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 26th October 2020, 08:21 PM   #1881
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,332
The Little Viper

BYN: MacDonald advocates have no idea that Smerling played with kid gloves in regards to the sheer scope of the inculpatory evidence in this case. Brian Murtagh knows more about this evidence than anyone on the planet, yet MacDonald caught a huge break by Murtagh declining to be interviewed for this series AND Smerling never once uttering Murtagh's name.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th October 2020 at 08:47 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 26th October 2020, 08:46 PM   #1882
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,332
DNA And The Little Viper

BYN: Considering that Brian went over all 29 DNA exhibits at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, it probably was comforting to Smerling that Murtagh was not a part of WOE. Brian's exclusion from the series, provided Smerling with the confidence to make the claim that DNA evidence that was not tested by the AFIP could definitely prove who murdered Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. Murtagh didn't have the opportunity to challenge that claim, but I certainly can and will challenge Smerling's manipulation of this issue.

In 1997, the 4th Circuit Court granted MacDonald's motion for DNA testing of blood and hair evidence in this case. Judge Fox ordered a DNA protocol hearing on March 23, 1999 and decided that the testing procedures would involve both Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA analysis. In response to blood evidence, Brian Murtagh processed with Judge Fox that, "with respect to Nuclear DNA exemplars, we don't have blood samples from the victims at this point. I mean, they were sent to the third army toxicology laboratory in 1970, and apparently consumed in analysis then." The defense requested that the DNA testing be done at the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology.

Three days later, Judge Fox ordered that 15 hair exhibits be DNA tested at the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology and that the packaging of these exhibits be videotaped by the FBI. The government, however, packaged 29 DNA exhibits with a majority of those exhibits being hair exhibits. For reasons only known to defense counsel, Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell were the only DNA exemplars from known intruder suspects to be analyzed by the AFIP. The DNA exhibits and exemplars were sent to the AFIP in 2000 for testing.

Two events, however, caused a significant delay in the testing process. As a result of 9/11, the AFIP was assigned the task of identifying victims via DNA technology. The other event was the AFIP identifying soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. These events resulted in the AFIP being unable to provide extensive DNA testing in the MacDonald case until 2005. In 2006, the AFIP completed DNA testing in this case and their conclusions are as follows.

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

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

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

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

At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense put forth the argument that unsourced hairs equals hippie home invaders, but Judge Fox felt that this argument lacked merit as evidenced by his denying MacDonald a new trial in 2014. The defense then constructed a brief asking for the Smerling referenced additional DNA testing on all of the blood exhibits in this case. The 4th Circuit Court realized that this was just another ruse by MacDonald, for this was the first time that MacDonald claimed that 1 or more of the mythical intruders bled at the crime scene. Not surprisingly, the 4th Circuit Court denied MacDonald's motion for additional DNA testing in 2016.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th October 2020 at 08:50 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 2020, 09:02 AM   #1883
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

you are lucky that you are so insignificant in the world because slandering honest hardworking lawyers is NOT a good idea in general- legal action could be taken against you and frankly you'd deserve the strictest of penalties.
It is not only me who questions the integrity of Murtagh and McGinniss and even Judge Dupree. Errol Morris does exactly the same thing in that Errol Morris Wilderness of Errors book and i believe Janet Malcolm did the same thing in her book though i have never read it.

American judges seem to say things are not libel when they obviously are. I suppose the price has to be right for them, which would not apply in a civilized country. McGinniss was a dirty little Irish police spy and he should have been exposed for that before the Sarah Palin book. Murtagh was definitely involved in contempt of court and perverting the course of justice in the Lockerbie case in Scotland, even though that seems to be legal in America, like convicting the wrong man for murder.

There is a bit about all this on an internet website:

https://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/15998...justice-system

"It remains unlikely that the former Green Beret, now 68, will ever be released, even though Morris presents a powerful argument that he never should have been convicted in the first place. Critics sometimes confuse great books with important books — exceptionally written literature isn't always the same as literature that can powerfully affect society. But A Wilderness of Error is both great and important — it's a beautifully written book, and it has the potential to change the way the country thinks about a justice system that has obviously lost its way."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th October 2020 at 09:06 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 2020, 11:56 AM   #1884
Yalius
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

American judges seem to say things are not libel when they obviously are. I suppose the price has to be right for them, which would not apply in a civilized country. McGinniss was a dirty little Irish police spy and he should have been exposed for that before the Sarah Palin book. Murtagh was definitely involved in contempt of court and perverting the course of justice in the Lockerbie case in Scotland, even though that seems to be legal in America, like convicting the wrong man for murder.
Does anyone but me see the irony here?
Yalius 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 2020, 08:25 AM   #1885
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,038
Originally Posted by Yalius View Post
Does anyone but me see the irony here?
HM 's #1 product is irony.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"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 29th October 2020, 09:01 AM   #1886
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It is not only me who questions the integrity of Murtagh and McGinniss and even Judge Dupree. Errol Morris does exactly the same thing in that Errol Morris Wilderness of Errors book and i believe Janet Malcolm did the same thing in her book though i have never read it.
this is the SAME Errol Morris who admitted in the recent documentary based on his book that he is not always right, that he is and has been in error on this case? The same Errol Morris whose book has been widely discredited? That Errol Morris? roflmao!

Either way, YOU are not questioning their integrity you are accusing them of criminal activities and you need to stop it. Put up or shut up! You cannot prove it and you cannot support and defend the nonsensical allegations so knock if off!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
American judges seem to say things are not libel when they obviously are
an overly simplistic and inaccurate generalization. not true at all but of course the truth doesn't support your ignorant rambling bs that you post in re: this case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I suppose the price has to be right for them, which would not apply in a civilized country.
how would you know what is or is not civilized? you are making ignorant and inaccurate accusations and you need to knock it off. if you cannot support your ridiculousness with salient truths and without denigrating and slandering good people than you should go away. It is long past time that you should be held accountable for this ignorant and illegal activity by you. Just because we cannot make you face the consequences doesn't mean we should have to put up with you continuing make these slanders allegations and idiotic comments.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
McGinniss was a dirty little Irish police spy and he should have been exposed for that before the Sarah Palin book.
I am offended by your comments about Joe McGinniss who was a skilled author and he does not deserve your small minded bigotry. Knock it off! His ethnicity is of no concern to the subject we are discussing and I am sick and tired of you being allowed to make such comments without any sort of consequences to you - it is long past time that you should be held accountable for your actions.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh was definitely involved in contempt of court and perverting the course of justice in the Lockerbie case in Scotland, even though that seems to be legal in America, like convicting the wrong man for murder.
No, Murtagh was not involved in any Contempt of Court or he'd have been charged with it and would have paid a penalty for that....however, it is of no consequence or import to the discussions at hand. Lockerbie Scotland was a terrorist attack and took place 18 years and just under 10 months after inmate slaughtered his family. Inmate was rightfully convicted for the brutal, savage, vicious slaughter of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy. this has been proven not just beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt. deal with it.
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 29th October 2020, 10:03 AM   #1887
OneWhoCares
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 16
OMG Henri is so far off base it is almost funny. He wants to accuse EVERBODY except the cold blooded killer MacDonald of crimes. Byn63, that says more about Henri than it does anybody else. I wish Henri could at least prove what he is saying. I guess those barking dogs that were driving him crazy years ago have succeeded.
OneWhoCares 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 2020, 10:06 AM   #1888
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

No, Murtagh was not involved in any Contempt of Court or he'd have been charged with it and would have paid a penalty for that....however, it is of no consequence or import to the discussions at hand. Lockerbie Scotland was a terrorist attack and took place 18 years and just under 10 months after inmate slaughtered his family. Inmate was rightfully convicted for the brutal, savage, vicious slaughter of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy. this has been proven not just beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt. deal with it.
Murtagh is above the law. Coaching witnesses to lie in court is known as perjury, and contempt of court, and perverting the course of justice. That is a criminal offense in England, if not in Scotland or America. Murtagh never prosecuted all the real culprits in the Lockerbie case. He admits it himself now. His colleague in the MacDonald case, Blackburn, is a convicted fraudster. I think there was also another lawyer called Stroud who fell foul of the law in the initial MacDonald case investigation.

There is an interesting website with legal waffle and opinions about the MacDonald case and Lockerbie and Murtagh:

https://www.metafilter.com/122724/Ge...nald-in-prison

"That Morris thinks there is sufficient information about how the MacDonald case has been presented, how the investigation was framed, and the manner of prosecution to show that the investigation was not objective and the prosecution not as slam-dunk as one might think doesn't harm my opinion of Morris. The failure of prosecutors and prosecution teams (and judges and juries) to accept that the investigating officers might have missed something, that the state's theory of the case might be wrong, that the evidence they were given might not be trustworthy is a consistent failing of justice.

On the otherhand, everything I hear about McGinnis makes me question his judgment in pursuit of a "great" story about Jeffrey MacDonald.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:12 AM on December 10, 2012 [1 favorite]"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th October 2020 at 10:09 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 2020, 12:52 PM   #1889
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,038
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
everything I hear about McGinnis makes me question his judgment
Proving my most recent post.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"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 Yesterday, 03:18 AM   #1890
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh is above the law. Coaching witnesses to lie in court is known as perjury, and contempt of court, and perverting the course of justice.
Murtagh is not above the law nor is he guilty of suborning perjury. Once again you are accusing a good, law-abiding man of a crime without any proof. you have nothing to substantiate your ridiculous allegations. I am sick and tired of you being allowed to make such accusations and not being held accountable. SLANDER is against the law.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That is a criminal offense in England, if not in Scotland or America.
yes it is a criminal offense in America, one which, if your ridiculous accusations had any merit, would have been prosecuted. Such charges were not made because they are not true.

What the laws are in Scotland is irrelevant to this case, and actually to the Lockerbie Bombing. There terrorists were tried in INTERNATIONAL COURT not Scottish courts. However, that issue is beside the point, it has no bearing on the case we are discussing here. It is not relevant.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
....His colleague in the MacDonald case, Blackburn, is a convicted fraudster.
Blackburn had legal trouble years after inmate was tried and convicted. His issues are unrelated to inmate's case and are irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

HOWEVER, unlike inmate, Jim Blackburn admitted his wrong doing and faced/served his time. Jim Blackburn is a much better man than inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting website with legal waffle and opinions about the MacDonald case and Lockerbie and Murtagh:
LOL, once again you use the term "waffle" to describe the nonsense you are posting. Waffle is full of holes and the persons quoted are by no means legal experts. Morris doesn't really believe inmate is innocent and he admitted he left some pretty large holes in his book WOE which has been fully discredited by both the 2012 Court Hearing and the recent WOE documentary.

Once again the terrorist attacks over Lockerbie Scotland have absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand - the terrorists attacked over 18 years after inmate butchered his family.
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, 05:09 AM   #1891
OneWhoCares
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 16
Henri - Please try to stay focused! I am shaking my head at your rambling mis-information.
OneWhoCares 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, 05:22 AM   #1892
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Coaching witnesses to lie in court is known as perjury, and contempt of court
No it's not, you clown. Coaching witness would be subornation of perjury (like Bill Clinton did several times, along with multiple times committing perjury itself).

It's also likely not "contempt of court" if it occurs outside of court. But, lawyers do have special duties as officers of the court and suborning perjury could, in (almost?) all jurisdictions, get an attorney disbarred.

Bill Clinton resigned from being able to appear before the Supreme Court before he could be disbarred. He accepted a 5 year suspension of his law license in Arkansas. He's never reapplied, because he'd never get it back. Courts hate perjury, esp. from lawyers.

In certain cases, the lawyer could even be opening themselves up to being charged with the same crimes as the defendant (or conspiracy to commit those crimes).

There's zero chance Murtagh risked that in this case. He didn't need to, he had other overwhelming evidence. Even teflon Clinton got punished for that, after skating on so many other crimes, many even more serious. So, nope, there's just no way Murtagh would suborn perjury, it did not happen.

Last edited by ScottPletcher; Yesterday at 05:28 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 Yesterday, 06:12 AM   #1893
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,332
You Can't Hide From That Pesky DNA

HENRI: Much to the chagrin of MacDonald advocates, the inculpatory evidence presented at the 1979 trial has stood the test of time and you can't hide from those pesky DNA test results. Again, considering that Brian Murtagh went over all 29 DNA exhibits at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, it probably was comforting to Marc Smerling that Murtagh was not a part of WOE. Brian's exclusion from the series, provided Smerling with the confidence to make the claim that DNA evidence that was not tested by the AFIP could definitely prove who murdered Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. Murtagh didn't have the opportunity to challenge that claim, but I certainly can and will challenge Smerling's manipulation of this issue.

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

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

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

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

At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense put forth the argument that unsourced hairs equals hippie home invaders, but Judge Fox felt that this argument lacked merit as evidenced by his denying MacDonald a new trial in 2014. The defense then constructed a brief asking for the Smerling referenced additional DNA testing on all of the blood exhibits in this case. The 4th Circuit Court realized that this was just another ruse by MacDonald, for this was the first time that MacDonald claimed that 1 or more of the mythical intruders bled at the crime scene. Not surprisingly, the 4th Circuit Court denied MacDonald's motion for additional DNA testing in 2016.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 06:19 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 Yesterday, 10:20 AM   #1894
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI:
At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense put forth the argument that unsourced hairs equals hippie home invaders, but Judge Fox felt that this argument lacked merit as evidenced by his denying MacDonald a new trial in 2014. The defense then constructed a brief asking for the Smerling referenced additional DNA testing on all of the blood exhibits in this case. The 4th Circuit Court realized that this was just another ruse by MacDonald, for this was the first time that MacDonald claimed that 1 or more of the mythical intruders bled at the crime scene. Not surprisingly, the 4th Circuit Court denied MacDonald's motion for additional DNA testing in 2016.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's a load of fabricated bunkum and you know it.
Henri McPhee is online now   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, 10:39 AM   #1895
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,707
All this has been debated before on this forum. It's not me who has the wrong judgment I don't believe Colette had anything to do with murdering any of the little girls. How the clowns in the Army CID and 4th Circuit and Supreme Court can honestly believe that I just do not know. Similarly Byn and JTF and ScottPletcher and Bob Stevenson have been remarkably silent about that theory without facts as well:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pp=40&page=14

Henri McPhee 26th January 2014 08:32 AM

The point is that Stombaugh's testimony is what convicted Dr. MacDonald and that testimony was speculation. It was hardly hard evidence which is what was needed. You must speak only to facts in a deadly place like a court and not to opinions, unless you are a real expert.

Stombaugh thought Colette hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush. Army CID agent Shaw thought Colette murdered the two little girls and CID agent Kearns thought Kim wet the bed, with no supporting evidence at all.

Even Judge Dupree mentioned at the trial this matter of speculation from the 1975 Grand Jury. Dupree mentioned in court in 1979 to Murtagh that it was 'Incompetent' which seems to be the legal term and that Murtagh should know that. Unfortunately after twenty years in charge of the case Judge Fox is still unaware of the irregularities at the MacDonald trial.

This is part of the speculation and load of bull from the MacDonald Grand Jury in about 1975. No wonder a Grand Jury can prosecute and convict a ham sandwich.:

MR. WOERHEIDE: That, of course, is pure speculation.

A Speculation, right.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Well, we can only speculate. We know what the evidence of the threads and the fibers and the garments and the sheet and the bed things and the club and the knives tells us, but you have to speculate as to, you know, just the details of how it was done.

JUROR: I would like your speculation on why you feel that his pajama bottoms probably had O type blood. I hadn't thought of that.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Because Kris was stabbed in her front and she was stabbed on her back, and she was stabbed very deeply, both on the front and the back, and you will notice that her body was down here over the edge of the bed, and there's a pool of blood on the floor and I think he sat on the bed, and he had her on his lap, across his lap while he was stabbing her.
Now, that's--you know--speculation, too.
But I think you would find O blood on his pajama bottoms if you had the pajama bottoms.

JUROR: Mr. Woerheide.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Yes, sir?

JUROR: As much blood as was in that house, if any intruders was in there, wouldn't they have stepped in there and let a shoe print other than a bare footprint?

MR. WOERHEIDE: I think, you know, especially if some intruder was running around, there was--there were quantities of blood, and it's very likely. It's very likely.

JUROR: As much blood as is in there, they would have had blood on them somewhere.

JUROR: In your speculation, then, Mr. Woerheide, assuming things went sort of this way, that Colette had anything to do with any of the killings whatsoever?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 10:41 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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, 10:54 AM   #1896
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
In certain cases, the lawyer could even be opening themselves up to being charged with the same crimes as the defendant (or conspiracy to commit those crimes).

There's zero chance Murtagh risked that in this case. He didn't need to, he had other overwhelming evidence. Even teflon Clinton got punished for that, after skating on so many other crimes, many even more serious. So, nope, there's just no way Murtagh would suborn perjury, it did not happen.
The point is you chump is that is that MacDonald was convicted on Murtagh's bad science. The same bad science was used in the Lockerbie case to convict a probable innocent man. Certainly the real culprits in both case were never prosecuted by Murtagh. How much money did Murtagh pay the witnesses to tell lies in court?:

https://inteltoday.org/2020/07/27/lo...er-xi-jaccuse/

“Exactly the same forensic scientists who produced the wrongful conviction of Guiseppe Conlon, the Maguire family and of Danny McNamee, and had been stood down for the role they played. Yet here they were. Without them, there wouldn’t have been a prosecution, far less a conviction in Lockerbie. (…) What shocked me most was that I thought that all that had been gone through on Guildford and Birmingham, the one thing that had been achieved was that nobody would be convicted again on bad science. But yet in the Lockerbie case, it isn’t just the same bad science, it is the same bad scientists.”

Gareth Peirce — Solicitor for the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 11:00 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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, 01:37 PM   #1897
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,038
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All this has been debated before on this forum.
And yet you continue to spout your love-struck nonsense in defense of a...thing...that murdered his family..
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"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 Yesterday, 04:59 PM   #1898
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,332
Man On An Island

HENRI: For the past 17 years, you've taken the man on an island position that every member of the Stoeckley Seven were involved in this murder either as a witness or an active participant. This indicates that you derive enjoyment from stirring the pot on this thread and have no real interest in discussing the evidence in this case. If you did have a real interest in discussing the merits of the potential involvement of the Stoeckley Seven, you would have produced salient rebuttals to the following facts.

1) Helena Stoeckley produced a written, signed, audiotaped, and videotaped confession, but she also recanted each of these confessions.

2) Cathy Perry produced a signed confession, but later (e.g., 6 months) recanted that confession.

3) Suspects Bruce Fowler and Greg Mitchell passed polygraph exams administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine.

4) The CID obtained hair and print exemplars from Fowler, Mitchell, and Perry, but none of the exemplars matched hairs and fingerprints found at the crime scene.

5) Fowler and Allen Mazzerolle both had airtight alibis in regards to their whereabouts on 2/17/70. Stoeckley roommate Kathy Smith spent the night with Fowler at his residence and Mazzerolle was in jail.

6) Detective Jim Gaddis collected hair and print exemplars from Stoeckley, but none of the exemplars matched hairs and fingerprints found at the crime scene.

7) Suspects Don Harris, Dwight Smith, and Allen Mazzerolle were interviewed and cleared by the FBI.

8) None of the 29 DNA exhibits tested by the AFIP matched the DNA profile of Mitchell or Stoeckley.

9) MacDonald's defense team did not request that the FBI collect DNA exemplars from Harris, Smith, Mazzerolle, Fowler, and Perry.

10) Despite the mass of hairs/fibers/prints found at the crime scene, none of this trace evidence was definitely linked to a member or members of the Stoeckley Seven.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 05:06 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 02:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.