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 19th September 2013, 07:33 PM   #321
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Blood And B.S.

It seems that Henriboy has forgotten about the massive injuries inflicted upon Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. These injuries resulted in extensive internal AND external bleeding. The shag carpet in the master bedroom, MacDonald's pajama top, and the bedding used to transport Colette were all soaked in Colette's blood.

The shag carpet in the master bedroom and the hallway floor contained a number of blood spots in Kimmie's blood type. Her bedding was soaked in her blood due to the stab wounds that penetrated her neck and the blunt trauma force wounds to her face. The deep stab wounds to Kristen's back and chest resulted in her blood running down the side of her bed and forming a pool next to her bed.

Despite being the focus of their murderous frenzy, the mythical home invaders played nice with MacDonald and decided to inflict superficial wounds on him. There is also a strong argument for this being the worst group of drug addicts in the history of true crime. Despite chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," this group ignored MacDonald's impressive stockpile of drugs and needles in the hall closet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th September 2013 at 07:46 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 September 2013, 07:54 PM   #322
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Didn't MacDonald also claim that he was stabbed and bludgeoned multiple times, even though his physical exam put the lie to that? I seem to recall Mildred Kassab being somewhat startled by the claim, since, as she put it, he didn't even have Meurochrome (sp?) on him at the hospital.

BTW, Henri, MacDonald DID bleed, as I recall - on the floor outside the cabinet where the surgical gloves were kept. Imagine that.

It's also interesting to me that a Green Beret could get into a violent physical altercation with several intruders...and yet greeting cards on a table in the adjoining dining area remained upright, even with an uneven floor. That's fantastic. Hallmark could almost use that as a promotional edge. "American Greetings fall down, but ours don't even wobble."

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Despite being the focus of their murderous frenzy, the mythical home invaders played nice with MacDonald and decided to inflict superficial wounds on him. There is also a strong argument for this being the worst group of drug addicts in the history of true crime. Despite chanting, "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs," this group ignored MacDonald's impressive stockpile of drugs and needles in the hall closet.
If it weren't so tragic, it would almost be laughable, wouldn't it? A group of invaders, wasted on drugs, tiptoe down a residential street of an Army base. slip unnoticed into an officer's apartment, light candles, find and snap on surgical gloves, overkill the officer's wife and children while chanting something straight out of the Manson Family Handbook, write on the headboard, and then slip back out just as secretly. ALL without making hardly any noise. YET they leave alive the one person who really posed a threat to them, with one very neat incision in the midst of their wild stabbing rampage, and, while they manage to locate surgical gloves in this strange apartment, they completely miss the cache of drugs. Potent drugs.

Sure. I can't imagine why anyone would disbelieve Jeffrey MacDonald.

Last edited by desertgal; 19th September 2013 at 08:02 PM.
desertgal 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 September 2013, 12:20 AM   #323
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Americans are an emotional people rather like most Britishers are sentimental softheads. It's a bit like all this money printing is being paid for by others.

Just because the two little girls suffered horrific injuries doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald did it. The Army CID failed to photograph Dr. MacDonald's injuries until many months later when his injuries had practically healed . That was poor police work.

A military policeman knelt on the pajama top when he first arrived at the scene which must have shed pajama fibers all over the place, and even under bodies. We don't know for certain if any bodies were moved at the same time. There was no proper crime scene manager or protection of the crime scene. Segal once remarked that the MacDonald case crime scene is now used in police training schools as an example of how not to do it.

A complete stranger sat on the couch before it had been examined for blood spots or pajama fibers. It's just like saying Dr. MacDonald could not have made the emergency phone call because none of his fingerprints were found on the phone.

The surgical glove fragment was described by a world expert at the trial to be "exceedingly unlikely" to have come from a MacDonald surgical glove. The bath mat was moved when Dr. MacDonald was in hospital.

Hairs and fibers have been described as junk science in the past. It's exceedingly weak evidence and in the MacDonald case there are doubts about accuracy. Browning of the Army CID at first described the blonde synthetic hair-like hairs as female which can't be scientifically correct. The FBI lab technician Kathy Bond talked about "pajama-like" fibers which isn't a definite opinion to me.
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 September 2013, 12:30 AM   #324
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
This matter of the bloody fiber entwined which JTF keeps going on about was discussed in an article about ten years ago:

"The government added a new evidence claim long after the murders, at the 1974 grand jury investigation, an FBI Lab Technician introduced new evidence he claimed was delivered to him, that year, in a vial, marked as "part of the debris evidence collected by the CID from the bloody bedspread at the crime scene, on the bedroom floor." He then introduced a bloody hair matching Colette’s, allegedly found entwined with a long sewing thread, said to be from MacDonald’s pajama top. (The original lab note seems to suggest that the entangled items had already been mounted on a slide. A general note written later however indicates otherwise.)This was viewed as damning evidence that Supports the government’s claim that Jeffrey and Colette had a vicious fight.It is a common forensic requirement for photographs to be taken of the hair and thread before separating them, but the FBI Lab Technician did not do this. He washed away the alleged blood on the hair to make a microscopic examination. So the only "proof" that a bloody hair was entwined with a fiber is solely based on the word of the FBI Lab Technician.There is something drastically wrong with this claim. In previous years, numerous examinations of the debris from the bedspread were recorded by the Army CID. These lab notes revealed a bloody hair was among the debris found, but the hair matched Kimberly’s hair, not Colette’s. The FBI found only one hair matching Colette in the debris from the bedspread. As documented, the CID had already found, examined and cataloged that hair. In a deposition prior to the Army hearing in 1970, the CID Technician who controlled this evidence explained how he washed hairs taken from the bedspread in preparation for microscopic analysis. So the question is, how did entwinement develop? If the bloody hair was Colette’s, why was it identified as Kimberly’s? If the hair was washed by the CID, how did it remain bloody for the FBI?"
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 September 2013, 01:17 AM   #325
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
It's also interesting to me that a Green Beret could get into a violent physical altercation with several intruders...and yet greeting cards on a table in the adjoining dining area remained upright, even with an uneven floor. That's fantastic. Hallmark could almost use that as a promotional edge. "American Greetings fall down, but ours don't even wobble."
All this accusations about the Valentine cards seem to have come from Fred Kassab again after he had visited the crime scene and he wondered why it wasn't a complete scene of destruction. It's just more manufactured evidence. If there is a bar room brawl somewhere the paintings on the wall don't automatically fall down.
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 September 2013, 06:11 AM   #326
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,146
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All this accusations about the Valentine cards seem to have come from Fred Kassab again after he had visited the crime scene and he wondered why it wasn't a complete scene of destruction. It's just more manufactured evidence. If there is a bar room brawl somewhere the paintings on the wall don't automatically fall down.
These are the kinds of confrontations between MacDonald and the alleged intruders that seem likely to me:
1. The intruders and MacDonald engage in a desperate violent fight crashing into furniture and walls, resulting in upturned and broken furniture with the items that had been on the furniture strewn about the room. There might have been items used as make shift clubs or defense against knife attacks.

If a knife was used by the attackers one would expect to see slashing type wounds and stabbing wounds with widened holes created as MacDonald moved about. If the attackers were experienced knife fighters at least some of the knife wounds would have probably suggested that the attacker held the knife with the blade up. If the attackers gained the upper hand in such a fight and had attempted to incapacitate MacDonald one would have expected lethal or near lethal wounds when they cut or choked MacDonald in a way that they would have been sure he couldn't recover and attack them.

2. The attackers gain the upper hand immediately by grabbing and holding him. An attack on a single individual, even a green beret trained soldier, by multiple strong individuals might have subdued MacDonald before MacDonald could put up much of a defense. If this happened there might have been injuries to MacDonald where he was grabbed and held. And after MacDonald was subdued once again one would have expected lethal or near lethal wounds as they cut or choke MacDonald in a way that would guarantee he couldn't recover and attack them.

3. The attackers gain the upper hand immediately by knocking MacDonald out with a club or other method. Once again one would have expected lethal or near lethal wounds as they cut or choke MacDonald in a way that would guarantee he couldn't recover and attack them.
MacDonald didn't have wounds consistent with any of these kinds of confrontations. From my perspective, this kind of argument falls short of definitive proof that MacDonald was guilty, but it is evidence that strongly suggests that he is. You [Henri McPhee] seem to disagree. Could you describe a confrontation between MacDonald and the intruders where the expected or plausible outcome is that he sustains the kind of wounds that he had?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2013, 07:46 AM   #327
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
It looks as though Dr. MacDonald was assaulted with an ice pick and some sort of baseball bat. He mentions being punched as well.
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 September 2013, 08:06 AM   #328
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
The problem with all this pajama fiber stuff which is the main plank of JTF's theory is that there are doubts as to what was described as pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers. There were many fibers of various colors found at the murder scene most of which were described as household debris.

Browning of the Army CID lab made mistakes. He once described one hair as a human hair which later turned out to be horse hair. As I have mentioned before Kathy Bond of the FBI described "pajama-like" fibers which doesn't sound beyond reasonable doubt to me. The forensic significance of all this is that Blackburn swayed the jury into thinking Dr. MacDonald used the wooden club on his family. The mystery unidentified black wool fibers on the club were never reported to the judge or jury or defense at the time of the 1979 trial. A perhaps more simple explanation about all this comes from an opinion on the internet in 1999:

"Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps,
and on the murder club found out back.
In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact black wool fibers that were similiar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
witheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-reexamined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debris" and were not
forensically significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps the fibers are simply household
debris.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th September 2013 at 08:16 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2013, 08:14 AM   #329
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
This matter of whether pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with Army CID lab technician Browning:

MR. EISMAN: But he is giving a chemical analysis saying that the thread was grossly similar to that found in the pajama top. This line of questioning merely goes to the fact that this could have been grossly similar to thread found on any other piece of clothing manufactured anywhere else. Since this witness does not know the name of the manufacturer, does not know whether or not there could have been other garments in the house that night, who had this thread, he cannot say to a scientific certainty that this particular thread came from this particular garment.
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 September 2013, 08:17 AM   #330
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,146
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks as though Dr. MacDonald was assaulted with an ice pick and some sort of baseball bat. He mentions being punched as well.
Thanks for the response, so how do you see this attack happening?

Surely he didn't sit or stand passively as they assaulted him. Did they knock him out first and then make the cut between his ribs? Was he standing still while they punctured him with the ice pick? Did he have the kind of defensive wounds that one would expect from this kind of attack?

You have clearly studied the case in great deal. I haven't and my questions are genuine. It seems like you must have thought about what was the nature of an attack that is consistent with the kind of wounds that MacDonald had and with what he said about the attack and the attackers?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2013, 10:06 AM   #331
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Thanks for the response, so how do you see this attack happening?

You have clearly studied the case in great deal. I haven't and my questions are genuine. It seems like you must have thought about what was the nature of an attack that is consistent with the kind of wounds that MacDonald had and with what he said about the attack and the attackers?
The MacDonald case is a bit like the Ramsey case or the Darlie Routier case in that it is a difficult murder. I can understand that an average person or average juror is not likely to make a profound study of the case. Probably they are being much more interested in beer football, and house price inflation. When I first became interested in the case I made some glaring errors.

I am dubious about all this so-called hair and fiber evidence in any case. The trouble is it can be the only evidence there is. That was particularly the case before the time of DNA evidence. If there is going to be blood evidence used to convict then it should be presented to the court by a qualified blood expert who can give his expert opinion.

In the Ramsey case the Ramseys were asked for the clothes they wore at the time of the murder about a year after the murder and then magically and miraculously similar and consistent fibers were 'found' in incriminating and entwined places by Dr. Henry Lee. It could be forensic fraud.

Dr. MacDonald never really changed his story. This is an example from his April 1970 interview with the Army CID. He mentions here a blade but I have always understood his injuries were consistent with an ice pick:

"And I went to sleep on the couch.
And then the next thing I know I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also. And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed.
So, I don't know if I really said anything or I was getting ready to say something. This happened real fast. You know, when you talk about it, it sounds like it took forever; but it didn't take forever.
And so, I sat up; and at first I thought it was--I just could see three people, and I don't know if I--If I heard the girl first--or I think I saw her first. I think two of the men separated sort of at the end of my couch, and I keep--all I saw was some people really.
And this guy started walking down between the coffee table and the couch, and he raised something over his head and just sort of then--sort of all together--I just got a glance of this girl with kind of a light on her face. I don't know if it was a flashlight or a candle, but it looked to me like she was holding something. And I just remember that my instinctive thought was that "she's holding a candle. What the hell is she holding a candle for?"
But she said, before I was hit the first time, "Kill the pigs. Acid's groovy."
Now, that's all--that's all I think I heard before I was hit the first time, and the guy hit me in the head. So I was knocked back on the couch, and then I started struggling to get up, and I could hear it all then--Now I could--Maybe it's really, you know--I don't know if I was repeating to myself what she just said or if I kept hearing it, but I kept--I heard, you know, "Acid is groovy. Kill the pigs."
And I started to struggle up; and I noticed three men now; and I think the girl was kind of behind them, either on the stairs or at the foot of the couch behind them. And the guy on my left was a colored man, and he hit me again; but at the same time, you know, I was kind of struggling. And these two men, I thought, were punching me at the same time. Then I--I remember thinking to myself that--see, I work out with the boxing gloves sometimes. I was then--and I kept--"Geeze, that guy throws a hell of a punch," because he punched me in the chest, and I got this terrible pain in my chest.
And so, I was struggling, and I got hit on the shoulder or the side of the head again, and so I turned and I--and I grabbed this guy's whatever it was. I thought it was a baseball bat at the time. And I had--I was holding it. I was kind of working up it to hold onto it.
Meanwhile, both these guys were kind of hitting me, and all this time I was hearing screams. That's what I can't figure out, so--let's see, I was holding--so, I saw the--and all I got a glimpse was, was some stripes. I told you, I think, they were E6 stripes. There was one bottom rocker and it was an army jacket, and that man was a colored man, and the two men, other men, were white.
And I didn't really notice too much about them. And so I kind of struggled, and I was kind of off balance, 'cause I was still halfway on the couch and half off, and I was holding onto this thing. And I kept getting this pain, either in--you know, like sort of in my stomach, and he kept hitting me in the chest.
And so, I let go of the club; and I was grappling with him and I was holding his hand in my hand. And I saw, you know, a blade. I didn't know what it was; I just saw something that looked like a blade at the time.
And so, then I concentrated on him. We were kind of struggling in the hallway right there at the end of the couch; and then really the next distinctive thing, I thought that--I thought that I noticed that--I saw some legs, you know, that--not covered--like I'd saw the top of some boots. And I thought that I saw knees as I was falling.
But it wasn't what was in the papers that I saw white boots. I never saw white, muddy boots. I saw--saw some knees on the top of boots, and I told, I think, the investigators, I thought they were brown, as a matter of fact.
And the next thing I remember, though, was lying on the hallway floor, and I was freezing cold and it was very quiet. And my teeth were chattering, and I went down and--to the bedroom."
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 September 2013, 11:26 AM   #332
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,146
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...
[MacDonald's description of the attack]
What do you think of that story? Can you see how somebody would be very suspicious of MacDonald given the nature of his injuries when that is the story MacDonald told about the attack?

One part of the story seemed credible to me. I can imagine an attack where MacDonald is hit by a club and the impact eliminates his ability to defend himself. There are some problems though. In MacDonald's description the fight continues. At this point the combatants are engaged in a life and death struggle. How would you have expected the attacker with the bat to proceed? I have no doubt what I would have done. I would have used the bat to continue the attack until the victim was rendered immobile or I would have waited for the other attackers to finish the victim off. Obviously the attacker with the bat didn't proceed. The injuries to MacDonald would have been profound and obvious. That means the man with the bat must have allowed the other attackers to proceed. But are the injuries to MacDonald consistent with this second kind of attack? It doesn't seem like it to me. Here I would have expected deep slashing wounds if they were using a knife or multiple stab wounds from the ice pick as the second round of attackers took advantage of the fact that MacDonald was stunned to finish him off or at least injure him so seriously injured that there was no chance of that MacDonald would be capable of continuing the fight.

Like I said above, I don't think these kind of arguments are proof of MacDonald's guilt by themselves (especially when they are put forth by an arm chair detective such as myself). But does the nature of MacDonald's injuries given his story give you some reason to doubt your idea that he is innocent?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2013, 02:01 PM   #333
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
You have to really wallop somebody in the head to knock them out. That kind of hit leaves obvious marks including bumps, contusions, split skin, and certainly hemorrhaging that can be seen on skull X-ray. MacDonald says he fell unconscious in the hallway but there are no injuries consistent with him being knocked out or losing enough blood to be rendered unconscious (in which case he wouldn't have waked up again, anyway).
Tiktaalik 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 September 2013, 02:24 PM   #334
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,146
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
You have to really wallop somebody in the head to knock them out. That kind of hit leaves obvious marks including bumps, contusions, split skin, and certainly hemorrhaging that can be seen on skull X-ray. MacDonald says he fell unconscious in the hallway but there are no injuries consistent with him being knocked out or losing enough blood to be rendered unconscious (in which case he wouldn't have waked up again, anyway).
I assumed that this was the case which is why I hypothesized an impact that would have only temporarily stunned MacDonald. From my personal experience I believe such an impact is possible. If I received a blow like that in a full out fight I would expect to have reduced capacity to fight at least for a moment which would give my attacker the opportunity to injure me with little or no resistance from me for that moment.

But I would also expect my attacker to realize that I was not completely incapacitated and unless he took advantage of the opportunity my momentary incapacitation provided I might recover and continue to offer resistance. The problem I suggested with this scenario is that the wounds on MacDonald don't seem to indicate that the attacker made a serious effort to finish him off after he was stunned or that MacDonald retained enough of his ability to resist and that a serious life and death fight ensued.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2013, 07:54 PM   #335
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Timeline

Henri certainly has a right to his opinion, but his posts haven't changed for a decade. He is a conspiracy theorist who simply regurgitates the opinions of MacDonald advocates and ignores the mass of evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. When you stick to undiluted fact, this case is quite simple.

Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours of three counts of murder.

At trial, the prosecution presented 1,100 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file.

All of the SOURCED evidence in this case points to MacDonald as the perp. This includes DNA, blood, fiber, hair, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence.

No SOURCED evidence from a known intruder suspect was found at the crime scene. No DNA, no hair, no fingerprints, no fibers, nothing, nada, zip.

For the past 8 years, I've posed a challege to MacDonald advocates and that is to produce a murder timeline based solely on the physical evidence collected at the crime scene. Nobody, including Henri, has taken me up on the challenge. Joe McGinniss, Brian Murtagh, and Paul Stombaugh had no problem creating a murder timeline demonstrating MacDonald's guilt. The following is my murder timeline.

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

Last edited by JTF; 20th September 2013 at 07:57 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 21st September 2013, 10:34 AM   #336
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
You have to really wallop somebody in the head to knock them out. That kind of hit leaves obvious marks including bumps, contusions, split skin, and certainly hemorrhaging that can be seen on skull X-ray. MacDonald says he fell unconscious in the hallway but there are no injuries consistent with him being knocked out or losing enough blood to be rendered unconscious (in which case he wouldn't have waked up again, anyway).
That's a bit unfair. I can understand the doctors at the local military hospital not regarding Dr. MacDonald's injuries as life threatening. They were probably used to terrible battle horrors of war injuries and fatal car crashes. There is no evidence that Dr. MacDonald was given a skull X-ray at first. That was disgraceful treatment. I think if it had resulted in brain damage from a hairline fractured skull he would have had a medical negligence claim.

It was only when Dr. MacDonald showed symtoms of serious breathing difficulties that they diagnosed the punctured lung. You would have thought that the diagnosis would have been almost immediate in a case like that.

The matter is discussed in an article on the internet:

"Interestingly, MacDonald's wounds were never photographed, while those his family suffered were rigorously documented. Womack Hospital photographer John McCaffrey waited for a request to record MacDonald's wounds, but it never came. "Somebody goofed," he said.

However, eye witness accounts and medical records describe injuries to MacDonald that go far beyond those minimized by the prosecution.

For example, the government claimed that MacDonald had only a small bruise to the head. Doctors Paul Manson and Robert McGann both observed and testified to seeing " a large contusion" over his left mid-forehead area, and another one over the right temple, slightly obscured by the hairline.

Friend and fellow officer Ron Harrison, when interviewed by the CID, stated that when he went to the hospital, he not only observed the bruises on the front of MacDonald's head, but lumps at the back of the head, and numerous wounds to the chest, arms and abdomen, and what he believed to be ice pick wounds to the neck.

Dr. Straub, at Womack Hospital, examined Jeffrey MacDonald's abdominal wound. He testified at the Army hearing that he "spread it apart, as I recall, and saw that it had gone through a great deal of the muscle of the abdominal wall."

The government made a point of claiming MacDonald suffered no wounds to the hands or arms. But Dr. Severt Jacobson, also of Womack Hospital, described to the grand jury in 1974 cuts he observed to MacDonald's forearms and hand "from a very sharp object". The government also claimed there were only superficial wounds to the chest, other than the stab wound, and no ice pick wounds. But Dr. Jacobson told of seeing four puncture wounds to the upper chest, and multiple punctures elsewhere (arms, abdomen). The puncture wounds were corroborated by Dr. Robert McGann and officer Ron Harrison.

Dr. Frank E. Gemma, an Army surgeon wrote a report on MacDonald's injuries upon his admission to Womack Hospital. He, too, noted "several small puncture wounds that may have come from an instrument such as an icepick."

In order to protect their scenario of Colette injuring her husband in self-defense, the government ignored any and all mention of ice pick wounds in the records. It would have been implausible for Colette to have been wielding not only a knife and a club, but an ice pick, as well. The presence of three different types of wounds from three different types of weapons gave credence to MacDonald's account of multiple intruders.

Considering all the statements from medical personnel, hospital records and eye witnesses, MacDonald summarily suffered at least seventeen stab wounds to the hands, arms, and torso, stabbings through the muscle in the bicep and abdomen, a stab wound to the lung requiring a chest tube and two surgeries, and multiple contusions to the head. He required resuscitation at the murder scene. He could not save his family because he was knocked unconscious. (see Q&A section for more on this subject.)

Colette was found with a piece of gouged skin lodged under one of her fingernails. Kimberley, Kristen and their mother were all found with foreign hairs, unmatched to their father, under their nails. There were no scratch or gouge marks found on Jeffrey MacDonald."
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 September 2013, 11:54 AM   #337
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Your definition of 'stab wound' must be considerably different than mine. Only one of MacDonald's wounds required any treatment at all. One of my employees just bumped his head on a tree branch while hiking. He required eight staples in his scalp.
Tiktaalik 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 September 2013, 02:32 PM   #338
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Fictional Intruder Tale

The case record is clear on the vast difference in the number and severity of wounds inflicted upon the MacDonald family. Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen were overkilled whereas inmate received a large bruise over his left eye, superficial stab wounds of the bicep, the webbing between two fingers, and his abdomen. Inmate also had 4 pin prick marks on his chest and several on his abdomen. The only penetrating wound he had was on the right side of his chest near his armpit.

As they lay inert, inmate's wife and two children received multiple penetrating stab wounds and Colette/Kimmie were stuck several times with a 31 inch piece of wood. The autopsy report indicates that had she lived, Colette would have been "cosmetically disfigured" and a piece of bone was protruding through Kimmie's cheek. Kristen was stabbed 33 times and two of those wounds penetrated her heart.

Anyone who places importance on critical thinking is quick to dismiss inmate's ridiculous story. It defies all logic that a band of drug-crazed home invaders would slaughter a pregnant woman and two small children, yet leave the target of their invasion VERY much alive. As a matter of fact, as his family was being placed in body bags, inmate's vital signs were normal at the Womack ER.

Henri, still waiting on that timeline.

Last edited by JTF; 21st September 2013 at 02:37 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 22nd September 2013, 12:41 AM   #339
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
Your definition of 'stab wound' must be considerably different than mine. Only one of MacDonald's wounds required any treatment at all. One of my employees just bumped his head on a tree branch while hiking. He required eight staples in his scalp.
It looks as though your employee was properly diagnosed and properly treated. There have been a couple of cases in my own area where hospitals have been sued for medical negligence when fractured skulls leading to brain damage have not been diagnosed in time.

Dr. MacDonald was given a chest X-ray but no action seemed to have been taken until it looked as though he was dying. From the testimony of the doctors it looks as though they thought the injuries could have been self-inflicted and so the full extent of his injuries were not properly reported or diagnosed. It's lucky for him that he seems to have the constitution of an ox.

I think part of the trouble is that being unconscious for any length of time is not something familiar to doctors. The police, who are not medically qualified, immediately become suspicious and jump to conclusions that the victim is lying.

There is a case on the internet of a woman whose husband had been murdered. She told the police she was unconscious for 45 minutes. She was immediately arrested and prosecuted because the police said they had never come across a case like it before.

I think it's crazy. It's poor police work and poor medical work. It's like for some reaon we now all have to go to war to support al-Qaeda and the Taliban and the banks and billionaires. It doesn't make sense.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 09:09 AM   #340
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Wimp, Coward, Child Killer

HENRI: MacDonald was neither dying nor does he have an ox-like constitution. MacDonald's vital signs were normal upon arrival at Womack and considering that a two year old girl and a pregnant woman put up more of a fight than a Green Beret with boxing experience, one has to categorize MacDonald as being a bit of a wimp and/or coward. Still waiting on that timeline.

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 22nd September 2013, 10:06 AM   #341
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Helena Stoeckley and the rest of the gang should have been asked about a timeline. They all seemed to be at a restaurant before the murders and they were seen at a restaurant after the murders. The time of the emergency phone call is official knowledge. Dr. MacDonald wasn't looking at his alarm clocks at the time.

I don't think Wade Smith's cross-examination of the doctors at the military hospital was particularly competent. It seemed to be a highly technical discussion about whether there was a punctured lung or not. The doctors seemed to reply that they believed it was self-inflicted but they wouldn't have done it themselves because of the proximity to the liver and some dangerous little arteries in the area. It wasn't exactly simplicity and I think the North Carolina jury didn't know what he was on about.

The matter of unconsciousness was hardly mentioned, which I think is important because I think the police and jury thought he was lying about unconsciousness. The matter was mentioned at the trial for about a few seconds with Dr Podgorny:

Q Moving along then, Dr. Podgorny, away from the things that you have examined and into some other material, let me ask you a question concerning head trauma and ask you to state whether or not you can tell the jury basically what causes unconsciousness in a human being.
A There are several reasons for unconsciousness. Two of the most common -- one is secondary to an injury to the head, a blow on the head, and the other would be more biochemical related to the lack of sugar in the blood.
Q Would you state whether or not unconsciousness is always related to any external evidence of trauma?
A No; it is not.
Q Would you explain what you mean by that answer?
A External evidence of trauma on the head relates to what can be seen or felt by fingers over the scalp, the skull, the face, the upper extent of the neck. None of that as such has any relationship or a causative effect then with unconsciousness. That is only a reflection of a certain mechanical injury.
Unconsciousness results from, as best I can put in lay terms, a shaking up of the brain, a movement of the brain, which then temporarily knocks out the portions of the brain that we use for conscious thinking, awareness.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 10:16 AM   #342
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
The matter was discussed at the 1979 trial with Dr. Jacobson:

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Dr. Jacobson, you are not suggesting -- are you -- that Dr. MacDonald intentionally inflicted any wounds that you have described on the chart?
A No.
Q As a matter of fact, you saw no evidence of that; did you?
A I don't know.
Q You don't know whether you did. You didn't see anything that would cause you to believe that; did you?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SMITH:
Q At the Article 32 proceeding, I believe you were asked certain other questions about this subject. Let me read the question and read you your answer and see if it refreshes your recollection, Dr. Jacobson. The question was this: "If you were going to inflict a pneumothorax on yourself, would you inflict it in the area of the seventh intercostal space or would you choose some other area?" Do you remember that question?
A Yes; I do.
Q I believe your answer at that time was: "I would choose some other area." Was that your answer? A (Witness nods affirmatively.)
Q I believe the next question was this: "And why would you do that?" And the answer was: "Well, as is already indicated, there are some vital structures in this area that could make the condition much more serious." Was that your answer?
A That is correct.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 10:27 AM   #343
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
The matter was also mentioned at the Article 32 in 1970 with Dr. Jacobson:

Q Doctor, getting to the next injury or injuries which you've described to the investigating officer, you've described an injury which you can recollect seeing on the head. Could you once again indicate to the investigating officer -- I'm not certain whether you were asked to do it by the prosecution, but indicate where this injury was?
A This was on the forehead, midleft of the midline. It was moderately swollen. There was an area of black and blue or ecchymosis and the skin was slightly raised. There was no laceration. There was no deep depression under the skin.
Q Would you say doctor -- the last term, no depression, could you please explain to the investigating officer why you looked for a depression? And what a depression means?
A Well, should an individual sustain a pressed skull fracture, there's cerebral status at that time, and a significant amount of possible compromise. It's a -- an emergency that most -- well, there are different medical opinions, but the majority of them will indicate a pressed skull fracture should be elevated immediately. This is the concern.
Q Now, in describing a wound to the head, can you make a valid determination of its relative seriousness merely by describing what it looks like to the eye?
A No.
Q And isn't it a fact that in many cases there is -- isn't it a fact that in many cases there is no medical relation to what the injury looks like on the surface as to what damage it causes to the brain?
A That's right.
Q Since you are now in a training program regarding neurosurgery, doctor, do you regard any injury to the head to be significant of this nature?
A No.
Q As a matter of fact, hasn't it been said by Hippocrates that no head injury is so slight that it should be neglected.

CPT SOMERS: What Hippocrates may have said is irrelevant here; I object.

COL ROCK: Objection sustained. I don't think we need to bring in any humorous matters into this proceedings, counselor.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 11:51 AM   #344
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Henri, why do you keep quoting and referencing stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the source(s)?

Last edited by desertgal; 22nd September 2013 at 11:53 AM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 12:29 PM   #345
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,146
Henri,
I've asked you twice now whether you find the MacDonald's condition suspicious in light of the story he told about his confrontation with the intruders.

You have responded with evidence that you believe shows MacDonald's injuries were more extensive than has been characterized in this thread and evidence that suggests that MacDonald might have been rendered unconscious without signs of external trauma to his head.

Thank you for your responses but I was asking about your personal view of the situation. Are you suspicious about the nature of MacDonald's injuries given his story about his confrontation with the intruders?

As to your posts suggesting that MacDonald's injuries were more extensive than they have been characterized in this thread:

Even if your characterization of the injuries is accurate, I still see significant reasons to be skeptical of MacDonald's story. Pin prick wounds caused by the ice pick? How do you think those happened? Did they happen while the intruders were in a desperate fight to subdue MacDonald and they just happened to stab him only a little? If there was a violent fight to subdue MacDonald where is the evidence of that? Where are deep slashing wounds from a knife, or major traumatic wounds from a club, or major wounds from being stabbed or slashed with an ice pick? What kind of violent homicidal intruders are these? They overkill defenseless children and they don't cause life threatening wounds to the only person in the house likely to be a threat to them?

As to the information that MacDonald might have been rendered unconscious with less external trauma than might have been expected:

OK, except MacDonald says that he actively resisted the intruders. So according to MacDonald he wasn't rendered unconscious by the initial attack. So we go back to the problem for MacDonald's story that there is much less trauma than one would expect from a life and death struggle from attackers armed with a bat and an ice pick.

But let's assume that MacDonald was rendered unconscious by the blow from the attacker. The attackers couldn't know that he would be unconscious from the trauma that MacDonald sustained. Wouldn't you expect them to continue the attack to insure that MacDonald was immobilized? Do the injuries to MacDonald suggest that they were caused by an attacker attempting to render him immobile? It doesn't look like that to me. How about a few ice pick jabs to the heart while the intruders had the chance? How about a few substantive blows from the bat while the intruders had the chance?

As I have noted above, I don't find the suspicious nature of MacDonald's story about the attack definitive evidence of his guilt, but aren't you a tad bit suspicious of it? If you're not, then what do you think happened in the confrontation between MacDonald and the intruders that explains the nature of MacDonald's injuries?

ETA:
On further consideration, I realize that the evidence on consciousness was probably offered to support MacDonald's claim that he became unconscious for a period of time after the confrontation with the intruders. Even if one assumes that MacDonald's injuries were severe enough to cause a period of unconsciousness I don't see how the rest of his story is consistent with either his injuries or the lack of damage to the room where he says the confrontation with the attackers happened.

ETA2: One other obviously suspicious aspect of the nature of MacDonald's wounds:

Why would these violent homicidal intruders leave a witness alive that could identify them? MacDonald's wounds aren't remotely consistent with an attack where an attempt was made to kill him. Even assuming Henri's characterization of the wounds is accurate, the intruders would have had to have known that it was likely that MacDonald would survive.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 22nd September 2013 at 01:38 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 02:13 PM   #346
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
...
ETA:
On further consideration, I realize that the evidence on consciousness was probably offered to support MacDonald's claim that he became unconscious for a period of time after the confrontation with the intruders. Even if one assumes that MacDonald's injuries were severe enough to cause a period of unconsciousness I don't see how the rest of his story is consistent with either his injuries or the lack of damage to the room where he says the confrontation with the attackers happened.
Exactly - MacDonald claims that he fell unconscious after his altercation with the 'intruders' in the living room, prompting my comment that people generally become unconscious either by a big wallop to the head (which leaves obvious trauma and causes immediate unconsciousness OR slowly-developing intercranial pressure, which he did not have), or by loss of blood, in which case they don't usually regain consciousness spontaneously. So why did he become unconscious at some point after the altercation, on his way to the bedroom? I've been an EMT for 22 years, and to me this sounds strange. I've also been injured fairly badly myself a couple times, and it's true that people sometimes faint due to pain and fear - but it generally happens immediately, not at some later time.
Tiktaalik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2013, 05:33 PM   #347
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Running Away From The Evidence

I commend the patience of those who are giving Henri a chance to jump all over the map without responding directly to the ridiculous fairy tale put forth by MacDonald. The nature and severity of the wounds inflicted upon the MacDonald family are not open to interpretation.

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

It's telling that MacDonald advocates studiously avoid a majority of the evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. If you include 5 inculpatory DNA test results to the evidentiary pile, this case is open and shut.

Henri, still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/timeline.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 22nd September 2013, 06:17 PM   #348
Major Major
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 212
Is it me, or does "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" sound like the Archies gone deeply deeply wrong?

Major Major 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 23rd September 2013, 12:33 AM   #349
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Just because Helena Stoeckley said "acid is groovy" doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald is lying. She was a funny woman. It's like saying Manson's women couldn't have been seen crawling along the road because that is so strange.

I can't quite see why people can't believe that what Dr. MacDonald said happened is what happened. It's like something out of a Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin film where Goering says "I can't believe it " as Hitler was furious at the time.

I don't like the way Murtagh tried to discredit anybody who tried to oppose him. Detective Beasley was supposed to have a brain disease. Ted Gunderson had some legal and financial tangles. Mrs. Garcia was going through a divorce. The CIA and Bush family are above the law. Witnesses in the Lockerbie case were bribed by Murtagh to lie. John Carman should never have attempted to fight corruption and Michael Hastings couldn't possibly have been bumped off. Jimmy Britt was deemed to be a bankrupt and Bradley Manning must spend the rest of his life in prison for telling the truth. I think Murtagh manufactures evidence.

JTF seems to think that Judge Fox will now just rubber stamp the prosecution's case to keep Dr, MacDonald in prison. I don't know what the MacDonald lawyers can do about it. I have always thought closing in on the real culprits was the best bet. I think both Judge Dupree and Judge Fox displayed corrupt bias. There used to be a statement on the internet saying that a large amount of money was deposited in Judge Dupree's bank account after the 1979 trial.

The MacDonald case needs some competent and just judges. The media is not much help. They are only interested in celebrity gossip. I think Judge Carnes in the Ramsey case is a good judge. and her father Charles Carnes was supposed to be a good judge. It's a pity she can't be in charge of the MacDonald case.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2013, 03:55 AM   #350
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Henri, why do you keep quoting and referencing stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the source(s)?
desertgal 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 September 2013, 09:55 AM   #351
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Henri, why do you keep quoting and referencing stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the source(s)?
I'm sorry if that worries you.

If I'm quoting about something like the Mafia I usually just look up Mafia on Google and quote from the list that comes up.

That statement about Judge Dupree depositing a large sum of money after the MacDonald trial was something on Christina's website years ago.

http://www.jeffreymacdonaldcase.com
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2013, 10:18 AM   #352
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm sorry if that worries you.

If I'm quoting about something like the Mafia I usually just look up Mafia on Google and quote from the list that comes up.

That statement about Judge Dupree depositing a large sum of money after the MacDonald trial was something on Christina's website years ago.

http://www.jeffreymacdonaldcase.com
I'm not "worried" about it. What a stupid thing to say.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you keep quoting stuff "on the Internet" without providing links to the sources? I'm not referring to the Mafia posts. I'm referring to the MacDonald case. Even if you are quoting from a Google list, it's not difficult to go one step further and providr the source. You know how to copy/paste. We've seen you do it ad nauseum.

It diminishes the points you try so hard to make. If you can't prove your sources, then no one can take you seriously.

Last edited by desertgal; 23rd September 2013 at 10:21 AM.
desertgal 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 September 2013, 11:26 AM   #353
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Abyss

Jeffrey MacDonald is a convicted murderer and psychopath. Henri is a conspiracy theorist on the level of Ken Adachi and Ted Gunderson. Barry Scheck is an opportunist. Errol Morris is a con man. Janet Malcolm is a groupie. Anyone who takes stock in MacDonald's tortured innocent ploy gets sucked into an abyss that consists of distortions, half-truths, lies, propaganda, illusions, delusions, and a lack of critical thinking.

Henri, still waiting on that timeline.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2013, 11:47 AM   #354
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,235
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Just because Helena Stoeckley said "acid is groovy" doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald is lying. She was a funny woman. It's like saying Manson's women couldn't have been seen crawling along the road because that is so strange.
I would expect strange, especially from people doped up as MacDonald claims. Road crawling is weird but not unexpected.

"acid is groovy, kill the pigs" sounds like Hollywood scriptwriting at its most Central Casting.

Quote:
I can't quite see why people can't believe that what Dr. MacDonald said happened is what happened. It's like something out of a Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin film where Goering says "I can't believe it " as Hitler was furious at the time.
If we ignore all the physical evidence (or lack therof) it still makes no sense. MacDonald is doubtless the biggest threat in the house to any intruder and he gets one blow to the head while others in the house are pounded. These are supposed to be brutal killers and yet when they allegedly get MacDonald down with one blow and a few weak stabs they decide 'that's enough' and move on, brutalizing the other less dangerous members of the house.

The story fails on almost all levels. I am surprised anyone buys it.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 23rd September 2013, 12:12 PM   #355
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
The story fails on almost all levels. I am surprised anyone buys it.
^ This.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob 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 September 2013, 01:52 PM   #356
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
If we ignore all the physical evidence (or lack therof) it still makes no sense. MacDonald is doubtless the biggest threat in the house to any intruder and he gets one blow to the head while others in the house are pounded. These are supposed to be brutal killers and yet when they allegedly get MacDonald down with one blow and a few weak stabs they decide 'that's enough' and move on, brutalizing the other less dangerous members of the house.

The story fails on almost all levels. I am surprised anyone buys it.
It is not just the inherent un-believability of Macdonald's story it is the lack of evidence of any struggle in the Living Room. The lack of evidence for invaders in the apartment. All we have are various un-sourced hairs, which cannot be linked to any of the so-called intruders. And since any place anyone lives in will have un-sourced hairs etc., such evidence unless it is linked to known individuals proves zilch.

The so called evidence of intruders, the alleged wig hair, the candle drippings etc., all fades away into meaninglessness upon the most cursory examination. We are asked to believe that 4+ home invaders looking for drugs attacked a family in a incredibly brutal fashion, stabbing and beating people to death in a homicidal frenzy and too put it bluntly "overkill", yet managed to not leave a trace of themselves. I would think that such invaders would have left plenty of evidence of their visit. From bloody hand prints, to scuff marks to hair, fibers etc. Yet these particular invaders were so immaculate and clean they left no trace. Further it appears that the alleged invaders got the weapons, or at least most of them, in the apartment so they came unarmed?!* Rather strange and hard to credit. All we got as evidence of the alleged intruders is the usual un-sourced stuff found in every non-invaded home.

It is the context of MacDonald's story that makes it very hard to believe. If there was evidence of multiple invaders MacDonald's story, however unlikely, would have support. After all unlikely events happen all the time. In this case however we have an unlikely story combined with a virtually total lack of evidence for the alleged invasion.

So MacDonald is almost certainly "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!"

* I Suspect that MacDonald may have got rid of some of the murder weapons later.
Pacal 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 September 2013, 02:08 AM   #357
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Kudos To Brian, John, And Leslie

The sur-reply puts a steak in the heart of the Ice Pick Baby Killer's remote chance at a new trial. The government put forth a painstaking portrayal of a flip-flopping defense team that has consistently failed to meet the burden of proof on any of the relevant issues in this case. The defense didn't come close to proving the Britt issue, the unsourced hair claim, the Gunders..., I mean, Leonard claim, and the reliability of the Stoeckley confessions. To compare the defense's 37 page reply memo to the government's 54 page sur-reply is akin to comparing a velvet tiger portrait to a Picaso painting. Gordie has been unimpressive in collecting his blood money whereas Murtagh/Cooley/Bruce continue to advocate for those who can no longer speak for themselves.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...s/352-main.pdf
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 September 2013, 08:14 AM   #358
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,575
The Manson murders were unlikely as well and Manson himself was only convicted on circumstantial evidence. They were never accused of leaving their pajama fibers around the place, or transporting bodies in a sheet, as in the MacDonald case.

It was only because a couple of the Manson women became snitches, like Helena Stoeckley in the MacDonald case, that Polanski himself was not prosecuted and convicted even though he was out of the country, I think, at the time.

Bugliosi was lucky that Susan Atkins turned state's witness. I think Bugliosi was not accurate about the President Kennedy assassination. He just accepted the opinions of the former insurance salesman Stombaugh of the FBI. You must have an abstract sense of justice and independent thinking in these sort of cases. Juries are a lottery.

The Army CID and FBI just disregarded the Stoeckley gang in the MacDonald case. In the Manson case the California police seemed to have a few more half-suspicions about the Manson gang.

It's just like these politicians and the media are just protecting the interests of the rich.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th September 2013 at 08:15 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 24th September 2013, 09:15 AM   #359
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,824
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks as though Dr. MacDonald was assaulted with an ice pick and some sort of baseball bat. He mentions being punched as well.
And he was moving under his own power soon afterwards.

The rule of thumb on the difference between being roughed up and brutally assaulted is simple - if you move under your own power after the incident, you haven't been brutally assaulted.

JM is as guilty as they come, and might be the most successful teller of tales in the world - All you need do is read this thread for proof.
BStrong 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 24th September 2013, 10:47 AM   #360
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 746
Total Failure

The beauty of Gordie's arrogance (e.g., requesting a Defense reply to the Government's 200 page masterpiece) is that he allowed the Government to have the last word. There is NO chance that Judge Fox will allow a reply to a reply, so any rebuttal regarding the Gunderson/Leonard comparisons is limited to private diatribes between inmate, Kathryn, and Gordie. IMO, the Government did a good job of using the ramblings of Stoeckley/Friar as a bridge to Leonard's lifting from Gunderson's dubious investigation. In addition, they used Leonard's own words (e.g., 2012 evidentiary hearing) against him to prove that he is an unreliable reporter.

The other thing that stood out was how the Government placed importance on having citations for every one of their arguments which is in stark contrast to Gordie's reliance on sweeping claims with no accompanying documentation. As the Government pointed out in their sur-reply, this forced the Defense to alter and backtrack on several key evidentiary arguments. Prime examples of each are as follows.

BACKTRACKING: Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the Defense filed briefs arguing that the three unsourced hairs were bloody and broken. At the hearing, Gordie admitted that this was not the case, but he then went back to his original position on the hairs in his 130 response memo. In his 37 page reply, he again backtracked on his original position by stating that the condition of the hairs was irrelevant. Gordie stated that the only relevant aspect of the hairs was that they were unsourced.

ALTERATION: Since 2006, the Defense has argued that inmate's constitutional rights were violated when Blackburn allegedly threatened Stoeckley and allegedly lied to Judge Dupree about the nature of his interview with Stoeckley. In post-hearing memos, however, Gordie claims that the Defense has no obligation to prove that inmate's constitutional rights were violated. Considering that this was the MAIN argument leveled by the Defense during oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court, his current position on this issue is flat-out laughable.

Inmate is done. He knows it. Kathryn knows it. Gordie knows it. This isn't some fawning interviewer buying into unsubstantiated claims spilling out of the mouth of Errol Morris. This is a legal process that requires concrete proof of claims rendered in briefs, memos, and appellate hearings. The burden of proof is on the Defense, that burden is "extraordinarily high," and they failed to meet that burden. They failed on the merits of the Britt claim. They failed on the merits of the unsourced hair claim. They failed on the constitutional claim. Most importantly, they failed to prove that a reasonable juror would not convict MacDonald based on the "evidence as a whole."

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._sur-reply.pdf

Last edited by JTF; 24th September 2013 at 10:50 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:00 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.