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

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


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

Reply
Old 18th March 2017, 10:56 AM   #2721
Bunny
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 98
Careful, Henri: I also have copies of old posts; in fact, I have several hundred pages of them from many forums.

You -- oops, sorry, I meant "Wudge" -- didn't fare too well on that old Websleuths board, and I don't think anyone was swayed by the silly claims of Mac's "innocence." I, JTF, Rashomon, sharpar and quite a few others (including even the moderator) had to correct the Wudge-record repeatedly, but of course trolls aren't too interested in the documented facts, are they?

"sharpar" summed up the Wudge-nonsense pretty well. Here's a direct copy from on of those posts:

"Still you are stating opinion as fact. Your opinions have been shown to be
incorrect on numerous points yet you dont apologize, dont conceed an error
in your thinking and ignore things for which the only answer is because he
did it. Now there is a grand conspiracy of LE , Judical and media .

"You say alot but little is verifiable fact . You are like most of his supporters in that respect. They also feel the need to make known they have brilliant analytical minds and the rest of us are deluded peasants whose intellect and reading comprehension is questionable..."

Even the moderator chimed in at the end, before that old board was finally closed, telling you -- a.k.a. Wudge, imo -- point-blank that while it's true that there are cases of wrongly-convicted persons, this isn't one of them. That still stands as true today as it was back then.
Bunny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 11:01 AM   #2722
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 708
Gotcha

Kudos to Bunny for providing definitive proof of Henriboy's motivations for posting on true crime discussion boards. This is a game to him and he is enjoying every minute of it.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th March 2017 at 11:08 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 04:12 AM   #2723
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Only an idiot would DISBELIEVE CERTIFIED DOCUMENTATION rather than the FACTS. The documentation including the warrant for arrest of Allen P Mazzerole dated January 28, 1970, the jail records showing he remained incarcerated in Fayetteville through March 10, 1970, AND the documented BOND records that showed he finally was able to raise the bail money and get bonded out of jail on 3/10/1970. THESE ARE FACTS henri. astute, thinking, rational people have reviewed and certified and rechecked and certified, and again verified that Allen M was in jail on 2/16/70 and could not possibly have participated in the slaughter of Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and the baby boy. your hero did that.....and it has been proven beyond all doubt.

there is no exculpatory evidence? there is plenty of exculpatory evidence.....there is not a single piece of evidence that has ever been deemed inculpatory. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you make inmate by continuing to argue such a thoroughly and completed disproven and ridiculous claim? I bet he'd be sickened if he knew.....that the few "supporters" he can muster present such a nonsensical platform.

Last edited by byn63; 20th March 2017 at 05:51 AM. Reason: punctuation error
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 09:02 AM   #2724
ScottPletcher
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 40
Mazzerole clearly was in jail during the relevant time period.

However, if he somehow weren't -- and we know he was -- there's zero evidence Maz was inside 544 Castle Drive on the morning of Feb 17, 1970. And MacD needs [near] "proof of innocence", vastly beyond the "reasonable doubt" [about his guilt] required to convict him. And Maz obviously can't put him within light years of that standard.

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 20th March 2017 at 09:04 AM.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 10:21 AM   #2725
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
Even the moderator chimed in at the end, before that old board was finally closed, telling you -- a.k.a. Wudge, imo -- point-blank that while it's true that there are cases of wrongly-convicted persons, this isn't one of them. That still stands as true today as it was back then.
Wudge was still around on the forums in 2014. He seems to have posted on many forums, on many murder cases, for many years. I don't know enough about the details of the other cases he mentions to be able to pontificate on them, but on the MacDonald case Wudge had right judgment.

Judge Fox is a silly old fool, and a big soft thing, who is a brick wall for MacDonald. Judge Dupree was a biased trial judge who was in bed with the prosecution. The foreman of the jury was overheard by three different witnesses saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started. That's an irregularity which should have caused a reversal, and a mistrial. Wudge thinks there should be professional jurors, but I don't know about that.

Nobody on this forum has ever explained why Mazerolle never appeared in court on February 17th 1970 when there is hard documentary evidence that he should have done. The only credible explanation is that he jumped bail, or he escaped custody with false documentation. Mazerolle was a person of interest in the MacDonald case. It's only because Detective Beasley and Stoeckley were never believed that he has never been caught, or interrogated. The judicial system in North Carolina is a shambles.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th March 2017 at 10:29 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 11:54 AM   #2726
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Why should Mazzerole have showed up in court on 2/17/70? What evidence exists showing that he should have been in court on that date? SHOW ME! Put up or shut up! IF he had an existing court date for 2/17/70 then he'd have been taken to court OR the court would have been notified that he was in custody.

1. SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT SAYS AM WAS DUE IN COURT ON 2/17/70.

2. PROVE that the documentation that shows that AM was arrested in January, in custody on 2/17/70, and bonded out on 3/10/70 is fraudulent. PROOF not some unknown untraceable bs comments but PROOF.

3. PROVE that the investigations into AM and his statement(s) to FBI did not happen/are faked. PROOF henri not more of your bs....
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 06:34 PM   #2727
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Wudge was still around on the forums in 2014. He seems to have posted on many forums, on many murder cases, for many years. I don't know enough about the details of the other any cases he mentions to be able to pontificate on them, but I never let it stop me. on the MacDonald case Wudge had right judgment.


Judge Fox is a silly old fool, and a big soft thing, who is a brick wall for MacDonald. Judge Dupree was a biased trial judge who was in bed with the prosecution. The foreman of the jury was overheard by three different witnesses saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started. That's an irregularity which should have caused a reversal, and a mistrial. Wudge thinks there should be professional jurors, but I don't know about that.

Nobody on this forum has ever explained why Mazerolle never appeared in court on February 17th 1970 when there is hard documentary evidence that he should have done. The only credible explanation is that he jumped bail, or he escaped custody with false documentation. Mazerolle was a person of interest in the MacDonald case. It's only because Detective Beasley and Stoeckley were never believed that he has never been caught, or interrogated. The judicial system in North Carolina is a shambles.
FIFY and who cares what you think? you have no credibility.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 04:40 AM   #2728
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Why should Mazzerole have showed up in court on 2/17/70? What evidence exists showing that he should have been in court on that date? SHOW ME! Put up or shut up! IF he had an existing court date for 2/17/70 then he'd have been taken to court OR the court would have been notified that he was in custody.

1. SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT SAYS AM WAS DUE IN COURT ON 2/17/70.

2. PROVE that the documentation that shows that AM was arrested in January, in custody on 2/17/70, and bonded out on 3/10/70 is fraudulent. PROOF not some unknown untraceable bs comments but PROOF.

3. PROVE that the investigations into AM and his statement(s) to FBI did not happen/are faked. PROOF henri not more of your bs....
I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Byn about this Mazerolle matter. It's all very well Byn saying I'm in the inarticulate classes. It's just there is something not quite right in the way Mazerolle escaped custody in Georgia in 1979, and Myrtle Beach South Carolina in 1970, and I believe at Fort Bragg at the time of the MacDonald murders. I believe that what Detective Beasley and Helena said about Mazerolle was true, and that he escaped being interrogated about the MacDonald murders by cunning and trickery, and fraud. It's like this plausible deniability of bugging by the NSA and GCHQ and the FBI to Congress and that they supposedly do not violate the rule of law.

The hard documentary evidence Byn demands can be found at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...970-02-10.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ourt-date.html

Nobody has ever explained why Mazerolle never turned up in court on February 17 1970 and then he agreed to plead guilty and sentenced about a year later when the heat had died down.

This is some waffle about the Mazerolle matter I posted on the internet in 2010:

Quote:
Detective Beasley always maintained that Allen Patrick Mazerolle was out of jail even after Gunderson and Shedlick might have been confused by the so-called documentation into thinking Mazerolle was in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. Mazerolle’s pal Rizzo was out on bail.

Why would Mazerolle be any different? Shortage of money by drug dealers? Beasley said Mazerolle was on the run and must have jumped bail until he was caught about a year later.

Byn makes these wild statements that there is masses of documentation about all this Mazerolle business. Some of that documentation might be forged to give Mazerolle an alibi for the MacDonald murders.

I don’t know about America but in the European province of Britain there is a preliminary hearing in a courtroom in which a prisoner gives details of his name and address and how he pleads to those charges. You don’t languish in jail for about a year without appearing in court, as Byn implies happened to Mazerolle in 1970.

All I’m asking is for Byn to provide me with the court records, or some kind of newspaper report, that Mazerolle appeared in court for his drug offenses around the time of the MacDonald murders and details of those court records. Is that too much to ask? Beasley said Mazerolle was supposed to have appeared in court at that time but he never did.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st March 2017 at 04:41 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 08:12 AM   #2729
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Byn about this Mazerolle matter.
I call BS in all capital letters henri. you STATED that Allen Mazzerole was due in court on 2/17/70 and he did not attend. I TOLD YOU that you needed to PROVE this to be true. The FACT IS THAT YOU CANNOT. THE FACT IS THAT ALLEN MAZZEROLE WAS IN CUSTODY IN FAYETTEVILLE ON 2/17/70. ALSO, FAYETTEVILLE IS WHERE FT. BRAGG IS LOCATED.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's all very well Byn saying I'm in the inarticulate classes.
I didn't say you were inarticulate. I alluded to the FACT that you apparently have difficulty with READING COMPREHENSION. Once again, you have proven this to be FACT as well. Once again, PROVE that AM was due in Court on 2/17/70 and for WHAT CHARGES was he due in Court? Here in the USA, if some has a court date and he is in custody they either take the prisoner to Court (handcuffed and escorted by the Sheriff in many cases) OR they notify the court that the person is in custody. The Court then decides to proceed with the hearing or postpone (many times the lawyers can handle this process).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's just there is something not quite right in the way Mazerolle escaped custody in Georgia in 1979,
what possible relevance is this? the murders occurred on February 17, 1970 on Ft. Bragg which is located in Fayetteville, NC. The ONLY relevant point is that AM WAS IN JAIL FROM JANUARY 28, 1970 THROUGH MARCH 10, 1970 IN FAYETTEVILLE, NC. FACT henri.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Myrtle Beach South Carolina in 1970,
IF he was in custody in Myrtle Beach and escaped it has absolutely no relevance to these discussions. he was not in custody in Myrtle Beach on 2/17/70 he was in custody in Fayetteville, NC the location of Ft. Bragg where the murders occurred and he could not possibly have participated because he was in jail in Fayetteville from January 28, 1970 through March 10, 1970.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and I believe at Fort Bragg at the time of the MacDonald murders.
you finally said something of relevance.....yes AM WAS IN JAIL IN FAYETTEVILLE, NC FROM JANUARY 28, 1970 THROUGH MARCH 10, 1970. Thereby making it impossible for him to have been involved in the slaughter of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I believe that what Detective Beasley and Helena said about Mazerolle was true, and that he escaped being interrogated about the MacDonald murders by cunning and trickery, and fraud.
the words of a man with inorganic brain disorder who confabulated is useless and doesn't constitute proof. the words of Helena a drug addled pathetic being is even less credible. you have been told before that what they "said" doesn't constitute proof. Allen M did not use cunning or trickery or fraud to avoid being interrogated about the murders. He was talked to by the FBI and he provided documented certified FACTUAL documentation showing that he was in jail from January 28, 1970 to March 10, 1970. What part of that do you fail to understand?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's like this plausible deniability of bugging by the NSA and GCHQ and the FBI to Congress and that they supposedly do not violate the rule of law.
what does this have to do with anything? as usual NOTHING. you have no credibility.

The hard documentary evidence Byn demands can be found at:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
this is a summons for PEB to appear on the matter of Allen M. that DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AM was required to appear. Your reading comprehension is really poor!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
this is a summons for Mr. DeCarter to appear on the matter of Allen M. that DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that AM was required to appear. Also, since he was in custody, the chances are that he had a court appointed attorney at the hearing and he was left in his cell.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Nobody has ever explained why Mazerolle never turned up in court on February 17 1970
I have explained this to you over and over and over and over and over again. One last time henri - Allen Mazzerole WAS IN JAIL ON 2/17/70. Therefore, the only 2 options would have been the Sheriff or other LEO would have taken him to court in cuffs OR the Court would have been notified that he was in custody. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and then he agreed to plead guilty and sentenced about a year later
relevance? NONE

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is some waffle about the Mazerolle matter I posted on the internet in 2010:
perfect word you posted waffle in 2010 and you posted waffle now.....
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 10:26 AM   #2730
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post


this is a summons for PEB to appear on the matter of Allen M. that DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AM was required to appear. Your reading comprehension is really poor!

this is a summons for Mr. DeCarter to appear on the matter of Allen M. that DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that AM was required to appear. Also, since he was in custody, the chances are that he had a court appointed attorney at the hearing and he was left in his cell.

I have explained this to you over and over and over and over and over again. One last time henri - Allen Mazzerole WAS IN JAIL ON 2/17/70. Therefore, the only 2 options would have been the Sheriff or other LEO would have taken him to court in cuffs OR the Court would have been notified that he was in custody. It is that simple.
A likely story!

I agree with what Wudge said about the MacDonald case in 2006:

Quote:
North Carolina protects (and promotes) prosecutors who withhold evidence. It is a way of life there.
Wudge seems to think the MacDonald prosecutors should be in prison, and not MacDonald, with which I agree.

This is part of what I posted on the internet in 2012:

Quote:
As far as I can judge, I seem to be about the only pro-MacDonald poster left. A&E forum had several pro-MacDonald posters at one time. That forum is now defunct. All the postings have gone there. I don't know if posters like Caphill and Wudge and OmegaMan, and perhaps Plexus, are still going on some obscure MacDonald forum. I think Websleuths had a MacDonald forum until about 2007, but I think that is now defunct.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 10:44 AM   #2731
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A likely story!
once again you prove that you have no reading comprehension, IT IS NOT A STORY HENRI, IF YOU GO TO THE LINK YOU PROVIDED, IT IS A SUMMONS FOR PRINCE EDWARD BEASLEY TO APPEAR.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Wudge seems to think the MacDonald prosecutors should be in prison, and not INMATE, with which I agree
I don't care what Wudge thinks (thought) - the FACTS are PLAIN, INMATE SLAUGHTERED COLETTE, KIMBERLEY, KRISTEN, AND HIS UNBORN SON. He deserves to be under the prison. He is a base coward who continues to whine because he got caught and was proven to be way less intelligent than he hoped. EVERY SINGLE SOURCED piece of evidence shows inmate slaughtered his family. inmate looks ever more ridiculous when people such as you (Wudge, Albie, Artie, etal) come on to boards such as this and repeatedly make outlandish and ridiculous claims. IF he knew how idiotic you make him look these days he'd beg you to stop!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 11:42 AM   #2732
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 708
King Troll

Henriboy's responses to being exposed are comical AND sad. He's copying and pasting posts that he constructed under different poster names on several MacDonald Case discussion boards. Caphill, I mean, Wudge, I mean, Henriboy, is simply rinsing and repeating the SAME talking points he made in 2003.

Again, this is a game to him and he loves the attention that comes with being the lone contrarian. He doesn't care that he has been exposed as a fraud on multiple true crime discussion boards, so I no longer care to play his game. As BStrong consistenly points out, Henriboy/Caphill/Wudge has no credibility, so why take a second of my time to respond to his fantasy narratives?

I've done it for 14 years, so I'm due for retirement. LOL. Considering this is the most litigated murder case in history, there are plenty of issues to discuss without setting foot on troll island. We're still awaiting the 4th Circuit's decision on whether inmate's conviction stands. Nothing shocks me anymore, but I would be surprised if the 4th Circuit accepts inmate's dubious arguments and grants him a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st March 2017 at 11:50 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 09:48 PM   #2733
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Byn about this Mazerolle matter. It's all very well Byn saying I'm in the inarticulate classes. It's just there is something not quite right in the way Mazerolle escaped custody in Georgia in 1979, and Myrtle Beach South Carolina in 1970, and I believe at Fort Bragg at the time of the MacDonald murders. I believe that what Detective Beasley and Helena said about Mazerolle was true, and that he escaped being interrogated about the MacDonald murders by cunning and trickery, and fraud.

inconsequential babble snipped
No one cares what you believe or think about JM's case, most likely including JM. Have you written him any fan mail? Requested an autographed pic or some other memento of your man crush?
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 03:50 AM   #2734
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Henriboy's responses to being exposed are comical AND sad. He's copying and pasting posts that he constructed under different poster names on several MacDonald Case discussion boards. Caphill, I mean, Wudge, I mean, Henriboy, is simply rinsing and repeating the SAME talking points he made in 2003.
don't forget Albert Webb and Arthur Thorpe among other names he has employed....

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Again, this is a game to him and he loves the attention that comes with being the lone contrarian. He doesn't care that he has been exposed as a fraud on multiple true crime discussion boards, so I no longer care to play his game. As BStrong consistenly points out, Henriboy/Caphill/Wudge has no credibility, so why take a second of my time to respond to his fantasy narratives?
I try and try to ignore his posts....however, when he posts a link claiming it shows AM was due in court and then one reads it and finds it is a summons for PEB to appear in the AM matter and you point it out....you'd expect better than the comment "a likely story". For real? Henri posted the link and then argues about what it says and I just cannot let him get away with it. Some new person to the boards may see his comment and lack of reply and believe he has a point. THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED!

byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 09:34 AM   #2735
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
This is an interesting opinion by Wudge in July 2009 which I think applies to the MacDonald case, and with which I agree:

Quote:
Based on what we know there is a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the necessary elements that must, by law, be proven.

Moreover, your premises are based on what you think, not evidence. Your assuming what you wish to prove. That's known as begging the question which is fallacious logic.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 11:19 AM   #2736
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
a quote taken out of context (even one by you as Wudge in the old days) is of no value. there is not sufficient data upon which to give comment other than "this quote is worthless there is no data to argue/comment upon".

In this case there is over 1,100 pieces of evidence that were used at trial along with the remaining 40% of the evidence that was not used at trial AND the DNA results which are the final nails in the coffin in which inmate will be buried.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 02:41 PM   #2737
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 708
Documented Record

Speaking in the 3rd person is no substitute for the professional analysis of witness statements and lab reports. Stoeckley's claims are not corroborated by the physical evidence collected at the crime scene nor by individuals she mentioned in multiple confessions. There is no evidence of her presence at the crime scene and most of the individuals she linked to this crime have stated that she is unstable.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:04 AM   #2738
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
The real culprits would say Helena Stoeckley was very unstable wouldn't they? It's true that she was never a novice in a nunnery, or belonged to the local Rotary club or that she sometimes told lies. That's not an excuse to say she was not credible. Her information should have been investigated and verified.

This is what former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate once said about the matter. Judge Murnaghan could see the problem with Helena, but he lacked a strong personality to tell the biased trial judge that he was wrong:

Quote:
On direct appeal, Circuit Judge Murnaghan concurred with a Fourth Circuit panel’s ruling upholding MacDonald’s conviction, “albeit not without substantial misgiving,” but lamented the “withholding of collateral testimony consistent with and basic to the defendant’s principal exculpatory contention.” Little did Judge Murnaghan or MacDonald’s trial lawyers know at the time that the withholding of this testimony from the jury was enabled by defense counsel’s ignorance of the existence of corroborating forensic evidence of Stoeckley’s many confessions.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 05:14 AM   #2739
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,620
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The real culprits would say Helena Stoeckley was very unstable wouldn't they? It's true that she was never a novice in a nunnery, or belonged to the local Rotary club or that she sometimes told lies. That's not an excuse to say she was not credible. Her information should have been investigated and verified.
If you lie, your information is at best suspect and your own testimony given less weight.

When you lie, AND the physical evidence supports a different narrative, your testimony is worthless.

Ms. Stoeckley's testimony is worthless.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 07:45 AM   #2740
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The real culprit(s) would say Helena Stoeckley was very unstable wouldn't they? It's true that she was never a novice in a nunnery, or belonged to the local Rotary club or that she sometimes told lies. That's not an excuse to say she was not credible. Her information should have been investigated and verified.
the real culprit will and has said all sorts of things INCLUDING THAT HE DID NOT RECOGNIZE HELENA WHEN SHOWN A CONTEMPORARY PHOTO OF HER JUST 2 MONTHS AFTER HE SLAUGHTERED HIS FAMILY.

AMONG OTHER STATEMENTS HE SAID 'SHE HAS A DISTINCTIVE NOSE, I'D HAVE REMEMBERED THAT NOSE'.....THE REAL CULPRIT (singular) IS IN PRISON WHERE HE BELONGS.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 08:02 AM   #2741
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The real culprits would say Helena Stoeckley was very unstable wouldn't they? It's true that she was never a novice in a nunnery, or belonged to the local Rotary club or that she sometimes told lies. That's not an excuse to say she was not credible. Her information should have been investigated and verified.

This is what former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate once said about the matter. Judge Murnaghan could see the problem with Helena, but he lacked a strong personality to tell the biased trial judge that he was wrong:
You are truly a singularity, but viewed in context it makes perfect sense.

You make it up as you go along, much like your JM case calendar girl and you want people to ignore all the crap you've posted that established your total lack of credibility.

Must be lonely on that island where the misfit toys go.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 08:05 AM   #2742
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Henriboy's responses to being exposed are comical AND sad. He's copying and pasting posts that he constructed under different poster names on several MacDonald Case discussion boards. Caphill, I mean, Wudge, I mean, Henriboy, is simply rinsing and repeating the SAME talking points he made in 2003.

Again, this is a game to him and he loves the attention that comes with being the lone contrarian. He doesn't care that he has been exposed as a fraud on multiple true crime discussion boards, so I no longer care to play his game. As BStrong consistenly points out, Henriboy/Caphill/Wudge has no credibility, so why take a second of my time to respond to his fantasy narratives?

I've done it for 14 years, so I'm due for retirement. LOL. Considering this is the most litigated murder case in history, there are plenty of issues to discuss without setting foot on troll island. We're still awaiting the 4th Circuit's decision on whether inmate's conviction stands. Nothing shocks me anymore, but I would be surprised if the 4th Circuit accepts inmate's dubious arguments and grants him a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The mods may have an interest in this if you've got the goods. I seem to remember that the TOS forbids reposting material available elsewhere on the web and bringing disputes from other forums here.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 09:45 AM   #2743
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
the real culprit will and has said all sorts of things INCLUDING THAT HE DID NOT RECOGNIZE HELENA WHEN SHOWN A CONTEMPORARY PHOTO OF HER JUST 2 MONTHS AFTER HE SLAUGHTERED HIS FAMILY.

AMONG OTHER STATEMENTS HE SAID 'SHE HAS A DISTINCTIVE NOSE, I'D HAVE REMEMBERED THAT NOSE'.....THE REAL CULPRIT (singular) IS IN PRISON WHERE HE BELONGS.
Byn has been saying for years that according to her medical experts, Jeff MacDonald would have been concussed and unconscious and not have remembered anything about what happened after ten minutes. It all happened so quickly and he can only remember what he can remember. The fact is that what Helena said happened is what Jeff MacDonald said happened. He could only see white or beige boots and a candle. The lighting conditions were not good. Witness identification is a controversial subject. Jeff MacDonald didn't know the woman. Helena had no motive to make it all up.

B. Strong doesn't like freedom of speech and a free Press and an independent judiciary. I don't like biased internet forums. That would be like Nazi or Soviet or Egyptian justice.

Wudge had some strong opinions about JTF in 2008:

Quote:
The 24" saran fiber came from the hairbrush. It's entirely reasonable to adduce it got there via brushing, and since it is not human hair, it must be synthetic hair. Because it was foreign to every source in the house, I hold it came from Helena's wig and represents exculpatory evidence.

SNIP

"There was a single unsourced DARK fiber found on Colette's mouth, two on her body, and two were found on the murder club."

Correct. These dark fibers are yet more unexplained foreign material and represent still more exculpatory evidence.

SNIP

"Similar to the fiber evidence, the unsourced wax drippings do not support MacDonald's story."
False. They clearly do and are exculpatory evidence.
SNIP

"Reading the following link would probably improve the quality and content of your posts."

I told you before that you come across as juvenile by self promoting , nothing has changed.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 09:47 AM   #2744
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
I know WUDGE pre-dates my participation in discussions and I was "board-napped" into the mix because JTF posted a question about "what do these facts say to you" and I happened upon the old A&E site and saw it. At that point I had not yet read Fatal Vision or Fatal Joke or inmate's website either. I joined, commented, and read JTF's response and then he and bunny started asking me more direct "evidence based" questions and showing me where I could go to see the documents etc. and I've been hooked ever since.....so, that would have been sometime after 4/1/2002 which is when we moved into our current office building......do you remember JTF or bunny?
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 09:51 AM   #2745
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Byn has been saying for years that according to her medical experts, Jeff MacDonald would have been concussed and unconscious and not have remembered anything about what happened after ten minutes. It all happened so quickly and he can only remember what he can remember. The fact is that what Helena said happened is what Jeff MacDonald said happened. He could only see white or beige boots and a candle. The lighting conditions were not good. Witness identification is a controversial subject. Jeff MacDonald didn't know the woman. Helena had no motive to make it all up.

B. Strong doesn't like freedom of speech and a free Press and an independent judiciary. I don't like biased internet forums. That would be like Nazi or Soviet or Egyptian justice.

Wudge had some strong opinions about JTF in 2008:
She had the same motive that you do.

You're starved for attention, and even negative attention is better than none.

Internet forums of just about any stripe aren't exactly happy with you either.

Wudge? is that the nickname your man crush gave you? the soft touch version of a nuggie?

ETA: 100% in favor of free speech, and 100% in favor of laughing at fools.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

Last edited by BStrong; 23rd March 2017 at 09:52 AM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 09:59 AM   #2746
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 414
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Byn has been saying for years that according to her medical experts, inmate would have been concussed and unconscious and not have remembered anything about what happened after ten minutes.
No, what byn has been saying and continues to say AND IS CORRECT IN STATING is that inmate's story of what happened is medically impossible. INMATE is the one who claimed to have been rendered unconscious. MEDICAL EXPERT DR. MARY CASE TESTIFIED IN A DIFFERENT CRIMINAL TRIAL THAT IT IS MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS AND THEN REMEMBER THE BLOW THAT CAUSED THE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. SHE ALSO STATED THAT MEMORY OF THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE BLOW WOULD BE LOST OR DAMAGED. MEDICAL FACT.

http://path.slu.edu/index.php?page=mary-case-m-d

the above link is for Dr. Mary Case's bio. henri when you can come anywhere CLOSE to her education, certifications, experience, knowledge THEN you can comment on the subject of loss of consciousness and memory.

Dr. Case is certified in Anatomic Pathology, Neuropathology AND Forensic Pathology. imho nuff said.....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It all happened so quickly and he can only remember what he can remember.
that is my point henri IF his story were true then he would not and could not remember anything especially not detailed descriptions or the number of alleged intruders and what they were wearing. It is that simple his story is medically impossible.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
....that what Helena said happened is what inmate said happened........ Helena had no motive to make it all up.
NO, what Helena said happened didn't happen she confessed and recanted and confessed and recanted and NONE of her confessions match inmate's story or the evidence. THAT IS FACT. IF you are going to pick and choose a story of her's to believe then why not choose the version that included "we were having a sexual affair and I watched him kill his family?" at least THAT is plausible.

Crazy people and drug addled teenager's with attention seeking tendencies don't need a motive to confess. Her story changed and his story changed...the only difference is there is plenty of evidence to support the "he killed his family" story which is why he was convicted for the actions he took in murdering Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:37 PM   #2747
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 708
Timeline

BYN: If memory serves, I began posting on MacDonald Case discussion boards in the Fall of 2002, so I would assume that it was in that time frame when you came across my post. I could tell that you were a critical thinker and would not be swayed by hyperbole and circular logic.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:42 AM   #2748
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
If you lie, your information is at best suspect and your own testimony given less weight.

When you lie, AND the physical evidence supports a different narrative, your testimony is worthless.

Ms. Stoeckley's testimony is worthless.
A police informant is obviously going to lie if there is any danger of being arrested, or imprisoned. The police in Scotland last year spent £500000 on informants. There must be some good reason for that. There was never any romantic interest between Jeff MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley. I suppose you could say she did it for the money for drugs, but she was taking a big risk and putting herself in grave peril. The Mafia and the Cocaine Importation Agency don't like snitches.

There was a big controversy several years ago in the UK over the use of 'supergrasses' informing on the IRA, and being paid large sums of money for it, particularly coming from Irish lawyers and journalists. I believe Helena Stoeckley and Detective Beasley. It's idle to suggest that their leads and suspects should be disregarded because they were supposed to be seriously ill, or befuddled, or were not credible.

Judge Murnaghan, now deceased, of the 4th Circuit always said that if he had been the trial judge he would not have excluded Helena's confessions. Judge Dupree, the biased trial judge was clearly erroneous. There needs to be a judge, or judges, in the MacDonald case with moral courage and a strong personality and right judgment.

There is some legal waffle about this informant business at:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pat...-and-tips-aspx

Quote:
Criminal Informants

What makes the citizen informant so credible is that he or she is providing information with no hopes of reimbursement. The same cannot be said for criminal informants, who provide information to police for a number of dubious reasons including revenge, a reduction of pending charges, and a hope of leniency at the time of sentencing.

Understandably, courts are skeptical of information provided by criminals. For this reason, it's best to use the information provided by criminal informants as a piece of a totality of circumstance equation. Knowing the criminal informant's reliability will be scrutinized by the courts, take proactive steps at the beginning of the investigation to ensure the informant's information is reliable.

The most common way to establish a criminal informant's reliability is to document past use. You'll certainly want to note all the times the informant's information was correct. Taking this one step further, note how often the informant's tips led to an arrest and conviction. Also include the types of investigations the informant assisted with. If you can show the informant has been consistently correct in matters of "street drug sales" or "burglary investigations" this specialized knowledge will lend credence to his or her reliability.

Another factor that can enhance the perceived reliability of an informant in court is if one makes statements against his own interests while providing the tips. The courts have realized that admitting to criminal behavior to the police is not something a person would usually do. When an informant takes this unusual step his or her statements are viewed as more credible.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:43 AM   #2749
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A police informant is obviously going to lie if there is any danger of being arrested, or imprisoned. The police in Scotland last year spent £500000 on informants. There must be some good reason for that. There was never any romantic interest between Jeff MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley. I suppose you could say she did it for the money for drugs, but she was taking a big risk and putting herself in grave peril. The Mafia and the Cocaine Importation Agency don't like snitches.

There was a big controversy several years ago in the UK over the use of 'supergrasses' informing on the IRA, and being paid large sums of money for it, particularly coming from Irish lawyers and journalists. I believe Helena Stoeckley and Detective Beasley. It's idle to suggest that their leads and suspects should be disregarded because they were supposed to be seriously ill, or befuddled, or were not credible.
And your reliance of Stoeckley as credible is not in the least diminished.

Evidently, on the Island of No Facts everybody is a liar unless you like the lies they tell.

The great philosopher Bugs Bunny had a word for folks like you but I can't recall it in the instant - something like 'what a ..." something or other.

Again with the facts not in evidence. Not surprising given your aversion to actual evidence. When evidence is your enemy you have to start looking for alternative facts. Are you posting from within the beltway?

Remember what credibility means? It's what evidence or witnesses must have, and you don't have. Are you using the world "idle' correctly or was that a Freudian slip?
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:34 AM   #2750
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
And your reliance of Stoeckley as credible is not in the least diminished.
It's not a question of just thinking MacDonald did it with no supporting evidence. You don't assume anything in a murder investigation, and you don't disregard leads and suspects like the Army CID, and FBI, and Judge Dupree did. Just having a biased internet forum is not good enough, and censoring any Fleet White did it postings as in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 concluded that Helena Stoeckley and her Stoeckley crowd should be further investigated.

Colonel Rock had his head screwed on. The Army CID and FBI and mainstream media should not have insisted on putting an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life.

The matter is discussed on that Unsolved Mysteries website:

Quote:
3. Follow every lead
Keeping an open mind about the causes and possible perpetrators of a crime is essential to an investigator’s success. If Unusual Suspects has taught us anything, it’s that homicides are rarely straightforward, and following every lead – no matter how contrived they seem – is crucial. Whether it’s witness statements, or tips called in by the public, detectives never know where a lead is going to take them. For the investigators looking into Sky Alland’s (Driven to Murder, ep4) execution-style death, following leads that took them cross-country and sorting the red herrings from the real clues was exactly what it took to bring the 34-year-old businessman’s killer – an ex-employee – to justice.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:59 AM   #2751
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's not a question of just thinking MacDonald did it with no supporting evidence. You don't assume anything in a murder investigation, and you don't disregard leads and suspects like the Army CID, and FBI, and Judge Dupree did. Just having a biased internet forum is not good enough, and censoring any Fleet White did it postings as in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 in 1970 concluded that Helena Stoeckley and her Stoeckley crowd should be further investigated.

Colonel Rock had his head screwed on. The Army CID and FBI and mainstream media should not have insisted on putting an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life.

The matter is discussed on that Unsolved Mysteries website:
How would you know anything about the subject? You're certainly not a trained investigator and you have no credibility. You have an opinion, and like all mammals you have a fundamental. You often mistake one for the other.

They didn't.

After a little googling on my own to confirm what has been posted by others concerning your propensity for multiple personalities on a single forum, I have proven to my satisfaction that the allegations are true and hereinafter I will refer to you as...wait for it...

Henrudge.

Congratulations.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:23 PM   #2752
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 708
Beyond Thorough

The CID and FBI each completed not one, but two lengthy investigations. The conclusions of all 4 investigations mirrored one another. Jeffrey MacDonald was deemed as being the lone killer of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen MacDonald. The conclusions were based on the FACT that ALL of the sourced evidence in this case linked inmate to the crime. Not a single piece of evidence collected at the crime scene was sourced to a known intruder suspect. All of the suspects were interviewed by the CID and/or FBI, and by 1983, all of these individuals were cleared as having any involvement in these brutal murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 10:28 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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