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 Today, 07:17 AM   #201
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
there were no intruders, hence, they couldn't leave behind any evidence. period. bottom line. that's where it ends. to argue this just gives credence to trolls conspiracies.
to some degree you are correct that arguing with trolls doesn't make them go away. HOWEVER, for years the only side of this story that was heard was the cockamaimy nonsense that trolls continue to argue. This has lead to things like the PEOPLE magazine article that was never fact-checked and the ID channel show based of the article(s). Thus we now have a new generation of persons who believe the bs and have begun advocating for the mass murderer.

I cannot and do not let the nonsense go without countering with the FACTS. This is true here, and any place that I find people posting comments that are not based in fact. I will continue to do so until inmate is dead.

watch out trolls the fire brigade is still here!

There once was a wrinkled old gnome,
who called Federal Prison his home,
he whined and he moaned,
and he lied then he groaned,
for these murders I will not atone.


a classic ditty presented by bynthebard
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:28 AM   #202
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,768
I disagree. there is a fair and just article in MacDonald's own words about the matter at:

https://medium.com/@lajp/dr-jeffrey-...s-6f09003ac918

Quote:
And, what do you know, the
young woman just happens to have a cheap blond wig which she wore
that very night, and a floppy hat which she wore that night, and boots
she wore that night. And she had no alibi for, guess what, just
those few hours in question — hey, big surprise. And, poor thing, she even
thinks she was in my house that night, watching Colette struggling with
Greg Mitchell, and Mitchell’s a, guess what? A brown-haired, left-handed
guy and the experts say Colette was killed by a left-handed guy. And
Stoeckley’s neighbor sees her arrive home that morning in, guess what,
a blue Mustang like the one Prince Beasley saw her in the night before,
and like the Mustang my neighbor saw drive by my house the night of
the murders. And when this Helena Stoeckley’s neighbor presses her she
says she didn’t kill anybody, hey, she loves children, but she might have
held the light while someone else murdered them. Jesus!
“Then they find fresh candle wax, and not just anywhere, mind you.
They find it where? On the coffee table, and in Kimmie’s room. And,
guess what else? Another one of my neighbors saw people carrying candles
toward my house. Candles! A guy at Dunkin’ Donuts sees a woman and
a black man come in to wash blood off their hands that very morning.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 09:35 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 Today, 10:59 AM   #203
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 411
Oh, geesh, there are two of you walking around with hard-ons for federal inmate macdonald?

So, your man crush lies to others who have crushes on him. And I want to know how these alleged people were walking around carrying candles in the rain? (Your beau left out that the neighbor said the candles were lit and it was raining, I noticed.) Half his (Macdonald's) lies do not make sense. A bunch of druggies come into his house and when he goes down in the fight, they lose interest in him (like giant tiger beetles that only react to motion) and walk away instead of what happens in real life fights: they kick the stuffing out of you. No broke ribs from these druggies, no, their mothers raise them to be polite and never kick a man when he's down. But.....they slaughter a pregnant woman and two small children they find. But they leave him be, leave the drugs and medical supplies (including syringes) he stole from the Army in the closet because it's rude to look through people's stuff, I guess - even if you're bent on killing them. And when they've gone and he's safe, he performs CPR on children in their beds, moves his wife back into the master bedroom where he removes an impaled object from her and he does all this in the dark.

Uh, that makes no sense. Medically, the CPR on a hard, flat surface and non-removal of the impaled object are things you learn in the Red Cross First Aid Course. I bet they also teach them in medical school. And Federal Inmate Macdonald had been to med school.

Sad, so sad. He's a nasty piece of work, your man crush. He's more interested in looking good than being good, his only goal for 47 years has been HIS gratification, HIS pleasure, HIS freedom and he doesn't give a damn about that beautiful woman Colette Stevenson who made the mistake of falling in love with him or the two beautiful children she had with him (or the one on the way). It's always about pathetic Jeff. And pathetic he is. He slaughtered four beautiful souls in a night of rage and to this day he will not face his crimes. He's not man enough to own what he did.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:34 AM   #204
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 646
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I disagree.
What a shocker! I know you hate it when we insist on crowding out your delusions with FACTS. Too bad for you....I wonder what you see in this narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer to champion? I guess you think slaughtering a pregnant woman and 2 little girls (plus and unborn baby) is something to celebrate....I find it disgusting, sickening, gross, unthinkable, irrational, not to mention illegal.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
there is a fair and just article in MacDonald's own words
roflmao! there is nothing fair or just or even TRUE in statements made by inmate. he was a cheating b@$t@rd who didn't deserve the precious family he had and he IS the narcissistic sociopathic b@$t@rd that slaughtered those precious beings.

There once was a wrinkled old gnome,
who called Federal Prison his home,
he whined and he moaned,
and he lied then he groaned,
for these murders I will not atone.


a classic ditty presented by bynthebard
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:41 AM   #205
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,344
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I disagree. there is a fair and just article in MacDonald's own words about the matter at:

https://medium.com/@lajp/dr-jeffrey-...s-6f09003ac918
Murderer claims innocence.

No film at eleven.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 Today, 11:57 AM   #206
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 646
As as been pointed out to (and ignored by) henri - inmate's story makes no sense. For example he claims he did CPR on his children yet BOTH children were found in their beds, Kimmie totally tucked in and on her back and Kristy partially covered and on her side. Ignoring the fact that Kimmie's injury would have made standard mouth to mouth breathing impossible one must consider the following from the Standard First Aid and Personal Safety Manual (page 84)

CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) is a combination of artificial respiration and artificial manual circulation that is recommended for use in cases of cardiac arrest.

Technique for External Cardiac Compression: Effective performance of external cardiac compression requires more than just pushing on the chest. There are numerous small details that make the difference between effective and ineffective, safe and unsafe, proper and improper, performance of external cardiac compression. Strict attention should be given to the details.

For external cardiac compression to be effective, the victim must be on a FIRM SURFACE, such as the ground, the floor, or a spine board on a wheeled litter.

As for a knife impaled in the chest: If the object is fixed OR it protrudes more than a few inches from the body, it should be left in place and be secured carefully to prevent movement that would cause further damage.

OF course, I only took Advanced First Aid and Emergency Care and CPR multiple times, and I learned these things. Maybe medical school was different...but I highly doubt 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 Today, 01:44 PM   #207
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 933
Circular Logic

The link put forth by Henriboy is simply an excerpt taken from Fatal Justice where inmate is venting to the authors about how he was railroaded by the CID. Inmate's mixing and matching investigative timelines is a form of circular logic that has been adopted by most, if not all, of his advocates.

In regards to Paul Stombaugh's 1974 analysis of the saran fibers, Henriboy again plays dumb by intimating that Stombaugh never examined the fibers in question. All one has to do is read Stombaugh's handwritten lab notes to verify what Henriboy already knows.

FBI Exhibits Q46 and Q49. Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

For those interested in an accurate timeline...

1970 Janice Glisson was a CID chemist at Fort Gordon. Glisson performed a majority of the serological tests in this case and at the time of the murders, she was in training in regards to hair and fiber analysis. Dillard Browning asked her to assist him with specific hair and fiber comparisons. One of Glisson's responsibilities was to analyze the saran fibers and she concluded that the fibers were of different lengths, blonde in color, and synthetic. Due to his heavy workload, Browning was unable to analyze the saran fibers.

1974 Paul Stombaugh analyzed the saran fibers and determined that they were the type of filament "used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

1990 Robert Webb's chemical composition analysis determined that the 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition to the 24 and 9 inch saran fibers. This indicated that the 3 fibers came from 2 separate source materials.

1990 Michael Malone's fiber comparisons led to a match between the 24 inch saran fiber and doll hair in the FBI's massive exemplar collection.

Despite the conclusions leveled by Stombaugh/Webb/Malone, inmate and his advocates continued to argue that Stoeckley, and Stoeckley alone, wore a wig on 2/17/70 and was present at 544 Castle Drive during the commission of a triple homicide. Due to Stoeckley's testimony at trial that she wasn't wearing a wig on 2/17/70, and the defense being unable to produce a wig exemplar from Stoeckley and/or a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear, this argument fell flat before Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court.

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 Today, 02:01 PM   #208
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,768
The point is that we don't know if the FBI lab was inventing the forensic evidence. The defense experts were never allowed to test it. There have been scandals at the FBI lab, which are now being made public, and not just in the MacDonald case. I'm willing to admit there was saran in those mystery fibers but the defense were never allowed to double check that. All that stuff from Stombaugh and Malone about saran in dolls was guesswork. The doll manufacturers themselves never backed the FBI up about that. That story from Stoeckley that her boyfriend at the time, Mitchell, didn't like her wearing a blond wig was just some cock and bull story from Helena to cover her tracks.

There is a bit of advertising waffle on the internet from some forensic company which MacDonald might find useful if the MacDonald defense fund could run to the expense of it:

https://www.forensic-access.co.uk/im...of-re-testing/
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 Today, 02:24 PM   #209
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
For external cardiac compression to be effective, the victim must be on a FIRM SURFACE, such as the ground, the floor, or a spine board on a wheeled litter.

As for a knife impaled in the chest: If the object is fixed OR it protrudes more than a few inches from the body, it should be left in place and be secured carefully to prevent movement that would cause further damage.

OF course, I only took Advanced First Aid and Emergency Care and CPR multiple times, and I learned these things. Maybe medical school was different...but I highly doubt it!
Dr. MacDonald was a specialist accident and emergency doctor as we say in the UK. He knew what he was doing. This is his explanation for the knife impaled in the chest from the 1975 Grand Jury and it is not a lie:

Quote:
A I don't know, sir. If you told me I moved her four feet, you may be right. I don't know.
Q Well --
A Seems to me that the movement was not very much. We're talking about six inches or a foot to straighten her away from the chair, and then do some mouth to mouth.
Q Yeah. Now, you say you withdrew a knife from her chest.
A Yeah.
Q Do you have any idea what you did with the knife?
A I just --
Q Once you had it in your hand?
A I just threw it aside.
Q Which way?
A I believe -- I believe it was to the left, because I believe I pulled it out with my left hand.
Q Now, when you say to the left -- does that -- in which direction would it go?
A I don't have any ideas, sir. I honestly have no idea. I would say towards her feet.
Q From your experience in emergency rooms, do you have victims brought in who have knives or other things stuck in them?
A Infrequently, yeah.
Q What's the standard procedure?
A Depends on how bad they are. You take it out and you fix the wound; put in a chest tube if they're still alive, or open the chest and do a heart massage if they have cardiac arrest.
But if you mean take it out or leave it in, you take it out.
You leave it in in the field unless you have to do close chest massage.
Q Why is that?
A If you have to do closed chest massage, you're pumping up and down on the chest, right?, and the knife blade is going to puncture the organ each time you move it up and down.
Q Well, why is the procedure different in the field?
A Well, I'm assuming, when I say in the field, I mean with non medical personnel.
The trained personnel are trained to leave it in place so the doctor can see, for instance, how deep the blade is. Because every witness will tell you different.
Four policemen saw the stabbing, and one said it went in an inch, and the other ones said it went in eight inches. It's a big difference.
Q Well, I'm going to ask you again how deep was the knife thrust into her chest?
A Seems to me that it was -- it was -- all I saw was the handle.
Q You gave her mouth to mouth resuscitation, and the air escaped from her chest?
A Right.
Q And you checked her pulse?
A Right.
Q Now, how did you check her pulse?
A Well, you know, I'm just telling you what I would normally do. I remember holding her wrist, and I remember checking the left femoral area in the groin, and I think I checked her carotid. That's the usual check, is the carotid.
But, you know, it was pretty bloody.
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 Today, 04:41 PM   #210
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 933
Trolling Tactics

HENRIBOY: For the past 15 years, you've derived pleasure from playing the circus troll on several true crime forums, but it must be frustrating to see your special brand of illogic being called out by posters who have taken the time to read the documented record. Your current cognitive instability is demonstrated by your reliance on conspiracy narratives and your penchant for refusing to provide proof of your absurd claims.

Stating that "we don't know if the FBI lab was inventing the forensic evidence," speaks to your inherent laziness and the fact that you have nothing tangible to bring to the case discussion. Hate to break it to ya, but the CID collected and processed the physical evidence BEFORE the FBI analyzed the SAME data. If you had bothered to read the documented record, you would know that every single evidentiary item in this case had a CID and FBI exhibit number.

According to your conspiracy narrative, the men and women at the CID/FBI must be top-flight magicians for they were able to invent (e.g., whatever the hell that means) the same type and number of evidentiary exhibits in this case. In terms of the analysis of the saran fibers, chemical composition analysis is hardly "guesswork" and the defense did not formulate a rebuttal to Malone's conclusion that the 24 inch saran fiber microscopically matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

The only salient explanation for the saran fibers is that the MacDonald children used their mother's hairbrush to brush the hair of two of the dolls in their respective collections. Microscopic comparisons, chemical composition analysis, and a lack of alternative matching exemplars verify this position whereas the defense couldn't even produce a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Today at 04:45 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 08:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.