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 14th October 2017, 01:42 PM   #3201
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
Helena Stoeckley stated that she WATCHED inmate slaughter his family. Obviously that must be the truth! So, inmate is indeed 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 15th October 2017, 02:23 AM   #3202
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It's exactly what it means in the courtroom or in an investigation. Sources are judged by credibility - the term "reliable source: exists for a reason. Someone who can not be depended on to tell the truth can not be relied upon as a source.
The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part. MacDonald was convicted on manufactured evidence, and bad and possibly corrupt police work by the military police. It was never a complete investigation and the prosecution never proved their case. The prosecution were dishonest. All that stuff from Shaw about bodies being moved and Colette murdering one of the little girls was a load of bull, and it should have been squashed by the 4th Circuit judges.
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 15th October 2017, 02:44 AM   #3203
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,461
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence. Further ******** snipped
I'm a retired cop, and a stipulated expert witness in my field of experience and training.

If I was a proven liar, as the witnesses you wish to rely on, I'd have been out of a job.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by Agatha; 15th October 2017 at 05:30 AM. Reason: fix quote tags
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 15th October 2017, 04:08 PM   #3204
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Nuff Said

In the spirit of critical thought...

In comparing audiotapes of Helena Stoeckley's interviews with Ted Gunderson to the typed transcripts, the government concluded that "it became apparent that these were not transcripts of recorded interviews but rather questions and answers which had been extracted from the tapes, arranged in a sequence designed to delete conflicting responses by Stoeckley and blended into a transcript like statement, which Stoeckley later initialed." The government also states that during certain audiotapes, "Stoeckley had come perilously close to contradicting her previous whereabouts."

The following note to his secretary made it clear that Gunderson was concerned about Stoeckley's disjointed statements.

"June, this is all we're going to record on this tape. I'm going back and try to pick up the mistakes that I made on the other tapes. So, in order to avoid confusion, that's the end of this tape. Don't type anything more off of it."

The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the government's 91-page report to the 4th Circuit Court:

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

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

Last edited by JTF; 15th October 2017 at 04:12 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 16th October 2017, 04:07 AM   #3205
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
Is it just me or has anyone else notice that Henri has NEVER replied to any of the numerous requests for an explanation on why he chooses to believe the nonsensical Helena confessions and he never ever at any time has considered her more logical confession? Of course, the I watched him kill his family confession would upset his prejudices but that is the only one of Helena's confessions that at least comes close to matching the evidence.
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 16th October 2017, 05:45 AM   #3206
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 10
And I am waiting for someone - anyone - to speak up in support of Henri. Hasn't happened in a very long time.
Ygraine 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 16th October 2017, 08:26 AM   #3207
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I'm a retired cop, and a stipulated expert witness in my field of experience and training.

If I was a proven liar, as the witnesses you wish to rely on, I'd have been out of a job.
To reply in two short paragraphs an expert in court can't give his opinions unless he is a real expert. Fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald were never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI, and Shaw was never an expert about Colette murdering one little girl, or bodies being moved. Malone of the FBI is a proven total liar and he was never out of a job, or has been convicted or punished, or sued.
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 16th October 2017, 08:36 AM   #3208
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the government's 91-page report to the 4th Circuit Court:

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
There were numerous confessions by Greg Mitchell, and by Stoeckley, but those confessions became confused and circumspect when she was asked to confess officially, for obvious reasons. The Nashville cop Gaddis told Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial that he would have investigated further after what Helena told him about the MacDonald murders. You would care if you had an abstract sense of justice. More Gaddis testimony:

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

Quote:
A* Well, I have had several informants, and she is, by far, the best informant I have ever had.
Q* Now, at some time did you learn that she had previously lived in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area?
A* Yes, sir; I did.
Q* And when did you learn that, Officer Gaddis?
A* Well, it was -- I don't know the exact date when I learned that she lived in Fayetteville, but she came up to me one night and asked me if I could find out, through contacting the Fayetteville police, if she was still wanted in connection --

MR. BLACKBURN:* (Interposing)* OBJECTION.

THE COURT:* SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q* All right, the result of -- without telling us what she said, the result of whatever conversation you had with her at that time -- did you take any action as a result of that conversation?* Did you make any inquiries?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th October 2017 at 08:48 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 16th October 2017, 09:10 AM   #3209
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
And I am waiting for someone - anyone - to speak up in support of Henri. Hasn't happened in a very long time.
DO NOT hold your breath or place a plastic bag over your head while waiting, Ygraine. Please, for me, as a personal favor.
desmirelle 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 17th October 2017, 05:07 AM   #3210
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 10
Ygraine 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 17th October 2017, 05:31 AM   #3211
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
henri doesn't seem to grasp the VERY simple concept of being approved as an EXPERT witness. The PRESIDING JUDGE makes that determination. some conspiracy theorist from the UK (if that is really where henri is from) doesn't get to decide that AN EXPERT AS DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE is not an expert.

Paul Stombaugh was an expert in his field - among other proofs of that is the fact that the DEFENSE Expert Thorton agreed with major portions of Stombaugh's testimony.
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 17th October 2017, 08:52 AM   #3212
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Stombaugh of the FBI had never testified about fabric impressions in any deadly place like a courtroom before the MacDonald case. There are serologists, or blood experts, in the FBI but none attended the MacDonald trial. Stombaugh was never a blood expert.

I'm not thoroughly acquainted with the expert witness matter in America. I find it surprising that people like the so-called blood expert Judith Bunker were allowed to pontificate in American courts when they were clearly lacking in credentials. Similarly, the so-called handwriting expert Cina Wong in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's against the rules of evidence and procedure and the 4th Circuit judges should put their foot down about it.

In the UK the medical evidence is argued in court by medically qualified doctors. They would never allow an unqualified cop like Wambaugh to say that MacDonald was a sociopath. In a fatal road cash court case you have to be a real expert before you gave an opinion in court about the cause of death.

Segal had a bit to say about Stombaugh being unqualified in his 1979 closing speech. It's patently untrue to say that Dr. Thornton agreed with Stombaugh, except for one or two not relevant aspects:

Quote:
There is no basis for his opinion. It is sheer poppycock and there is no basis for the jury to consider this as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that portion of the Government's theory.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th October 2017 at 08:53 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 17th October 2017, 09:57 AM   #3213
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
Ahem - Paul Stombaugh WAS DEEMED AN EXPERT BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. What you believe or what Segal stated outside court was and is absolutely irrelevant. ALSO, Dr. Thorton agreed with much of Stombaugh's fabric impression testimony so obviously the DEFENSE expert felt he was an expert.

Paul Stombaugh was also deemed an expert at numerous other trials and hearings including the Warren Commission.
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 17th October 2017, 01:44 PM   #3214
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Facts. A Trolls Worst Nightmare

Paul Stombaugh retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976. Stombaugh testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. In terms of this case, not one, but two DEFENSE experts (e.g., Thornton and Osterburg) agreed with significant portions of his forensic analysis. In the real world, this is an admission that specific evidentiary items in this case inculpated inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th October 2017 at 01:54 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 17th October 2017, 05:49 PM   #3215
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Inculpatory

The MacDonald defense team hired two respected forensics experts. John Thornton and Charles Morton both looked at specific impressions on the blue bedsheet. Their conclusions were as follows:

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.

•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.

•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

•Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.

•Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F.

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

During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal asked forensics expert James Osterburg his thoughts on the Pajama Top Theory. Osterburg was impressed with Stombaugh's analysis, stating "Holy Christmas, this is like a fingerprint." In essence, Osterburg was referring to the fact that the matching hole pattern on inmate's pajama top was akin to a fingerprint being matched to a known suspect. The Landlord of MacFantasy Island will respond with rinse and repeat arguments, but the opinions of experts (e.g., Stombaugh, Green, Thornton, and Osterburg) greatly outweigh the rambling narratives of a layman.

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 18th October 2017, 09:36 AM   #3216
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,461
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
To reply in two short paragraphs an expert in court can't give his opinions unless he is a real expert. Fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald were never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI, and Shaw was never an expert about Colette murdering one little girl, or bodies being moved. Malone of the FBI is a proven total liar and he was never out of a job, or has been convicted or punished, or sued.
I could make the observation that projection of one's shortcomings onto others is a common manifestation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]"

Your assertions of fraud etc. haven't stood up through how many years of internet blathering? JM is guilty. He's staying exactly where he is and no matter how many times you assert the contrary, he's guilty.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
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 18th October 2017, 09:38 AM   #3217
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,461
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
DO NOT hold your breath or place a plastic bag over your head while waiting, Ygraine. Please, for me, as a personal favor.
The reading of HM's posts is what makes someone reach for the plastic bag.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
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 18th October 2017, 02:47 PM   #3218
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
End Run

The common theme among MacDonald advocates is to be selective about case issues AND the data used to debate their point of view. Several journalists have commented on how Fred Bost, Harvey Silverglate, and Errol Morris have ignored the more "ominous" evidentiary items presented by the government. Several case researchers have also pointed out that these individuals not only cherry pick data, they rely on "old" data to formulate their arguments. For example, in order to make end runs around inculpatory data from 1971-1974, Bost relied heavily on data presented at the Article 32 Hearing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th October 2017 at 02:55 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 19th October 2017, 02:28 AM   #3219
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
You can't just ignore the data presented at the Article 32 hearing in 1970.

There was about a twenty minute segment on an old repeat of the MacDonald case from that Unsolved Mysteries American TV show yesterday. It started off with a clip of Helena Stoeckley saying that if the FBI checked it out they would find MacDonald innocent, and that she did say "acid is groovy kill the pigs" and she did see Greg Mitchell sitting on Colette. That seemed to be from an old BBC documentary on the MacDonald case.

Blackburn was then interviewed and he said that in his opinion MacDonald is guilty, and then Ivory whose image was blacked out for some reason. Then the commentator blandly said the knives came from inside the apartment, which has never been proven, and which is denied by MacDonald and his lawyers. The military policeman Mica was then interviewed, who said that the front door was opened to the ambulance men who contaminated the crime scene with their gurney. Friar was interviewed about his wrong number to MacDonald and about the voices in the background, which has been confirmed in the past by Stoeckley. Detective Beasley was mentioned.

Segal and Silverglate were then interviewed which made sense to me. MacDonald's story is plausible and it makes sense to me. The MacDonald case was bad police work, and opinions, and I believe MacDonald rather than the opinions of Blackburn and Ivory.
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 19th October 2017, 06:20 AM   #3220
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
The problem with most of the MacFantasy people is that they cannot seem to grasp some very obvious FACTS. Chief amongst the "lets pretend we don't know" is the fact that the Article 32 was BEFORE the majority of the evidence was analyzed thus it has been OBE (over taken by events) such as the Re-Investigation, the Grand Jury, AND the TRIAL at which the government presented over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The jury convicted inmate. He is guilty, anyone with even the most basic critical thinking skills KNOWS he is guilty, and he will remain 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 20th October 2017, 07:53 AM   #3221
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Chief amongst the "lets pretend we don't know" is the fact that the Article 32 was BEFORE the majority of the evidence was analyzed thus it has been OBE (over taken by events) such as the Re-Investigation, the Grand Jury, AND the TRIAL at which the government presented over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The jury convicted inmate. He is guilty, anyone with even the most basic critical thinking skills KNOWS he is guilty, and he will remain in prison where he belongs.
The Stombaugh re-investigation was fabricated out of whole cloth. That so-called evidence was never presented in an excellent court. There was never any public criticism of the close connection between the popular media, and corruption in the Army CID and CIA and FBI. Opinions are not facts or evidence.
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 October 2017, 08:06 AM   #3222
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Stombaugh re-investigation was fabricated out of whole cloth. That so-called evidence was never presented in an excellent court. There was never any public criticism of the close connection between the popular media, and corruption in the Army CID and CIA and FBI. Opinions are not facts or evidence.

Point of Fact: Opinions are all you're using for facts and evidence. YOUR opinion that the "Stombaugh re-investigation" was bogus, YOUR opinion that the trial was not conducted in "an excellent court", YOUR opinion (quite wrong) that there was never any public criticism (Freddy Kassab was quite public in his criticism of the Army during the Article 32 hearing and in both 1970 & 1979 the press was all "this poor dude is being prosecuted" - and falling for Segal-staged events such as the hair exemplar retrieval - and you have brought up the allegations and problem of the FBI labs, quite the public scandal).
desmirelle 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 October 2017, 09:24 AM   #3223
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
roflmao it is also henri's OPINION that it was Stombaugh's reinvestigation. Stombaugh was one of the experts used DURING the reinvestigation and at trial but the US ARMY CID did a complete and thorough review of ALL the original investigation, as well as, follow-up on even the most outlandish and improbable lead.

desi - did you notice he still hasn't provided a salient, comprehensive, and/or logical reason why he doesn't accept a certain hippy girls confession that she WATCHED inmate slaughter his family (the only confession that comes close to matching the evidence)?
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 October 2017, 02:52 AM   #3224
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
desi - did you notice he still hasn't provided a salient, comprehensive, and/or logical reason why he doesn't accept a certain hippy girls confession that she WATCHED inmate slaughter his family (the only confession that comes close to matching the evidence)?
You don't seem to fully appreciate that criminals sometimes tell lies, or no comment and categorically deny, when they are being interviewed by the police. Fleet White in the JonBenet Ramsey case always had a bad attack of amnesia, and he couldn't recall or remember anything during his depositions. Dwight Smith in the MacDonald case could not remember anything about where he was the night before. It was clearly erroneous for Judge Dupree and Judge Fox to reject and ignore the numerous confessions out of court of Stoeckley and Mitchell.

Logan on that Google groups MacDonald forum had the right idea in 1998:

Quote:
Fatal Vision, Fatal Vision, Fatal Vision, that is your problem you keep Fatal Vision as a source. Fatal Vision is a fiction book. Joe McGinness was on the stand for 4 or 5 days embarrassing himself. He was caught in so many lies.

He admitted he didn't even believe his own diet pill theory. He is a known liar.

Quit using Fatal Vision as a source of information on the case.

Give me physical evidence that MacDonald did this. The weapons are not
evidence of anything. If MacDonald is guilty then he threw the weapons out
back. If MacDonald is innocent then the killers dropped the weapons on the
way out. So give me evidence that he is guilty.

The only weapon that has proven to come from his house was the club. The governments theory is that It was in the master bedroom where Jeff picked it up.

What is weird about that is that the club was weatherworn and it matched with the other wood that was found out back. The governments theory is also that Colette picked up a knife just laying around in the master bedroom, why would they have a knife laying around with a 2 and 5 year old in the house? *Why don't you try with the two things the jury said they came to convict MacDonald on. "No blood on the hallway steps" and "No evidence of outside assailants".
Logan
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 October 2017, 09:49 AM   #3225
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You don't seem to fully appreciate that criminals sometimes tell lies, or no comment and categorically deny, when they are being interviewed by the police.
<snip of non-topic drivel>
Dwight Smith in the MacDonald case could not remember anything about where he was the night before. It was clearly erroneous for Judge Dupree and Judge Fox to reject and ignore the numerous confessions out of court of Stoeckley and Mitchell.

Logan on that Google groups MacDonald forum had the right idea in 1998:
WE (yes, I am speaking for others) do fully appreciate that criminals tell lies, etc. YOU are the lone voice saying "accept the story that supports Macdonald's BS story and ignore everything that doesn't".

Dwight Smith's reason for not remembering that night is probably the one Helena gave in her first statement: Took too many drugs, don't know where I was. And since nothing supported his presence in the quarters the night of the murder, he was logically eliminated.

Nobody ignored the confessions. If you go downtown and confess to a crime and your version of what you did does not match the evidence nor is there any evidence to back your presence at the crime scene, the cops won't charge you either and the judge won't let the defense bring up your 'confession'. It's not dishonesty of the judge, it's common sense (and the MA prevents the rest of that sentence).

As to Logan, it's obvious he didn't grow up in the late 60s. Nobody 'child-proofed' back then (except to lock a screen door if you lived near a busy street). So, having knives in drawers that weren't secured was normal at that time.
desmirelle 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 October 2017, 02:24 PM   #3226
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Ignoring Documented Fact

The landlord has religiously ignored the fact that Dwight Smith was first interviewed about this case in 1982. That interview was conducted by the FBI and no rational human being would expect Smith or anyone else to remember their exact movements on a night which took place 12 years earlier. The FBI took print exemplars from Smith and none of his prints were sourced to the crime scene. Joseph Lee from the New York Four was the other African-American suspect in this case and none of his prints were sourced to the crime scene. Lee was interviewed by the CID and, like Smith, he denied any involvement in this crime.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd October 2017 at 02:32 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 23rd October 2017, 11:25 PM   #3227
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Pesky Documentation

Here is some night time reading material for the Landlord of MacFantasy Island.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...03_madden.html
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 24th October 2017, 03:23 AM   #3228
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Here is some night time reading material for the Landlord of MacFantasy Island.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...03_madden.html
The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice. There is no supporting evidence. From that website JTF mentions:

Quote:
6. He could not recall specifically where he was during the evening of February 16 or the early morning hours of February 17, 1970. He does remember that during the early or mid-morning hours of February 17, 1970, that Ray Davis and Cuyler Windham, SBI Agents, came to his residence and spoke with him and Pat Reese regarding the MacDonald murders. They were seeking information from Smith and Reese as to possible suspects as the SBI had a description of a group of individuals which may have participated in the MacDonald murders. To the best of Smith's recollection, he was unaware of the MacDonald murders until informed about same by Windham and Davis.
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 24th October 2017, 09:57 AM   #3229
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
inmate got his fair trail and then some. everyone but the landlord of MacFantasy Island seems to understand that FACT.

Desi - the other child proofing that was done in the 1960-1970 timeframe was putting a loop of rope over the top of the gate to keep the little ones in the backyard!
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 24th October 2017, 03:33 PM   #3230
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Grade For Reading Comprehension: F

The landlord is the gift that keeps on giving. Considering your penchant for skipping over posts and your lack of reading comprehension...

"The landlord has religiously ignored the fact that Dwight Smith was first interviewed about this case in 1982. That interview was conducted by the FBI and no rational human being would expect Smith or anyone else to remember their exact movements on a night which took place 12 years earlier."

Despite this prodigious time gap, Smith's recall of that time frame was pretty darn good. If you add in the FACT that there is not a shred of evidence linking Smith to the crime scene, one has to agree with Fred Bost's assertion that Smith was not a viable suspect.

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 26th October 2017, 08:33 AM   #3231
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
Dwight Smith was half-suspected of the MacDonald murders the day after the murders by the SBI. or the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation as I say. He told them that he couldn't recall or remember where he was the night before. It wasn't until 1982 that the FBI questioned him. Like Wall Street bankers he seems to be unregulated and above the law. The FBI never kept a close watch on him. There were other suspects, as mentioned by Logan on that Google groups forum in 1998:

Quote:
> * *Do you happen to know *the names of some of *the people, especially men,
> who were considered to be part of the Stoeckley crowd, *besides Greg Mitchell,
> Stoeckley's boyfriend at the time?
Don Harris , Ray Cazeras, Cathy Perry, Pam Kriwanek, Robert Wallack, Larry
Cook, Diane Cazeras, Thomas Vincent Brown, Bruce Fowler, and Kathy Smith is
all I can think of right now.
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 26th October 2017, 10:00 AM   #3232
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dwight Smith was half-suspected of the MacDonald murders the day after the murders by the SBI. or the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation as I say.
The SBI or North Carolina Bureau of Investigation was not in any way involved in the investigation into the murders - the Army CIL and CID were involved and the FBI were involved. Prince Beasley CLAIMED to have suspected certain people but as WE are all aware he was not in his right mind by the time he made these claims. No evidence of his involvement exists......

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He told them that he couldn't recall or remember where he was the night before. It wasn't until 1982 that the FBI questioned him.
Dwight Smith was NOT questioned until 1982 - twelve years AFTER the night of the murders. There is no evidence at all that the man was in any way involved - no fingerprints, no hairs or fibers, and no blood placing him at the scene. HE is NOT and WAS NEVER a VIABLE suspect.
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 26th October 2017, 05:48 PM   #3233
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dwight Smith was half-suspected of the MacDonald murders the day after the murders by the SBI. or the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation as I say. He told them that he couldn't recall or remember where he was the night before. It wasn't until 1982 that the FBI questioned him. Like Wall Street bankers he seems to be unregulated and above the law. The FBI never kept a close watch on him. There were other suspects, as mentioned by Logan on that Google groups forum in 1998:
For someone supposedly a citizen of the UK, you seem to have a serious hard-on for using glittering generalities against any law agencies in the USA who disagree with you or suspects who were not investigated to your satisfaction (translated: found guilty of doing what your man crush hasn't the balls to admit he did).
desmirelle 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 26th October 2017, 11:56 PM   #3234
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
KISS

DWIGHT SMITH: MacDonald Case Red Herring

From 1970-1997, the MacDonald defense team considered Smith to be the prime African-American intruder suspect. Smith lived in the same apartment complex as Pat Reese, he was questioned by the FBI in 1982, and subsequently cleared as a suspect. In 1983, Smith was interviewed by Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders.

Smith called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "craziest thing I've ever heard," and "totally insane." In 1997, author Fred Bost admitted that it was unlikely that Smith was a viable suspect. Bost based this on the fact that Smith does not match the physical descriptions of the unidentified black male intruder provided by MacDonald in 1970 and 1979.

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 27th October 2017, 08:20 AM   #3235
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
There is an old BBC documentary about the MacDonald case which lasts about one and a half hours called False Witness. It is a fair and just account of the MacDonald murders and it starts off by saying it provides evidence that the jury never heard. The 4th Circuit judges should watch it. For some reason the website sometimes says it can't be accessed in your country. Perhaps it has been censored? There are interesting interviews with Stoeckley and Bruce Fowler and Mica and Dr. Bronstein and Detective Beasley and Posey and Malley.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th October 2017 at 08:32 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 27th October 2017, 08:30 AM   #3236
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
I am not sure if that You Tube link to False Witness works. This is the two minute trailer which might be a bit simpler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYrrxoIXJqQ
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 27th October 2017, 01:25 PM   #3237
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
A Total Disaster

False Witness is not merely bad, it is incredibly boring. The only interesting aspects of this documentary are as follows...

- An interview with Paul Stombaugh that focuses on his own personal murder timeline

- A brief audio excerpt from the CID's 4/6/70 interview with inmate

- Several video snippets of inmate's 1979 hypnosis session(s)

A prime example of this film's inherent awfulness is its selective presentation of Bruce Fowler's role in this case. The film makes no reference to the fact that Fowler was a suspect in this case and that Stoeckley was the reason for Fowler being a person of interest. Stoeckley claimed that Fowler drove her and several other individuals to the crime scene in his own personal vehicle. Despite these documented facts, the film simply presents Fowler as a friend of Stoeckley. Incredible.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th October 2017 at 01:34 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 28th October 2017, 08:21 AM   #3238
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,888
I agree that False Witness is not exactly a bundle of laughs, or light entertainment. It also might not be real proof of anything. As far as I'm concerned it gives good background information to the drugs scene at Fayetteville at the time and interviews people with practical experience. It is not a work of fiction like all that Joe McGinniss Fatal Vision stuff and TV movie.

Bruce Fowler was accused of being a driver in the MacDonald murders. He was never accused of being actually involved in the murders. I suppose legally he was an accessory after the fact. During the reinvestigation in 1971 Mahon of the Army CID interviewed Fowler at the Department of Corrections, or prison, in Alabama where as usual like all the other suspects he was not open, candid. or frank with his answers. I have always thought that if he was given immunity from prosecution Fowler could spill the beans after all these years.

This is what Fowler told Mahon then:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ler_bruce.html
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 28th October 2017, 08:57 PM   #3239
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Focus, Landlordson

Leave it to the landlord to laud this piece of crap as a "fair and just account" of this case and then backtrack on his praise after the film's many flaws are put out there for public consumption. In terms of Fowler, the landlord's definition of candid and/or frank is different from any other human being on this planet. Bruce Fowler agreed to take a polygraph exam, he passed it with flying colors, and his alibi was corroborated by Stoeckley roommate Kathy Smith. Apart from Allen Mazzerolle, Fowler had the best alibi of the remaining members of the Stoeckley Seven.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th October 2017 at 08:59 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 29th October 2017, 01:42 AM   #3240
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
deleted

Last edited by desmirelle; 29th October 2017 at 01:44 AM.
desmirelle 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 05:12 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.