to one thing: because he told me -- I thought he said that if you have got five holes and you put the five fingers down here and make five impressions, there is no way on God's earth that you can ever cover them without having your fingers back in the same position that they were.
Now, that was that. But if I understood him correctly, he said that you could take ten fingers and get the ten fingers so confused as to go into the five holes as he did in this case, but that you could take those same ten things and put them some other way and they would fit. And I don't believe you can do it.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I think what he meant to do -- he was not going to testify that it could not occur in any other fashion. It is the same as Ms. Green is saying: "I did it this way. There may be some other way to do it." That is something we would clarify on redirect.

THE COURT: If he told me that you could arrange 48 places and arrange those same 48 so they would still go into those 21 holes other than the way that they say they arranged them in this case, I wouldn't believe it. But, now, thankfully, I don't have to make that decision, nor will that opinion ever be expressed to this jury.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if there is another way to reconstruct it -- and if it was tough enough to do it one way -- I think this is merely the conservative nature of the laboratory examiner. It is like the hair could have come -- the same thing with respect to the threads.

THE COURT: If I have ever heard a man disclaim, not one time but fifty, old Stombaugh kept saying that, "I only said it could be."

MR. MURTAGH: That is right, sir.

THE COURT: Now, you have been up here so long I forgot what you came for.

MR. SEGAL: A break, Your Honor. I said "purported expert." I am sorry for that. I really did not intend any derogatory inference by that. But my point was responding to the Government's objection that it is speculation.

[JTF]

Read it and weep.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...op_theory.html

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is another fair and just website about the MacDonald case at:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/088525.P.pdf

FIFY

"During the seven-week trial of the case, the government presented extensive physical and circumstantial evidence supported by expert and lay testimony. Physical evidence ranging from the amounts of MacDonald’s pajama top fibers found in various rooms in the MacDonald residence to the pattern of blood spatterings on the victims and in the rooms of the apartment was offered.[3] The government also pointed to the absence of evidence in the apartment linking Helena Stoeckley or anyone else to the crimes, apparent contradictions in MacDonald’s numerous accounts of what transpired that morning, and the marital difficulties MacDonald and his wife were allegedly having prior to February 17,1970.

MacDonald’s defense consisted primarily of his own testimony, character witnesses, and impeachment of the integrity of the crime scene and evidence offered by the prosecution. Although Helena Stoeckley was located during the trial and offered as an exculpatory witness, she testified before the jury that
she was not involved in the murders but that because of her drug crazed condition and bizarre behavior following the murders, she at least had come to wonder whether she was in fact involved.

The jury apparently believed that she was not, for after six hours of deliberation MacDonald was found guilty of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder. United States v. MacDonald, 640 F. Supp. 286, 289-90 (E.D.N.C. 1985).

Following his convictions by the jury in 1979, the trial court sentenced MacDonald to three consecutive life terms of imprisonment, which he is currently serving.See id. at 288.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That's not strictly true.

Since Scott was stipulating for the sake of argument something that YOU have been advocating I find it more than hilarious that you would admit what he stated was not true.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is some legal waffle in a 4th Circuit ruling about all this which

legal "waffle"? here in the USA "waffle" when discussing legal or detailed speech is NOT a good thing.

[byn63]

you cannot "force" a pattern to exist. It either DOES EXIST or it does not exist. In this case, the pattern of ice pick stab wounds suffered by Colette matches the pattern of ice pick damage (holes) in the blue pj top.

'nuff said....

[Henri McPhee]

The problem at the moment is that the Army CID decides who did it, like Colette supposedly murdering one of the little girls, and then MacDonald becomes enraged in an amphetamine psychosis and supposedly kills the other little girl, while the FBI lab then makes up the forensic evidence to supposedly prove it.

There needs to be reforms in forensics. At the moment Sessions under Trump seems to be opposed to any reform. There is a scholarly article on the internet about all this which is very critical of Malone of the FBI, which I agree might not be entirely true. One practical business sense reform to my mind would be for the defense to be able to retest the forensically significant evidence which would then make the FBI more careful about routinely engaging in forensic fraud, and being a total liar and con artists:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...7&context=jclc

Quote:

Reforming forensics is no small task. It will take cooperation from scientists, lawyers, judges, and policymakers—but it can be done. Forensic science should prevent wrongful convictions, not cause them. “There are only two mistakes one can make on the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting.” This is our opportunity to set forensic science right before it gets the result wrong and it stays that way.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

you cannot "force" a pattern to exist. It either DOES EXIST or it does not exist. In this case, the pattern of ice pick stab wounds suffered by Colette matches the pattern of ice pick damage (holes) in the blue pj top.

'nuff said....

Fred Bost discusses the pajama folding experiment in his short study on the internet. Dr. Thornton described it as contrived , conceptually unsound and impossible, and that's good enough for me. Neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were certified as experts to make it up:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html

Quote:

The CID conducted a study of directionality in 1971 and drew certain conclusions concerning 11 holes. An independent study a short time later by the FBI resulted in the same conclusions (SHORT #39). The FBI "stabbing through the pajama top" experiment ignored these findings. For example, the experiment concluded that holes numbered 20, 21, and 22, in that sequence, one above the other, represented a single thrust through folded material into Colette MacDonald's chest (SHORT #40). However, both the CID and the FBI directionality studies concluded that hole 20 penetrated the pajama top from the inside to the outside, while both hole 21 and hole 22 penetrated from the outside to the inside (SHORT #41). It is impossible to fold a cloth so that a single thrust through three holes can duplicate those directions.

Finally, the entire concept becomes irrelevant if eye witness accounts of three military policemen first on the scene are credited. When interviewed early on and independently they said the garment was not on the corpse when they arrived at the scene. One military policeman believes he knelt on the pajama top while he gave MacDonald mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The group recalls that one of Colette MacDonald's breasts was visible. Government photographs show the pajama top covering both breasts (SHORT #42).

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The problem at the moment is that the Army CID decides who did it,

No, our problem AT THE MOMENT is that you seem to believe there is something to debate. THE FACT IS THAT INMATE HAS BEEN RIGHTFULLY CONVICTED and there is no doubt about the FACT that he slaughtered his family.

The EVIDENCE shows who did it.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

like Colette supposedly murdering one of the little girls,

that was a fleeting "possibility" in the mind of an investigator at around the time of the Article 32 hearing at which time very little of the physical evidence had been analyzed. Try reading the Grand Jury and Trial testimony you will see that the investigation had shown that Colette killing anyone was beyond improbable.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and then MacDonald becomes enraged in an amphetamine psychosis and supposedly kills the other little girl,

inmate WAS ENRAGED and he slaughtered his family. was he in an amphetamine psychosis? probably, but we will never know for sure because you could not drug test for speed in 1970. What we KNOW for fact is that inmate himself said he'd been taking eskatrol.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

while the FBI lab then makes up the forensic evidence to supposedly prove it.

what evidence did the FBI make up to "prove" inmate was in amphetamine psychosis? NOTHING, because the prosecution did not use amphetamine use as part of the prosecution. inmate was taking eskatrol (his own handwritten notes said so...) but the use or non-use of drugs was not part of the trial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There needs to be reforms in forensics.

don't be ridiculous - the forensics in this case were fine. just because it doesn't clear you man crush doesn't make them wrong. besides even your favorite defense expert agrees with major portions of the prosecution expert. So if the prosecution's expert was wrong and the defense expert agreed with the prosecution expert's analysis what does that say for the defense expert?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

At the moment Sessions under Trump seems to be opposed to any reform.

irrelevant to the discussions

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is a scholarly article on the internet about all this which is very critical of Malone of the FBI, which I agree might not be entirely true.

highly doubtful that any such article is "scholarly" and since Malone was NOT involved in the conviction of inmate so what? his participation came in the appellate stages and nothing has been overturned....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

One practical business sense reform to my mind would be for the defense to be able to retest the forensically significant evidence

the defense had plenty of opportunity to have the evidence reviewed by their own experts. that they failed to do so is on them...Bernie Segal was so busy asking for evidence to be shipped across country (which would NEVER happen) instead of getting his experts to the lab space made available to the defense in Raleigh.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

which would then make the FBI more careful about routinely engaging in forensic fraud, and being a total liar and con artists....

there was no forensic fraud by the FBI. You seem to be forgetting that the DEFENSE EXPERTS agreed with large portions of the FBI analysis. So if it was fraudulent then how come they agreed with the analysis? You cannot have it both ways - if Thorton/Morton were so great then you have to accept Paul Stombaugh's testimony as valid/great too sine they agreed with him in large portions of his testimony.

Why don't you try LEARNING THE FACTS instead on insisting on making claims that have no relevance to the REAL WORLD or the totally of evidence. The evidence in this case is res judicata. Latin for "the thing has been judged" and thus, no reason to re-analyze the evidence and by the way no forum through which it would be adjudicated again.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Fred Bost discusses the pajama folding experiment in his short study on the internet.

Bost's short study is nothing more than the basic outline of what became Fatal Joke. The "study" is replete with errors, including but not limited to taking a document, cutting it off, adding part of another document, then adding the end of the first document back to it.

An example of the cut and paste presentation is when the investigative notes shows that there was some blood found on the foot board of the master bed. Also, a partial hand print was found on the foot board of the master bed. So Bost put the 2 together and claimed a bloody palm print was found on the foot board. Not true, but people like you have continued to try and claim it to be fact. FYI henri, if a finger print, palm print, or foot print is made in a substance (blood, oil, paint, powder, etc) in is called a PATENT not a latent print. That is just 1 FACTUAL and EASY way to determine the paperwork on the "bloody partial palm print" was WRONG/UNTRUE/LIE!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Thornton described it as contrived , conceptually unsound and impossible, and that's good enough for me.

Too bad you don't get to make that decision. Also, since Shirley Green was able to replicate the same findings using several techniques, the pj top experiment turns out to conceptually sound and optimal.

Talk about conceptually unsound experiments - lets talk ham on a sled!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were certified as experts to make it up.

roflmao! you don't seem to grasp some simple FACTS. The JUDGE gets to decide who is or is not considered an expert and Stombaugh certainly was accepted as an expert. Also, since Thorton agreed with large portions of Stombaugh's testimony that just strengthens the FACT that Stombaugh was an expert.

YOU CANNOT FORCE A PATTERN TO EXIST IT EITHER DOES EXIST OR IT DOES NOT. No contrivance can make one exist if it isn't there......

Also let us not forget that Brian M and Jim B decided to test out inmate's claims of using his pj top as a shield. They PROVED that he could not have done so without sustaining injuries to his hands and/or wrists. Inmate had no such wounds - he lied.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The problem at the moment is that my man crush is guilty as sin

FIFY with my new subconscious truth post translator.

Ain't it cool?

[JTF]

No matter the advocate (e.g., Fred Bost, Errol Morris, etc.), the arguments against the validity of the Pajama Top Theory are both uniform and selective. Inmate's advocates basically crib off one another and they purposely ignore the following analysis.

The pajama top contained 48 puncture holes and two cuts with 17 of the puncture holes being found in the back of the garment. Inmate did not receive any stab wounds to his back and Womack Hospital medical reports could only verify four puncture-type wounds on his body. All 48 puncture holes were perfectly round with no ragged or torn edges indicating that the pajama top was stationary when punctured. This conclusion was at odds with MacDonald's claim that he used his pajama top as a shield to fend off an ice pick wielding intruder in the living room.

The autopsy report stated that Colette sustained 21 ice pick wounds to her chest, 16 on the left side of her chest, and five on the right side. The pathologist also indicated that her body was stationary when stabbed with the ice pick. The crime scene photographs demonstrated that the right sleeve of the pajama top was folded inside out and the left panel, which contained no puncture holes, was trailing off alongside Colette's body.

In 1974, Paul Stombaugh instructed Shirley Green to attempt a series of experiments to determine whether or not the puncture hole pattern in Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top matched the ice pick wound pattern in Colette MacDonald's chest. Shirley Green's attempt to align the 48 puncture holes in the pajama top with the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest was akin to fitting a broken piece of headlight glass found at a hit and run scene back into the light on the suspect's car. Green was subsequently able to find a matching pattern using three different techniques. Green's techniques included a graph paper overlay, a numbering system using push pins, and the insertion of steel rods into the puncture holes in order to duplicate the hole patterns. Several weeks before the 1979 trial, Green was able to replicate the results of her experiments using the same three techniques.

At trial, Brian Murtagh began his direct examination of Shirley Green by asking her about the significance of the steel rods that were inserted into each puncture hole in MacDonald's blue pajama top. Green stated that the rods or probes were used to "demonstrate the alignment of the holes" in the pajama top with the wound pattern on Colette's chest. Green admitted that some of the probes went through several layers of fabric and that a singular probe could encompass a grouping of puncture holes. For example, Green discovered that puncture holes one through 12 could be aligned with five separate probes. Murtagh then asked Green whether she was able to align all 48 puncture holes in MacDonald's pajama top with 21 probes going through any other holes. Green stated that her painstaking analysis, "took over a week just to find one solution, to find this solution."

Green then described how she was able to replicate this pattern using a completely different technique. Green began by folding MacDonald's pajama top in the manner in which it was found on Colette's chest. Green pointed to several crime scene photographs which depicted the "inside of the pajama top facing upward, the right collar area over to the right, to the victim's left, right shoulder seam over to the right." Green then placed a piece of graph paper over a box, she put the folded pajama top down on the box, and inserted 21 push pins through the pajama top. Green discovered that the puncture hole pattern in the graph paper and the box matched the puncture wound pattern in Colette's chest.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[JTF]

In response to Bost's Short Study...

As I mentioned in a previous post, the directionality of certain holes in the pajama top is a non-issue. Glisson and Stombaugh were able to determine the directionality of 11 puncture holes in the pajama top, but the "frequent handling" of the garment PRIOR to their analysis resulted in the yarns of each hole returning to their original positions. In essence, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the directionality of any of the 48 puncture holes in the pajama top. Several studies have proven that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially during a traumatic event. The crime scene at 544 Castle Drive was extremely traumatic and Green's analysis of the pajama top proves that the testimony of 3 military policeman was unreliable.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com