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 13th August 2017, 09:25 PM   #3001
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 755
The Landlord Needs A Hug, A Cookie Or Both

Not surprisingly, when backed into a corner by the documented record, the landlord of MacFantasy Island resorts to name calling (e.g., calling me a liar) and delves even deeper into his own fantasy world. For example, when the prosecution presents their evidentiary arguments, the number of exhibits has no bearing on the inculpatory nature of those evidentiary items.

The same logic applies to the arguments put forth by the defense. Every exhibit presented by the defense is considered by the team to be exculpatory. It is then up to the jury to decide which evidentiary items carry significant weight. The landlord demonstrates his penchant for making things up by claiming that every murder case has over a thousand evidentiary items.

In terms of his obsession with the Stoeckley group, the landlord throws out the book on how to link a suspect to a murder scene by stating that he believes that the suspect is guilty. Any investigator worth a salt knows that he or she needs a sourced evidentiary item and/or a CREDIBLE eyewitness to the murder to charge an individual with that crime.

The belief system employed by the landlord is a means to an end for he KNOWS that there isn't a single piece of sourced trace evidence and/or credible eyewitness testimony to this mass murder. He certainly has the right to believe that Stoeckley was a credible witness and/or that unsourced evidence found at the crime scene was deposited by members of the Stoeckley group, but that stance has been shot down several times by the appellate courts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th August 2017 at 09:29 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 04:37 AM   #3002
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a load of bollocks again from JTF. That's a lie to say there were one thousand inculpatory items. There are a thousand items in every murder case, only a few of which are relevant.
No henri, it is not a lie. The prosecution PRESENTED OVER 1,100 PIECES OF EVIDENCE VIA 28 WITNESSES BOTH LAY AND EXPERT. This a FACT. Every piece of evidence presented was INCULPATORY. That is how a trial works. IF they had NOT been inculpatory, then Bernie Segal would have fought to keep them from being entered. On the blood evidence alone he did not even cross-examine at least one witness. THAT is a tactic used by lawyers who know they cannot dismiss or defeat the evidence so they attempt to lessen the impact by not drawing any additional attention to it.

JTF posts the truth and henri just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true. stomping your feet and having a temper tantrum because you have absolutely nothing to counter the facts with does not make your inane and often inarticulate arguments any more persuasive. Just because you don't like the FACTS doesn't mean you get to ignore the FACTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Just because Fred Bost thought that Smitty, or Dwight Smith, was not involved is not firm evidence. That's just an opinion and belief from Fred Bost. Fred Bost was never a hard detective, even though he talked a lot of sense about the MacDonald case when he was alive.
No FB was not a detective and nobody that I know of has ever claimed he was a detective. FB believed Smitty was not involved because the ACTUAL LE personnel fully investigated him and found that not only was there no evidence of him at the scene, he had an alibi, and he passed a polygraph.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Can you not recall where you were two nights before you may have been interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation?
Who the hell is the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation? Smitty was interviewed by LE such as Fayetteville PD and the FBI.

IF you don't believe that a drugged out hippie could be unaware of their actions, movements, behavior then you obviously have never dealt with someone who was truly drugged out. Get real, druggie's not recalling where they were and what they did is not at all uncommon or suspicious.

Yes, to answer your question, I can recall where I was 2 nights ago, and for that matter 2 weeks ago and 2 months ago as well. HOWEVER, I do not take drugs and therefore I have a clear memory of what I have done, but again we are not talking about US we are talking about heavy drug users.
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 Yesterday, 03:37 AM   #3003
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,648
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
No henri, it is not a lie. The prosecution PRESENTED OVER 1,100 PIECES OF EVIDENCE VIA 28 WITNESSES BOTH LAY AND EXPERT. This a FACT. Every piece of evidence presented was INCULPATORY. That is how a trial works. IF they had NOT been inculpatory, then Bernie Segal would have fought to keep them from being entered. On the blood evidence alone he did not even cross-examine at least one witness. THAT is a tactic used by lawyers who know they cannot dismiss or defeat the evidence so they attempt to lessen the impact by not drawing any additional attention to it.
That's a load of bull. Most of the so-called 'inculpatory' items of evidence were things like the Valentine cards and overturned coffee table which proved nothing. The so-called pajama fiber on the murder weapon which Blackburn so influenced the jury with in his closing argument turned out later to be a black wool fiber with no known source. Details of Macdonald's sex life were never discussed at the trial because that violated the rules of evidence and procedure, and it was inadmissible in court.

The blood evidence was presented to the court by the then very inexperienced army CID lab blood men Laber and Craig Chamberlain. All they testified to was that there was blood at the crime scene, which was hardly surprising. I agree that it was a mistake by Segal not to cross-examine Laber because the simple -minded jury then got it into their head that because there was blood at the crime scene then MacDonald must be guilty. Segal was much more aggressive with Chamberlain. Segal kept asking Chamberlain if he had ever made mistakes until 'corrupt bias ' Judge Dupree told Segal to tone down his questions.

The so-called incriminating blood evidence was presented to the court by Stombaugh of the FBI lab who was a hair and fiber man, and who had never testified about fabric impressions before. That was an irregularity, and that was Judge Dupree's fault. Only real experts can present their opinions to a court.

Dwight Smith, or Smitty, and Pat Reese were interviewed by the SBI after the MacDonald murders. As far as I know the SBI is the State Bureau of investigation, or as I say the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation. Dwight Smith said he could not remember where he was on the night of the MacDonald murders which looks to me like the previous night. An astute detective would then say to himself what's going on here? Cannabis does not affect your memory. There is no proof Dwight Smith was on any memory destroying drugs at the time.

I don't know if Pat Reese was this mysterious 'Wizard' but I do know the matter was never investigated.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:29 AM   #3004
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a load of bull. Most of the so-called 'inculpatory' items of evidence were things like the Valentine cards and overturned coffee table which proved nothing. The so-called pajama fiber on the murder weapon which Blackburn so influenced the jury with in his closing argument turned out later to be a black wool fiber with no known source.
No henri it IS NOT A LOAD OF BULL. The nonsense you are spouting is BULL. First of all the Valentine Cards sitting upright on the chest in the dining room ARE NOT among the 1,100 pieces of evidence we are discussing. Secondly, IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE TRANSCRIPTS AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS you would learn that the PJ fiber found on the murder club was removed and placed in a pill vial during the analysis process. This fiber is inculpatory and just because it was removed from the club and stored in a separate container DOES NOT DIMINISH ITS VALUE. The UNSOURCED BLACK WOOL FIBERS ARE NOT AMONG THE INCULPATORY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER unsourced does not equal useless.

Get this straight henri - EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS TO INMATE AS THE SOLE PERPETRATOR. INMATE WAS CONVICTED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS GUILTY. Your continued arguing points that even the defense does not argue is immature and ignorant. Knock it off! It is long past time for you to put up or shut up!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Details of inmate's sex life were never discussed at the trial because that violated the rules of evidence and procedure, and it was inadmissible in court.
What does inmate's sex life have to do with what we are discussing? It is NOT one of the over 1,100 pieces of inculpatory evidence. It has nothing to do with his conviction. You bringing it up just reminds everyone what a low-life narcissistic sociopathic bastard you have chosen to champion and has no relevance to the discussions AT ALL.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blood evidence was presented to the court by the then very inexperienced army CID lab blood men Laber and Craig Chamberlain.
What does their experience or lack there of have to do with ANYTHING we are discussing? Not a damn thing! The FACT is that they testified to the amounts, locations, types of human blood that were found at the crime scene. Since inmate and his family all had different blood types it was easy for investigators to "read the scene". The FACT that Bernie let so much of this testimony go into the record without cross examination served to (1) Make it clear that the testimony was damaging to inmate, (2) showed that his story was not the truth, (3) told the jury and the Judge as well as the Courtroom watchers just how brutal and savage inmate had been in his actions.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that it was a mistake by Segal not to cross-examine Laber because the simple -minded jury then got it into their head that because there was blood at the crime scene then inmate must be guilty.
The jury was not simple-minded and I find your comment insulting, ignorant, inane and belligerent. The jury did not decide that inmate was guilty "because there was some blood at the crime scene" and you know it. You are more like inmate than I originally imagined your "some blood" is as stupid as him telling the operator that "some people" had been stabbed. We are talking about the blood of a pregnant woman named Colette, the blood and brain serum of a 5 year-old little girl named Kimberley, and the blood of a 2 year-old little girl named Kristen all of whom were slaughtered by the one person that should have protected them with his own life.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The so-called incriminating blood evidence was presented to the court by Stombaugh of the FBI lab who was a hair and fiber man, and who had never testified about fabric impressions before. That was an irregularity, and that was Judge Dupree's fault. Only real experts can present their opinions to a court.
No henri, Stombaugh's only discussion of blood was blood stains that were found on fabric. The pj top was torn AFTER Colette's blood was on it - FACT. The pj pocket was torn off in the bedroom making inmate's claim of using it as a shield in the living room even more ridiculous.

Stombaugh was an expert. Judge Dupree accepted him as an expert just as other jurists had in the past and others would do so after inmate was convicted. Whether he had or had not testified about fabric impressions in the past is irrelevant. Also, YOU seem to forget that your man-crush experts agreed with major portions of Stombaugh's testimony so obviously he was right. YOU are the one who is not qualified to deem a person expert or not. Since Judge Dupree found Stombaugh to be an expert then he WAS an EXPERT and you stamping your feet and having a fit will not change it. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE FACTS DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DISMISS THEM.

henri, try and grasp this concept: Inmate was indicted. He was then taken to trial before which he was still presumed innocent until proven guilty. AFTER trial, he was found guilty times 3 (1 first degree, 2 second degree murder counts). he has been before the courts more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence and his conviction still stands. HE IS GUILTY. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE - GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY
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 Today, 02:49 PM   #3005
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 755
Trolling For Fun

The landlord continues to demonstrate that his lone goal in posting on true crime boards is to elicit a specific response for enjoyment purposes. I would wager that he does not believe in MacDonald's innocence as evidenced by his repetitive responses to debunked claims leveled by the defense.

His attempts at making end runs around the mass of inculpatory physical evidence are laughable. For example, he ignores the FACT that over 100 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found at the crime scene. Compare that to the 19 unsourced fibers from several different garments and one quickly realizes that the landlord is playing a shell game on multiple true crime threads.

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
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 11:06 PM.
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.