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

[Henri McPhee]

That pajama folding experiment to incriminate MacDonald was not scientifically correct. It ain't fair my son. Helena Stoeckley could have explained what happened to that pajama top if she had been granted immunity. If you use your common sense you could surmise that the female suspects pricked the pajama top with an icepick when MacDonald was unconscious on the ground. That's what Fred Bost seemed to think as well. That would explain all these doubts about the holes being made when the pajama top was stationary, and why the holes look round. It's true MacDonald suggested he fended off the knife attacks, but it all happened so quickly, and that was only his own theory without facts. It was not a scientific explanation from him. You need to suggest improvements.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by BStrong

FIFY with my new subconscious truth post translator.

Ain't it cool?

[Henri McPhee]

There are some interesting comments about forensics in that scholarly article I mentioned a while back which applies to the MacDonald miscarriage of justice case:

Quote:

Consequently, we want to be sure that we are convicting the right person. In many cases, forensic evidence closes the confidence gap left open by these concerns and seals the defendant’s fate.32 It has the power to move the jury from maybe to guilty, and everyone can sleep better at night because “science” solidified the conviction.33 The forensic analysts, then, are the criminal justice system’s rock stars, bringing their objective scientific skill and authority to an otherwise emotionally charged process.34 Yet, “public crime laboratories are not the sanctuaries of science we believed them to be.”35 Even the Supreme Court has recognized that “[s]erious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.”36 It is undeniable, and the “legal community now concedes, with varying degrees of urgency, that our system produces erroneous convictions based on discredited forensics.”37

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

[Henri McPhee]

More from that scholarly article which is relevant to the MacDonald case. It mentions Malone of the FBI, though I agree Malone mainly came on to the scene publicly for the MacDonald appeals. Malone may have been aiding and abetting Stombaugh and Shirley Green in the preliminary investigation but I have never seem any real proof, or testimony, of that:

Quote:

. SPLITTING HAIRS: ANATOMY OF A CHEAP FIX

In a 2012 sequence of investigative reports, the Washington Post exposed a Department of Justice (DOJ) review of hundreds of cases believed to contain flawed forensics. The DOJ task force spanned nine years and (regrettably) focused on the work of one particular examiner performing hair and fiber analyses. DOJ officials began reexamining cases in the 1990s after receiving reports that careless work by analysts at the FBI lab produced unreliable forensic results that were later used in trials. The results of that DOJ review—kept silent from many alleged offenders for more than a decade—demonstrated that flawed hair and fiber evidence was used to garner convictions in numerous cases.63 Hair and fiber evidence has long been the subject of scrutiny.64 It should not come as a surprise that some of the defendants against whom this evidence was used turned out to be innocent. What is surprising is that DOJ deliberately withheld the findings from the defendants whose convictions resulted—at least in part—on that evidence. Instead, DOJ made the findings available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases. The Washington Post’s investigation revealed that possibly fewer than half of the defendants whose hair evidence was called into question never learned of the task force’s review. Based on this investigation alone, it is clear that numerous individuals may “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.”65 In one such case, Donald E. Gates served twenty-eight years for the rape and murder of a Georgetown University student based on FBI Special Agent Michael P. Malone’s testimony that Gates’s hair was found on the...……..

DNA testing exonerated Gates in 2009.67 Even before the DOJ task force reviewed Malone’s work, DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an unsparing report on investigated “allegations of wrongdoing and improper practices within certain sections of the [FBI] Laboratory.”68 That particular report—released in 1997—specifically targeted Malone. Malone’s work was the lynchpin to Gates’s conviction, but Gates never learned about the OIG’s report regarding Malone or his faulty work.69 Although eventually exonerated and released, Gates spent decades in prison for a crime he did not commit.

[byn63]

DNA further inculpated inmate. 100% no doubt about it the "mystery hair" which even the defense admitted had to be from the wielder of the murder club was a 100% DNA match to inmate.

[JTF]

In the spirit of independent thought, I challenge the Landlord to provide his own rebuttals to the following facets of the Pajama Top Theory.

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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."

5) 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.

6) The directionality of certain puncture 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.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

DNA further inculpated inmate. 100% no doubt about it the "mystery hair" which even the defense admitted had to be from the wielder of the murder club was a 100% DNA match to inmate.

That was a fraud on the court by Murtagh and the FBI lab, and by Judge Fox. Something needs to be done about it. The trouble is it's very difficult to detect or prove like many other kinds of corruption.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

In the spirit of independent thought, I challenge the Landlord to provide his own rebuttals to the following facets of the Pajama Top Theory.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Dr. Thornton explained in detail why the pajama folding experiment which implicated MacDonald was not scientifically correct at the 1979 trial. I agree that Thornton's opinions about the directionality of the thrusts might not be spot on but he had no means of knowing exactly what happened. He didn't believe in the stationary pajama top theory at that time, like Fred Bost. Murtagh tried to discredit Thornton by doing a practical demonstration in court of a knife or ice pick attack which Thornton tried to disprove by saying that might not have been the exact angle of attack. The fact is you can't say in court that two and two makes five like Stombaugh and Shirley Green of the FBI lab. It's simply not true:

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

Quote:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Would you tell us: what is the basis for your conclusion about Ms. Green's experiment?
A Yes; it would help me if I could use some of the Government's exhibits.
Q Do you have them there?
A I think they are close at hand; yes.
Q All right.
A May I proceed?
Q Yes, please, Dr. Thornton, if you would tell us the basis of your conclusion.
A I used two different documents, really, to make this determination. The first consists of a laboratory work sheet of Mr. Stombaugh which appears to be a 1971 document, and I used Government Exhibit 1076(a) which is purported to be a worksheet of Shirley Green consisting of -- which indicates a direction of travel of the ice pick thrusts in the blue pajama top.
In examining these documents, I find that Mrs. Green has designated hole number 9 as originating from the outside of the garment extending to the inside. This is outside to inside. Mr. Stombaugh's original notes designate this thrust from an examination of the direction in which the fibers are pointing as an inside to the outside.
That is a discrepancy and, on the basis of that, I would conclude that thrust 20, which appears in this reconstruction, is in error. In my mind, that contravenes the entire reconstruction --
Q (Interposing) Did I understand you to say "in error"? Again, putting it in lay terms, you mean Mr. Stombaugh says the hole was what -- an exit hole -- and Ms. Green arranged it in a way that it became an entry hole?
A That's right. With respect to hole number 12 originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh in 1971, he has designated this as from the outside in. Ms. Green's reconstruction has it as inside-out. Again, that is a second discrepancy, and on the basis of that I would eliminate this as being a possible reconstruction.
Q Putting that again in lay terms, Mr. Stombaugh had it as what -- an exit hole again?
A As an entrance.
Q Entrance hole, and the way Ms. Green did the reconstruction, she did it as a -- ?
A Exit.
Q Is there anything further that you based your opinion on?
A Oh, yes. Hole 16 -- Mr. Stombaugh originally designated this as outside to inside -- an entrance hole. This is all relative, of course, to the normal outside of the garment. Mrs. Green's reconstruction designates this hole as an inside to outside, and that is the third discrepancy -- again eliminating this reconstruction.
On thrust or hole 22, originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh in 1971 from an examination of the garment at that time as outside in --
Q (Interposing) Meaning it was an entrance hole?
A Yes. Ms. Green's reconstruction assumes that this is an inside-out or an exit hole. The significance of this is that thrust 22 -- not 22 -- I beg your pardon -- one.
Q Thrust number one?
A Thrust number one is in error.

MR. MURTAGH: I OBJECT to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. I will SUSTAIN the objection. I will let him tell what he found.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let's put the answer -- the question to you this way: having found that Ms. Green has done it the way she had done it, does that appear to be using the holes in the same fashion that Mr. Stombaugh identified them; that is, did she make the exit holes exit holes in her construction, or did she make the entrance holes the entrance holes in her construction on that particular probe?
A I don't understand the question.
Q Well, what I am trying to ascertain is what is the basis of concluding that she -- what is the error that she made in your examination of the probe?
A Well, it is inconsistent. The hole either is an inside-out or an outside-in. Mr. Stombaugh originally designates it as outside-in. She -- in deriving this reconstruction -- she denies that it is an outside-in, and --

MR. MURTAGH: We OBJECT to that, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: It is a technical term, Your Honor.

MR. MURTAGH: There is nothing technical about it at all. I think --

THE COURT: I will SUSTAIN the objection. I will let him rephrase his answer.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q When you say "denies," what do you mean, Dr. Thornton?
A She contravenes the information provided by Mr. Stombaugh.
Q Would you say she did it differently from --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) We MOVE TO STRIKE that, Your Honor.

MR. SEGAL: I had not asked the question.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can we say in lay person's terms that she did it differently than the way he described the holes?
A Yes.
Q All right. Hereafter, let's use my terms and then see if that will work better. What, if anything else, did you base your opinion on?
A Hole 36 was originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh as inside-out or an exit hole. In Ms. Green's reconstruction, it is designated as outside-in or an entrance hole. Again, just with respect to that one particular discrepancy, I think that it negates the validity of this reconstruction.

MR. MURTAGH: MOVE TO STRIKE that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. He has testified that the thing was impossible. So, that is just in furtherance of that same answer.
Go ahead.
Isn't that what you say is your opinion?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Any further basis for your opinion in that regard?
A No. I think that is sufficient. With respect to hole number 48, Mr. Stombaugh hasn't designated that as being one way or the other or whether he cannot determine that. So, I can't properly evaluate that particular hole in the pajama top.
But on the basis of the six foregoing discrepancies, I think that this is impossible.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That was a fraud on the court by Murtagh and the FBI lab,

How exactly do you contend they committed this fraud?

We KNOW the packaging of DNA exhibits was witnessed, filmed, and photographed. We KNOW that any hair samples given by inmate would have been devoid of Colette's blood and the mystery hair WAS NOT. WE KNOW that it is unlikely that any limb hairs were part of any samples taken. We KNOW that the "mystery hair" that tested 100% DNA match was the exact same size, color, description, and BLOOD as the lab notes described. WE KNOW that claims of "hair swapping conspiracy theories" are beyond ridiculous and have no merit - and they are certainly NOT BASED in reality!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and by Judge Fox.

Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa
Ha haa haa ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haaaaa ha ha ha haa haa ha ha ha haa

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Something needs to be done about it.

There is nothing to do, because it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The trouble is it's very difficult to detect or prove like many other kinds of corruption.

You cannot prove something that didn't happen. You REALLY need to stop arguing things that even the defense doesn't claim happened. Your man crush would be very embarrassed to read your nonsensical claims.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Dr. Thornton explained in detail why the pajama folding experiment which implicated MacDonald was not scientifically correct at the 1979 trial.

he may have attempted to do so, but since Green was able to replicate her results it was proven to be scientifically valid.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I agree that Thornton's opinions about the directionality of the thrusts might not be spot on but he had no means of knowing exactly what happened.

True, he had no way to no EXACTLY what happened but using common sense, and the examination of the pj top Green was able to come very close. You CANNOT FORCE a pattern to exist it either EXISTS or it does not exist. In the case of the ice pick holes and the holes from an ice pick in Colette's chest THEY MATCH.....THE PATTERN EXISTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

He didn't believe in the stationary pajama top theory at that time, like Fred Bost.

they were both wrong

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh tried to discredit Thornton by doing a practical demonstration in court of a knife or ice pick attack

Brian M and James B DID discredit Thornton by proving that inmate could not have used the pj top as a weapon because:
1. he had no wounds to his arms/hands (which he would have sustained had his story been true) since Brian M got wounded in the courtroom demo under controlled conditions and inmate did not under the alleged frenzied attack.

2. the holes made by the ice pick when Brian M used it as a shield were torn and jagged not perfectly cylindrical (the holes in inmate's top were perfectly round/not torn)

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

which Thornton tried to disprove by saying that might not have been the exact angle of attack.

and he also tried to use a piece of ham on a sled to prove his theory. it was/is LAUGHABLE. The courtroom demo showed that inmate could not have used his top as a shield because (1) no injuries to hands/arms and (2) holes in his top were perfectly round and not torn but the demonstration left Brian M with wounds to his wrists and the holes were torn and jagged.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The fact is you can't say in court that two and two makes five like Stombaugh and Shirley Green of the FBI lab.

Stombaugh and Green did not try to say that 2 and 2 make 5. Stombaugh and Green used credible science to assess the FACTS and presented their findings to the court.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

How exactly do you contend they committed this fraud?

We KNOW the packaging of DNA exhibits was witnessed, filmed, and photographed. We KNOW that any hair samples given by inmate would have been devoid of Colette's blood and the mystery hair WAS NOT. WE KNOW that it is unlikely that any limb hairs were part of any samples taken. We KNOW that the "mystery hair" that tested 100% DNA match was the exact same size, color, description, and BLOOD as the lab notes described. WE KNOW that claims of "hair swapping conspiracy theories" are beyond ridiculous and have no merit - and they are certainly NOT BASED in reality!

Not necessarily. We don't know at all that the packaging of the DNA exhibits was witnessed. filmed, and photographed. You need to come up with the goods with some hard documentary evidence about that before you keep saying that on this forum instead of having some strange religious belief about it. It's true that Judge Fox made a ruling in about 1999 that any tampering with the forensic evidence for whatever reason must be videotaped, but that was just ignored as far as I can judge by Murtagh and the FBI lab. Murtagh admitted that vials were tampered with once on the pretext that they wanted to check something. That was mentioned in a newspaper report once which I now can't find on the internet.

Murtagh said in the courtroom at the 1979 trial in a Bench Conference that Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. That's not satisfactory evidence to put a man in prison.

[Henri McPhee]

This is what I have previously posted on this forum about the forensic fraud by the prosecution and FBI lab in the MacDonald case and I stand by this:

Quote:

This is what Fred Bost said about the forensic fraud to JTF and how MacDonald was screwed:

Quote:
Subsequently in October 1997 the court authorized the defense to conduct DNA tests of those hairs and certain other unsourced hairs and selected blood stains. Although the Justice Department was ordered 15 months ago to cooperate with such testing, Murtagh and his crowd continue every means possible to delay the tests.

In their latest paper to the court, dated February 11, 1999, they are requesting still more time to meet requirements. More important, in this latest paper there is a hint they will contend a loss of the hairs taken from the children's fingernails. I base this on the fact that Glisson, in her lab note, indicates she put these critical hairs into labelled vials. In the government paper, though the writer states: "The vials appear empty; however, in order to be certain this is the case, it will still be necessary to open the vials and examine any remaining contents."

So you see, when it comes to the government screwing MacDonald, the old adage fits perfectly. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

[AnimalFriendly]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

newspaper report once which I now can't find on the internet.

How convenient

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That's not satisfactory evidence to put a man in prison.

It is, it was, it did and prison is rightfully where he sits to this day.

[JTF]

The fact that the Landlord has the stones to tell BYN to "come up with the goods with some hard documentary evidence about that before you keep saying that on this forum," demonstrates that his posts are the work of a persona he created about 15 years ago. I believe the Landlord's lone goal in constructing these disjointed, conspiracy driven posts is to fan the flames on multiple true crime forums. I also believe that he is enjoying every minute of it. He doesn't care about documented fact or engaging in critical debate. In his mind, the play is the thing, and the persona he has created is the lead actor in this bizarre production.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

This is what I have previously posted on this forum about the forensic fraud by the prosecution and FBI lab in the MacDonald case and I stand by this:

Posting fiction more than once doesn't turn it into fact.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Not necessarily. We don't know at all that the packaging of the DNA exhibits was witnessed. filmed, and photographed. You need to come up with the goods with some hard documentary evidence about that before you keep saying that on this forum

It was ordered to be videotaped and photographed and it was done.

You have a LOT OF NERVE demanding that anyone "come up with the goods" on this forum. Since you ignore documented fact routinely, why should I spend my time doing your research. The FBI was ordered to videotape, photograph, and document the packaging of the DNA exhibits and it was done. I am not 100% sure that the defense SENT a witness but they were invited to do so, and IF THEY DID NOT it is their problem.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

instead of having some strange religious belief about it.

you need to watch yourself...

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's true that Judge Fox made a ruling in about 1999 that any tampering with the forensic evidence for whatever reason must be videotaped,

No he did not because Judge Fox DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANY TAMPERING AND THE FBI DOES NOT TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

but that was just ignored as far as I can judge by Murtagh and the FBI lab.

I am 100% certain that HAD a Judge "ordered" any "tampering" with the evidence Brian Murtagh and the FBI Lab would have ignored such an order AND they would have reported the Judge and that order to the courts. US Courts do not order illegal activity and DoJ Lawyers and FBI personnel do not carry out illegal activity.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh admitted that vials were tampered with once on the pretext that they wanted to check something. That was mentioned in a newspaper report once which I now can't find on the internet.

No, Murtagh never admitted to vials being tampered with....isn't it amazing how YOU can never prove your outlandish accusations and "articles" on the internet just "disappear".....(rhetorical comment)

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Murtagh said in the courtroom at the 1979 trial in a Bench Conference that Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be

that what "could be"?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and the same with the hairs

what about the hairs? which hairs?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and threads.

The threads and "yarns" of the pj top were not "could be" they were an absolutely are - they were sourced to inmate's pj top to the exclusion of any other similar garment.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That's not satisfactory evidence to put a man in prison.

There was plenty of satisfactory evidence to put inmate in prison. The DNA was NOT used to put him in prison because DNA had not yet "become". However, the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. These over 1,000 pieces of evidence represented only about 60% of the available evidence that COULD have been used against inmate. Every single SOURCED piece of evidence points directly to inmate as the lone murderer. That is why he was convicted after almost 7 weeks of trial and just over 6 hours of deliberation.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

This is what I have previously posted on this forum about the forensic fraud by the prosecution and FBI lab in the MacDonald case and I stand by this:

no such thing as forensic fraud in this case....

JTF will you take the time to point out to the Landlord all the things that inmate etal did to delay the testing of exhibits for DNA....I am pretty sure you remember the legal machinations done that kept delaying the process -- why do certain persona's cling so desperately to the "government delayed" when in fact it was inmate and his lawyers that were responsible for the delays?

For example, I seem to recall that inmate delayed the process one time because one of the microscopists at AFIP had done a school report on him, and why he was guilty....

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

no such thing as forensic fraud in this case....

JTF will you take the time to point out to the Landlord all the things that inmate etal did to delay the testing of exhibits for DNA....I am pretty sure you remember the legal machinations done that kept delaying the process -- why do certain persona's cling so desperately to the "government delayed" when in fact it was inmate and his lawyers that were responsible for the delays?

For example, I seem to recall that inmate delayed the process one time because one of the microscopists at AFIP had done a school report on him, and why he was guilty....

I agree that there seemed to be endless legal wrangles about the DNA testing in the MacDonald case in the 1990s which seemed to take years to resolve. As a layman I can't quite see why that mystery hair in the Colette left hand couldn't quite simply have been DNA tested in 1996 instead of 2006. I still think it's unfair to blame MacDonald or his lawyers for that. There is a newspaper report about the matter at this website:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...143857649.html

Quote:

“It took longer than any DNA test I can remember from any of the hundreds of hundreds that I’ve participated in obtaining,” Scheck tells PEOPLE. “That’s why we got involved, because it looked like DNA could shed some significant light on whether Dr. MacDonald was guilty or innocent…. I was appalled that it took that long. I couldn’t figure out why that was happening.”

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I agree that there seemed to be endless legal wrangles about the DNA testing in the MacDonald case in the 1990s which seemed to take years to resolve.

Legal machinations initiated by your man crush and his rotating band of lawyers that caused years of delay. Of course, there was also delays due to the events of 9/11 since the AFIP was one of the labs that was responsible for identifying as many remains as possible of the victims of the vicious heinous brutal horrific attacks on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the 3rd plane that the passengers sacrificed themselves to bring down.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

As a layman I can't quite see why that mystery hair in the Colette left hand couldn't quite simply have been DNA tested in 1996 instead of 2006.

It is not your layman's status that is keeping you from understanding this very simple situation. It is your determination to cause hate and discontent that causes your inability.

It is very simple, inmate filed actions in the courts that required ALL TESTING PROCESSES STOP until the "question" or "issue" was resolved. Inmate tried to get a microscopist removed from the testing because while in school the microscopist had written a term paper on inmate and his guilt. That was just 1 of several actions that halted all work.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I still think it's unfair to blame MacDonald or his lawyers for that.

Why is it unfair? Inmate and his lawyers filed the actions causing the work to stop until each separate action was reviewed and responded to by the court. Questions included whether items could or could not be split, whether there was or was not blood available for DNA testing (and/or if inmate was to be allowed to damage evidenc items to DNA test them). It WAS NOT the prosecution causing the stop work situation.

[Pope130]

Originally Posted by byn63

SNIP. Of course, there was also delays due to the events of 9/11 since the AFIP was one of the labs that was responsible for identifying as many remains as possible of the victims of the vicious heinous brutal horrific attacks on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the 3rd plane that the passengers sacrificed themselves to bring down.

SNIP.

I wish you hadn't mentioned that. Convicts backers will now claim that 9/11 was done to prevent MacDonald from getting a fair hearing.

[JTF]

The are several reasons for the delay in the completion of DNA testing in this case. They include...

1999 Twenty-Nine DNA exhibits were packaged by the FBI and sent to the AFIP.

2000 The AFIP began divisibility analysis of several DNA exhibits, but the government and defense were at odds about the scope of that analysis. This included the condition and type of DNA testing for each exhibit. Legal briefs filed by BOTH parties dominated this issue and bled into the following year.

2001 Most of the issues involved in the 2000 litigation process were resolved by the Spring of 2001. The AFIP began to determine which exhibits were suitable for Mito DNA testing and which were suitable for Nuclear DNA testing. During this process, 9/11 occurred and DNA testing in this case came to a halt.

2002-2004 The defense team engaged in a public relations campaign that charged the government with partaking in several delay tactics. They also played dumb when confronted with the real and only reason (e.g., 9/11) for the delay in DNA testing. One of the alleged delay tactics was the defense team's discovery that an AFIP lab technician has previously written a paper that concluded that inmate was guilty.

2005 The AFIP completed their work on identifying victims of 9/11 and soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The AFIP then began their work on the MacDonald Case exhibits. Inmate also applied for, and was denied parole.

2006 The AFIP completed their work on the MacDonald Case. Their conclusions are as follows.

Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile matched a body hair found on Kristen's bed, a body hair on the rumpled bedspread found in the master bedroom, and a limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. The two body hairs were not considered inculpatory due to the fact that both hairs were naturally shed. The condition of the limb hair, however, inculpated MacDonald in the murder of his wife. The hair was bloody, broken, and located next to a splinter from the club. Prior to DNA testing in this case, MacDonald advocates argued that the presence of a splinter in Colette's left hand indicated that the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the club. Considering that the left sleeve of MacDonald's pajama top was torn down to the cuff, one could argue that Colette used her left hand to rip a hair from her husband's exposed left arm.

A bloody body hair on the rumpled blue bedsheet found in the master bedroom matched the DNA profile of Colette. This was significant for in 1999, defense attorney Phil Cormier argued to the Court that there was a good possibility that the source of this hair was a known intruder suspect. In addition to Colette's bloody hair, there were several evidentiary items (e.g., bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, fibers, bloody finger portion of a surgeon's glove) found on the blue bedsheet that indicated that someone wearing MacDonald's pajama top carried Colette in the bedsheet from Kristen's bedroom to the master bedroom.

Of the 29 DNA exhibits tested by the AFIP, only three were unsourced. They included a body hair found on Kristen's bed, a pubic hair found in the body outline of Colette, and a 5mm hair fragment found in the fingernail scrapings of Kristen. The body and pubic hairs are not exculpatory due to the fact that both hairs have club roots, neither hair is bloody, and Colette was not sexually assaulted. All of these factors demonstrate that the hairs were naturally shed. In regards to the hair fragment, the government has convincingly argued that the hair in Kristen's fingernail scrapings is the result of lab contamination.

Their arguments include the fact that no hairs were found under Kristen's fingernails at autopsy, that the presence of the hair fragment was first noted over five months after the murders, and that a slip of paper was contained within the fingernail scrapings. This slip of paper was used to label this particular evidentiary item and it is quite possible that a tiny hair was attached to the paper slip prior to the paper being placed in the evidentiary container. Further evidence that the hair fragment was not exculpatory lay in the fact that the hair had a club root nor was it bloody.

At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense put forth the argument that unsourced hairs equals hippie home invaders, but Judge Fox felt that this argument lacked merit as evidenced by his denying MacDonald a new trial in 2014. The 4th Circuit Court also denied MacDonald's motion for additional DNA testing in 2016.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by Pope130

I wish you hadn't mentioned that. Convicts backers will now claim that 9/11 was done to prevent MacDonald from getting a fair hearing.

If you are wrongly convicted of murder it's a serious matter for you even if Melania Trump doesn't care and the court of public opinion don't get it right. The evidence against MacDonald was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory and leads and suspects were disregarded. Something needs to be done. It's like Soviet justice or Nazi justice.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

The are several reasons for the delay in the completion of DNA testing in this case. They include...

1999 Twenty-Nine DNA exhibits were packaged by the FBI and sent to the AFIP.

2000 The AFIP began divisibility analysis of several DNA exhibits, but the government and defense were at odds about the scope of that analysis. This included the condition and type of DNA testing for each exhibit. Legal briefs filed by BOTH parties dominated this issue and bled into the following year.

2001 Most of the issues involved in the 2000 litigation process were resolved by the Spring of 2001. The AFIP began to determine which exhibits were suitable for Mito DNA testing and which were suitable for Nuclear DNA testing. During this process, 9/11 occurred and DNA testing in this case came to a halt.

2002-2004 The defense team engaged in a public relations campaign that charged the government with partaking in several delay tactics. They also played dumb when confronted with the real and only reason (e.g., 9/11) for the delay in DNA testing. One of the alleged delay tactics was the defense team's discovery that an AFIP lab technician has previously written a paper that concluded that inmate was guilty.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

MacDonald's argument is that there have been significant advances in DNA testing since 2006 and that the 29 items which were to be DNA tested were only those which Murtagh and the FBI lab could twist to not prove MacDonald innocence. MacDonald wants a comprehensive DNA testing. I agree with him. I suppose much of the forensic evidence has now been hopelessly contaminated or lost or destroyed by now, but it's still worth a try.

There is an explanation of this at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...2011-09-19.pdf

Quote:

Items collected into evidence which would be significant for testing include the weapons used to commit the MacDonald murders (piece of wood used as a club, two paring knives, and an ice pick); fingernail scrapings taken from the victims; pieces from a surgical glove presumably worn by the perpetrator; and blood drops and smears taken from areas where it appears the perpetrator touched things or may have bled while moving through the home.

[desmirelle]

The Defenders of Murderer Jeffrey Macdonald (his lawyers) gave up on DNA, not because it was 'hopelessly contaminated' or anything else: they gave up because all the DNA kept coming back to their client.

What you call 'destroyed' is the evidence already tested, used up by testing. Nothing's been lost. So, we're left the DNA evidence pointing at your man crush. Sucks, doesn't it? You've invested so much time and effort into the defense of a family annihilator.

[Henri McPhee]

The bad judge, Judge Fox, is right in a way that an innocent man has a daunting task to prove his innocence. Melania Trump doesn't care. As I have said several times, even on this forum, there are murder cases where there are no fingerprints at all. In fact there may be no forensics at all. Unfortunately for MacDonald, the MacDonald murders happened before DNA became established in murder investigation. It may be too late for DNA to save him now. There is another scholarly article about all this at this website:

http://academyforjustice.org/wp-cont...onvictions.pdf

Quote:

FLAWED FORENSIC ANALYSIS

The experience of exonerees, who were freed by DNA testing but who were (more often than not) convicted based on false or even falsified forensics, powerfully affected the forensics community as well.23 Of the first 330 DNA exonerations in the United States, 71% or 234 cases involve forensic testimony.24 The bulk of these DNA exoneree trials included traditional forensics, not DNA testing, and much of that evidence was presented in an outright erroneous or overstated manner, or in a vague manner. Of the 234 cases, 54% or 126 cases involved invalid, erroneous, or concealed forensics. Twenty-eight cases involved concealed and exculpatory forensic evidence that could have supported a claim of innocence at trial if it had been disclosed to the defense. Twenty-nine of the cases involved analysis that was erroneous, including due to lab errors. Of the remaining cases, not involving invalid or erroneous or concealed evidence, an additional 19 cases involved vague testimony that evidence like hairs or fibers or bite marks were “similar” or “consistent” with the defendant. Well over half of these DNA exoneration cases, at least 62% or 145 of the 234 cases, involved invalid, erroneous, concealed, unreliable, or vague presentation of forensics.

[desmirelle]

Are you dumping your man crush for a sitting President's wife? You keep mentioning Melania Trump.

[JTF]

In regards to the request for additional DNA testing, the defense conveniently ignored the following facts.

- Most of the blood exhibits were used up at autopsy.

- The weapons were handled by multiple lab technicians, investigators, and jurors, so any results from Touch DNA tests would be forensically insignificant.

- Additional DNA tests on fingernail scrapings from Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen would not yield any new or relevant information. The only items in the fingernail scrapings were a bloody pajama fiber sourced to inmate's pajama top, an unsourced/naturally shed hair that was not viewed or collected at autopsy, and an animal hair.

- The finger section of a surgeon's glove found in the bundled bedding was blasted with radiation, so DNA tests on this evidentiary items would be fruitless.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

- The finger section of a surgeon's glove found in the bundled bedding was blasted with radiation, so DNA tests on this evidentiary items would be fruitless.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

In a way JTF may be right about the forensics in the MacDonald case no longer being able to prove innocence. It was all a long time ago and it may now be too late. The hair in Colette's left hand could have been DNA tested long ago but Murtagh and the FBI lab twisted that by legal trickery and forensic fraud. I don't know for certain if JTF is right that the surgical glove fragment can no longer be DNA tested by modern DNA technology. A surgical glove expert at the MacDonald trial seemed pretty certain that the surgical glove fragment was not a MacDonald surgical glove.

This is the legal advice on the internet if you are ever wrongly accused of murder. It seems a bit hair raising to me:

https://www.wikihow.com/Prove-You%27...sed-of-a-Crime

Quote:

Recognize the possibility of government misconduct. Oftentimes, law enforcement officials and prosecutors have motives that lead them to be dishonest in the execution of their duties. When this happens, they can use their power to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit. If you think this has happened to you, you should try the following:

Raise the issue at trial. Talk to your attorney or the judge and convey your thoughts. Tell them why you think there has been misconduct and who you think is responsible.

[JTF]

At the 1999 DNA protocol hearing, Brian Murtagh pointed out that Neutron Activation Analysis of the bloody finger section from a surgeon's glove eradicated any potential DNA present on the exhibit. In terms of inmate's broken, bloody arm hair found clutched in Colette's left hand, the defense first addressed the possibility of DNA testing this and other exhibits in 1995. The 4th Circuit Court granted DNA testing in 1997, the exhibits were sent to the AFIP in 1999, and 9/11 resulted in a substantial delay in the completion of DNA tests. The documented record demonstrates that Landlord's claim that Exhibit E-5 "could have been DNA tested long ago" is erroneous.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

At the 1999 DNA protocol hearing, Brian Murtagh pointed out that Neutron Activation Analysis of the bloody finger section from a surgeon's glove eradicated any potential DNA present on the exhibit.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

What Murtagh said is not necessarily evidence. I agree that any sort of Neutron Activation Analysis on a surgical glove fragment would not make finding any DNA any easier. I would have thought it might depend on the strength of the neutron activation. There is a report on this matter at this website:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...79073818300264

Quote:

Mock evidence was exposed to varying levels of neutron, gamma, alpha, and beta radiation.
•
Gamma irradiation progressively degraded nuclear and mitochondrial DNA recovery and development.

[JTF]

The bloody finger section from a surgeon's glove was not only blasted with radiation, the passage of time (e.g., 40 years later) would have degraded or eliminated any trace of DNA from that exhibit. Even in a scenario where the exhibit was in pristine condition, the only DNA that could be extracted would be skin cells from inside the finger section. The defense already knew that the blood on the outside of the exhibit was Colette's blood type and they would have a hard time explaining inmate's DNA profile matching the DNA extracted from inside the exhibit.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

In a way JTF may be right about the forensics in the MacDonald case no longer being able to prove innocence.

JTF never said that the forensic could have proven innocence. IN FACT, HE HAS POINTED OUT NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THE FORENSICS PROVED INMATE GUILTY.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It was all a long time ago and it may now be too late.

It would NEVER have been possible - every single sourced piece of evidence points directly at inmate as the sole murderer.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The hair in Colette's left hand could have been DNA tested long ago

The hair in Colette's left hand was DNA tested along with the other exhibits. It proved inmate guilty.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

but Murtagh and the FBI lab twisted that by legal trickery and forensic fraud.

There was no "trickery or fraud" by Murtagh or the FBI. Why do you INSIST on arguing ridiculous claims that even the defense itself wouldn't try to push? You should be very glad that inmate doesn't have access to computers and doesn't see your nonsense! Your man crush would be hugely mortified by your claims!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I don't know for certain if JTF is right that the surgical glove fragment can no longer be DNA tested by modern DNA technology.

Yes, JTF is correct.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

If you are wrongly convicted of murder it's a serious matter for you

but inmate was not wrongfully convicted.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

even if Melania Trump doesn't care

Melania's "I don't care" jacket most certainly has nothing to do with this case. Melania was not even BORN when inmate slaughtered his family.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and the court of public opinion don't get it right.

The court of public opinion has nothing to do with whether someone is convicted. In this case, inmate was convicted in a court of law.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The evidence against MacDonald was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory

No, actually the evidence against inmate was quite satisfactory that is why he was convicted. The prosecution used only about 60% of the inculpatory evidence and IF some miracle granted him a new trial they'd have that 60%, the additional 40%, AND the DNA results which would slam the cell door shut permanently.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and leads and suspects were disregarded.

No leads or suspects were disregarded. A very thorough investigation/re-investigation lead to the arrest, indictment, and subsequently conviction of the murderer. he remains in prison, will remain in prison and he is right where he belongs.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Something needs to be done.

We celebrate his conviction, we wait for him to apply for a parole hearing again, we write to the parole board stating our objections to his receiving parole, we celebrate when he goes back to prison. That is what needs to be done so that is what we do....

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

We celebrate his conviction, we wait for him to apply for a parole hearing again, we write to the parole board stating our objections to his receiving parole, we celebrate when he goes back to prison. That is what needs to be done so that is what we do....

The trouble is mistakes are made and serious ones and there are very bad judges. In an excellent court the MacDonald case would have been thrown out after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970.

I agree that it's possible to be too extreme liberal about all this. In the UK British TV is always harping on about the racial problems of stop and search of black people. That would not be necessary if it was not for the fact that many black people carry knives and guns and the murder rate among black people in London is becoming ridiculous. There has historically been gun violence in Jamaica, which could be some kind of cultural thing.

There was one case in America, which I now can't find, of a man who spent decades in prison for murdering his five children. It now transpires that the children were in fact murdered by a nanny.

There is a bit of legal waffle about all this at this website:

https://rowdywilliams.com/youre-falsely-accused-crime/

Quote:

If you have a great lawyer, however, there will be no need for a plea bargain. You’ll win the case, and you can even sue for defamation of character following the trial.

This can get you a settlement and public exoneration to help address the heavy financial obligations and emotional repercussions of the trial.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The trouble is mistakes are made and serious ones and there are very bad judges.

Judges did not make mistakes in this case...if they had, then one of the many appeals would have gotten him either a new trial or some other form of relief.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

In an excellent court the MacDonald case would have been thrown out after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970.

The Article 32 was a UCMJ legal proceeding. It is the military equivalent of a Grand Jury. The Article 32 is not the legal be all end all....the presiding officer was an Infantry Commander with no legal training whatsoever. Colonel Rock did not recommend proceeding with Courts Martial but:

1. Most of the evidence had yet to be analyzed at the Article 32
2. Colonel Rock's recommendation was outside of the scope of duties
3. The Base Commander dismissed the charges for insufficient evidence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I agree that it's possible to be too extreme liberal about all this.

Did anyone mention liberalism? I don't recall reading that....but, yes there is danger in being too liberal in many situations.

the rest of your post was a rambling bunch of nonsense that I choose to ignore except to once again point out that "legal waffle" IS NOT A GOOD THING. Every time you post a "snippet" of "legal waffle" you further distance yourself from anything remotely credible.

[desmirelle]

I can't resist, having a quarter of a century with military trial results: had Mac been convicted at a general court-martial in 1970, odds are he'd have been out by 1979. Domestic violence didn't become a priority until decades later. So, had Segal been half the lawyer he thought he was (or had a competent military lawyer to assist him), he'd have saved that brilliance for trial, not the Article 32 hearing.

[JTF]

Neither James Blackburn nor Brian Murtagh had ever tried a murder case. The combined trial resume of Blackburn and Murtagh consisted of 3 cases. This makes their performance at the 1979 trial all the more impressive. Their closing arguments were the icing on a perfectly baked cake.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

The prosecutors in the MacDonald case were fraudsters. The FBI lab made up the evidence. MacDonald needed some extremely competent judges who could provide right judgment on the legal technicalities of the admissibility of certain evidence.

The foreman of the MacDonald case jury has been proven to be corruptly biased. It was beyond his abilities anyway. You must have an impartial judge and jury or it's an inferior kind of justice. Judge Dupree should have recused himself because of his links to his former son-in-law who was part of the original prosecution team. Judge Fox should have recused himself because he was a pal of Judge Dupree.

If for example a judge in a civil fracking legal case has a financial interest in a fracking or gas company then he should recuse himself, otherwise it's a conflict of interest. MacDonald was screwed by a corrupt and incompetent police and Army CID. It will be a sad day if any criticism of judges is censored because it's considered dangerous.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The prosecutors in the MacDonald case were fraudsters.

No they were not. Murtagh and Blackburn did a fabulous job following the letter of the law they introduced over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The FBI lab made up the evidence.

The FBI carefully analyzed the forensic evidence. The prosecution used only about 60% of the available evidence. Every single SOURCED piece of evidence points directly to inmate as the murderer.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

MacDonald needed some extremely competent judges who could provide right judgment on the legal technicalities of the admissibility of certain evidence.

That is EXACTLY what he had in Judge Dupree. WHEN you can produce a Curriculae Vitae to match even 1/4 of that of Judge Franklin Dupree then you can make comments on his competency. Since the 7 visits to the US Supreme Court did not result in an over turned conviction it is PROOF that Judge Dupree did his job and did it with skill.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The foreman of the MacDonald case jury has been proven to be corruptly biased.

In what universe? WHY do you insist on arguing points that even the defense never believed? Do you have any idea how incredible embarrassed your man crush would be if he knew about the ridiculous ramblings you post?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

You must have an impartial judge and jury or it's an inferior kind of justice.

Inmate had his impartial judge AND JURY. Bernie Segal used a jury coordinator (one of the first to ever do so) to select the best jury for his client. The PROBLEM was not that the jury was not impartial the PROBLEM for inmate is that he was/is guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Judge Dupree should have recused himself because of his links to his former son-in-law who was part of the original prosecution team.

Judge Dupree's former son-in-law WAS NOT part of the prosecution team. he had a VERY limited role in arranging for office space for the investigation team.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Judge Fox should have recused himself because he was a pal of Judge Dupree.

roflmao! Colleagues that are friendly OMG what is the world coming to! Judge Fox had no reason to recuse himself and Judge Dupree had no reason to recuse himself. IF inmate had not slaughtered his family he would not have had to face any judge.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

MacDonald was screwed by a corrupt and incompetent police and Army CID.

inmate screwed himself when he savagely and brutally slaughtered his wife Colette (and the unborn son she was carrying), and his daughter Kimberley and Kristen.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It will be a sad day if any criticism of judges is censored because it's considered dangerous.

When you have the curriculae vitae to support your comments then you can make them without my critique of your comments. until that time, you are in no way qualified to make the sorts of comments you make in regards to The Honorable Judge Franklin Dupree and the The Honorable Judge Fox.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

Judge Dupree's former son-in-law WAS NOT part of the prosecution team. he had a VERY limited role in arranging for office space for the investigation team.

This is an affidavit which Judge Dupree's son-in-law, Proctor, made once. It looks like a close interest in prosecuting MacDonald to me, and a close connection to Judge Dupree, who was supposed to be an impartial judge:

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