ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Reply
Old 13th April 2017, 02:46 AM   #2801
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
This is part of what Jeff MacDonald had to say about that Joe McGinniss case in California in 1987 and it's true:

Quote:
just so your readers are aware, exactly, of the effect the psychological and psychiatric witnesses had on the trial, recall that my lawsuit alleged several things that I had to prove to win the lawsuit. I alleged McG defrauded me in his conduct over the 1979-83 years of the book writing. I alleged he mis-portrayed my life, contrary to a signed agreement I had with McG, wherein he was under an obligation to tell the factual truth. I alleged he intentionally inflicted upon me emotional distress. And I alleged he stole funds from me, funds due to me under the written contract I had with McG.

McG had basically no defense, so his major defenses became an amalgam of several things. First, he countersued me, alleging I wasn't truthful with him (so therefore, he could be released from his conractual obligations). He alleged I cooperated with other journalists, thereby abridging my pact with him (the "exclusivity" clause). And McG alleged he hadn't stolen my money, but rather kept some funds aside, in a trust fund, when I sued him.

The trial was not a libel trial, since a person in prison essentially is libel-proof, libel being based on reputation. Neither was the trial supposed to be a rehash of my 1979 murder trial. The issue in court in 1987 was, did Joe McG civilly wrong me? Judge Rea, for instance, at Kornstein's urging, set a pretrial rule for neither side to attempt to re-argue the 1979 trial. His rule was promptly broken by Kornstein himself, in his opening statement to the jury, thereby unleashing 6 weeks of my efforts to refight the criminal trial of 1979, as well as fight the civil issues of 1987.

In my view, the real issue was extremely simple: was "Fatal Vision" a novel, or was it non-fiction, as McG claimed it to be? And, was I the monster portrayed by McG? It was my strong belief that for any good to come out of the civil trial, I had to prove "F.V." was a novel, and I had to prove McG created his monster out of whole cloth, to fulfill some need in McG himself, as well as to sell books and television movies.
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 13th April 2017, 04:13 AM   #2802
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Henri - please point out 1 SUBSTANTIVE error in Fatal Vision! It cannot be done, because there ARE NONE. Also, don't bother with the "amphetamine psychosis" babble, because it was not presented as an absolute fact, IN FACT it was presented as the author's THEORY.

Fatal Vision (its writing and publication) had no bearing on the conviction of inmate. inmate was convicted on the evidence presented at trial and Fatal Vision is an accurate representation of those facts. (plus it was published several years AFTER the conviction so it certainly didn't aid in conviction).
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 13th April 2017, 08:55 AM   #2803
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
The point about Fatal Vision is that it is biased and it came out, with the TV movie, just before Jeff MacDonald's 1985 appeal. It affected the court of public opinion in the same way as some of these silly biased books in the JonBenet Ramsey case. That was bad news for the innocent Jeff MacDonald. It meant that Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree and biased Judge Fox could get away with it without public criticism, and then the Supreme Court was able to rubber stamp the unsafe 1979 verdict.

A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts. The Press is not much help. very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter.

Caroline had an interesting opinion about Fatal Vision in a review of the book Nov. 12, 2012:

Quote:
I had to stop reading this halfway through, which is still an achievement since it is a 600 page behemoth of crap. I have no idea how this book gets such glowing reviews!

McGinniss is not only highly biased and fails to present a convincing case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, a doctor accused (and later convicted) of killing his family in 1970. First, the book is poorly written and lacking in editing. It seems that McGinniss includes anything anyone ever said about anything related to this case at all. It's not exhaustive, it's exhausting. McGinniss' book is basically a character assassination rather than a forensic argument for guilt. MacDonald is an *******, but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. I am not so sure that McGinniss understands this.

My breaking point was when McGinniss begins over-analyzing the class notes Colette MacDonald took in her Child Psych class the night of her murder, as if her study notes were some kind of diary. Come on.

I have read neither Janet Malcolm nor Errol Morris' book about Fatal Vision, but I am eager to. Seems like we are on the same page (yuk yuk).
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 13th April 2017, 10:32 AM   #2804
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 252
The only thing Jeffrey MacDonald has ever told the truth about is that Jeffrey MacDonald is his name. Oh, yeah, and he went to Princeton. That's two things. He's lied about being a good husband and father, about not being the murderer of his family, about whether or not he won a lawsuit, about his 'factual innocence' and just about everything else that's come out of his mouth (probably since he was a child).

His OPINION on a book that used his own contributions as well as the facts of the case to show him for the murderer he is is quite understandable. If I were him, wouldn't want my real face shown to the world, either.

And since "Caroline" admits she didn't read the book (got part-way through and since, like you, she's only interested in her opinion and not the facts), her viewpoint is irrelevant. You can't cite any facts that support your opinion, neither can she. All YOU can do is disrespect the dead. Wow. How......lame.

Last edited by desmirelle; 13th April 2017 at 10:36 AM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2017, 10:47 AM   #2805
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
In all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE ERROR has been found in Fatal Vision. The same cannot be said of FJ or WOE both of which are full of errors of FACT.

inmate slaughtered his family. Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn son are the VICTIMS in this case. inmate is the narcissistic sociopathic bastard that slaughtered them all. FACT
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 13th April 2017, 05:13 PM   #2806
wasapi
Illuminator
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,376
This may have already been discussed. I apologize if I missed it.

I know that lie detectors are not admissible in court. However, I wonder if the murdering monster ever took one in an attempt to show innocence?
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 13th April 2017, 06:07 PM   #2807
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Polygraphs

WASAPI: Here ya go.

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

The final tally? Two refusals, one inconclusive, one flunked and one passed.

REFUSED: Inmate refused to take a polygraph exam for the CID in 1970, and for the late, great Vincent Bugliosi in 1973.

INCONCLUSIVE: In the Spring of 1970, polygraph expert John Reid concluded that inmate's polygraph results were inconclusive.

FLUNKED: Several weeks after Reid's examination, polygraph exam Cleve Backster concluded that inmate flunked his polygraph exam.

PASSED: In 1985, inmate passed a polygraph exam administered by David Raskin.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2017, 02:54 AM   #2808
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
by 1985 I believe inmate had convinced himself that Colette and Kimberley MADE him kill them so he is "factually innocent" although that term was not yet coined. I truly believe that inmate thinks/thought that Kimberley destroyed his swinging singles days because her pending arrival caused him to HAVE to get married (totally ignoring his part in that situation) and he believes that Colette "ruined" his life by getting pregnant (again ignoring his part in the process) and forcing him to get married. Back in the day, when my dad would discuss (in front of us kids) that a girl/woman was pregnant outside of marriage he would always say "HE was just poking fun and SHE took it serious" lol took me years before I found out what he meant. My point is that I can so totally see inmate having that attitude towards the situation "I was having some fun and she took it too far" as if the woman can/could control it. There are plenty of signs that his ego was of that nature.....
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 14th April 2017, 03:14 AM   #2809
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
This may have already been discussed. I apologize if I missed it.

I know that lie detectors are not admissible in court. However, I wonder if the murdering monster ever took one in an attempt to show innocence?
This matter of polygraphs was discussed at the MacDonald v McGinniss case in California in 1987 with MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick. I didn't know until recently that Gary Bostwick is still going as a lawyer in California. He seems to deal with media and privacy cases among other things, and even appeals. MacDonald should have kept Gary Bostwick as his lawyer though Bostwick would still have been up against the brick wall of biased Judge Fox, and the rubber stamper judges at the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court. I believe Gary Bostwick is regarded as one of the best lawyers in America, I think in the top ten.

This is part of Bostwick's cross-examination of polygrapher Backster at that McGinniss court case in 1987:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...987-08-11.html

Quote:
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Did you talk to anyone in the professional field about Dr. Raskin's lie detector test of Dr. MacDonald?
A No.
Q When did you train Dr. Raskin?
A I would be guessing now. It would be, I'd say, back in around 1972 or '73, back in New York City before he moved to San Diego.
Q Have you attached a polygraph machine to plants?
A Yes. In fact, yes. That's a short answer.
Q Do plants tell the truth or lie?
A That hasn't been my area of inquiry.
Q What have you been inquiring into?
A Well, in attaching one third of the polygraph, actually the galvanic skin response, to a plant leaf, I found over the years that I have been interested in that, that the plant would seem to be showing electrical responses that related to the emotions of the people in the area. And this is a completely new area in science; and it's been explored quite nicely before lectures--before about 30 different universities and honor societies of science; and I've traveled all over the world talking about it.
Q Now, did you talk to Dr. MacDonald about that on the occasion that you examined him?
A No. I didn't talk to him, but he made an interesting comment about it just before his ex-amination.
Q What was the interesting comment?
A The comment was something about the fact that I'm the person that was testing plants.
This struck me as being unusual.

THE COURT: He said that you were the person?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he mentioned that to me, that he was aware of that.

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And have you appeared on the Johnny Carson Show on some occasions, talking about attaching polygraph machines to plants?
A Only one taping of Johnny Carson which was, I believe, reshown because it had Raquel Welch on it, not because I was on it.
Q And did the plants react to Raquel Welch on the show?
A No. I know a number of people who did, but I don't know whether the plants did.
Q Could you look at Page 619 of Exhibit 402, that's the book?
A Yes.
Q What he's saying here about--in the first full paragraph on Page 619, about the fact that you polygraph plants, and being on the Johnny Carson Show; that's true, isn't it? Essentially?
A Well, where is the part about Johnny Carson?
Q The first full paragraph on Page 619.
A 619. Okay. Well, he says "He's on the Johnny Carson Show all the time." That is not true.
Q But it was shown several times; right?
A Once, and once it was repeated, yes.
Q And did you talk with Mr. Segal about the fact that you were bigger in your field than John Reid?
A No. I would not have said that, because I wouldn't necessarily have believed that at the time--
Q Did you talk--beg your pardon. Go ahead.
A John Reid passed away in 1982. So I think I could say that now.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th April 2017 at 03:15 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 14th April 2017, 08:07 AM   #2810
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
by 1985 I believe inmate had convinced himself that Colette and Kimberley MADE him kill them so he is "factually innocent" although that term was not yet coined. I truly believe that inmate thinks/thought that Kimberley destroyed his swinging singles days because her pending arrival caused him to HAVE to get married (totally ignoring his part in that situation) and he believes that Colette "ruined" his life by getting pregnant (again ignoring his part in the process) and forcing him to get married. Back in the day, when my dad would discuss (in front of us kids) that a girl/woman was pregnant outside of marriage he would always say "HE was just poking fun and SHE took it serious" lol took me years before I found out what he meant. My point is that I can so totally see inmate having that attitude towards the situation "I was having some fun and she took it too far" as if the woman can/could control it. There are plenty of signs that his ego was of that nature.....lather rinse repeat of my own!
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 14th April 2017, 03:03 PM   #2811
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Interesting

I've always found it interesting that John Reid trained Cleve Backster who later trained David Raskin. Any polygraph expert worth a salt would tell you that the freshest exams carry far more weight than exams which occur years later. The exams conducted by Reid and Backster are FAR more reliable than the Raskin exam which occurred a whopping 15 years after the murders.

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 15th April 2017, 08:11 AM   #2812
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I've always found it interesting that John Reid trained Cleve Backster who later trained David Raskin. Any polygraph expert worth a salt would tell you that the freshest exams carry far more weight than exams which occur years later. The exams conducted by Reid and Backster are FAR more reliable than the Raskin exam which occurred a whopping 15 years after the murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I agree....good point!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 02:35 AM   #2813
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I've always found it interesting that John Reid trained Cleve Backster who later trained David Raskin. Any polygraph expert worth a salt would tell you that the freshest exams carry far more weight than exams which occur years later. The exams conducted by Reid and Backster are FAR more reliable than the Raskin exam which occurred a whopping 15 years after the murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The problem with the Backster polygraph is that it was taken soon after MacDonald was recovering from his collapsed lung, and other injuries.

Personally, I have always regarded polygraphs as junk science . Polygraphs are not regarded as evidence in UK courts and in most states in America. The police in America seem to love polygraphs, but the police and FBI in America don't seem to know how to solve difficult murders, and they have defective police departments there.

The matter was discussed with MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick, and Backster at the Joe McGinniss case in 1987 in California:

Quote:
Q I'd like to read to you from the case that the judge just took judicial notice of. It says that "Respiratory problems and high stress levels will affect the accuracy of a polygraph examination." You don't disagree with that; do you?
A If the judge meant that--

THE COURT: Wait just a minute. Let's clarify this now. I don't know who--is that a witness' testimony or what is that quote?

MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, that is from the case itself, the opinion by Judge Cynthia Hall and the citing of the article by Heileman on the deceptive certainty of the lie detector.

THE COURT: Are these her words?

MR. BOSTWICK: These--two things. First, they are her words describing a witness, an expert witness' testimony upon which the opinion relies, and her words describing the results of an article in the Hastings Law Journal which is footnoted.

THE COURT: Very well. All right.

THE WITNESS: What was your question, please?

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Are you disputing the fact that respiratory problems and high stress levels can affect the accuracy of a polygraph examination?
A They can create inconclusive results.
Q But that they cannot affect the accuracy?
A They would not affect error; they would create inconclusive results where the charts could not be properly interpreted.
Q Have you ever made a mistake in conducting a polygraph exam?
A I'm sure I have; but I'm also sure that it has not been brought to my attention, where it is a case that qualifies, as far as the reliability estimate and rating is concerned, as in a case of a triple murder.
Q But you don't know of any errors you've made; is that right?
A In a case of that quality, I know of none that's been brought to my attention.
Q Do you know of any errors you've made in 39 years of conducting polygraph exams?
A Yes. I'm sure I have.
Q Do you remember any of them?
A Oh, not offhand. I guess they are the things you try to forget, but they were inconsequential cases.
Q You didn't bring a list of those with you?
A No, no. I don't carry that with me.
Q Were you aware of the fact that when you took Dr. MacDonald's examination, that he was still suffering from a collapsed lung?
A I'm not sure that I was aware of that at the time, but, again, this would not have a selective effect on controls and not relevants, or relevants and not control questions.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 06:33 AM   #2814
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
<snip of fecal matter>

Personally, I have always regarded polygraphs as junk science . Polygraphs are not regarded as evidence in UK courts and in most states in America. The police in America seem to love polygraphs, but the police and FBI in America don't seem to know how to solve difficult murders, and they have defective police departments there.

<snipping more fecal matter>
Name ONE state in the United States of America that allows POLYGRAPH RESULTS into court as evidence.
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 16th April 2017, 08:04 AM   #2815
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Name ONE state in the United States of America that allows POLYGRAPH RESULTS into court as evidence.
I have always been under the impression that polygraph results could be used into court in Arizona, but I don't live in America and I don't know the legal technicalities.

There is more informed legal waffle about the matter on the internet:

Quote:
Anonymous
Written Aug 8, 2013
The premise of the question is not really correct.* Polygraph tests are admissible in certain states and in federal court at the discretion of the trial judge.*
*
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone stipulates to their use and agrees to admit the results into evidence.* They may put different limits on how they can actually be used as admissible evidence.* California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.* Georgia allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees. Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.*
*
The states in which polygraphs are always inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.* In these states, even if both parties stipulate to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very very rare scenarios). Some states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause to obtain search warrants
*
*
Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion and must undergo review pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert).* There have been several cases in which polygraph results have been admitted into evidence over the objections of an opposing party after the court found it satisfied the Daubert threshold.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 09:13 AM   #2816
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Name ONE state in the United States of America that allows POLYGRAPH RESULTS into court as evidence.
I have always been under the impression that polygraph results could be used into court in Arizona, but I don't live in America and I don't know the legal technicalities.

There is more informed legal waffle about the matter on the internet:

Quote:
Anonymous
Written Aug 8, 2013
The premise of the question is not really correct.* Polygraph tests are admissible in certain states and in federal court at the discretion of the trial judge.*
*
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone stipulates to their use and agrees to admit the results into evidence.* They may put different limits on how they can actually be used as admissible evidence.* California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.* Georgia allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees. Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.*
*
The states in which polygraphs are always inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.* In these states, even if both parties stipulate to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very very rare scenarios). Some states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause to obtain search warrants
*
*
Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion and must undergo review pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert).* There have been several cases in which polygraph results have been admitted into evidence over the objections of an opposing party after the court found it satisfied the Daubert threshold.

Are you really using some old anonymous internet quote instead of going and finding legitimate citations? What makes you think it is "informed" legal anything?

One can find absolutely anything on the internet. It is truly sad that you come to this forum, of all places, and support your statements with some random old quote from an anonymous poster on some unknown website somewhere. It says a lot about the statements you are trying to support, and you too, actually.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2017, 03:00 AM   #2817
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
I am trying to figure out what failing a polygraph has to do with the recovery from injuries? Especially considering inmate only had a partially collapsed lung that he created himself and no other injuries of note. inmate could have been released from the hospital within days if there had been anywhere to release him to since the apartment remained a crime scene. Try to force a pattern doesn't work, yet henri tries and tries....in this instance he is trying to make inmate a victim, but the patterns just don't match!

The victims in this case were Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.
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 18th April 2017, 05:38 AM   #2818
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Frantic With Worry

Despite his client's poor performance during the 4/6/70 CID interview and his subsequent refusal to take a polygraph exam, Bernie Segal somehow convinced inmate to take a polygraph exam in May of 1970. John Reid was then considered one of the elite polygraph examiners in the country.

Reid's reputation may have been the main reason why inmate performed poorly during the examination. In a 1985 interview in Playboy Magazine, inmate reasoned that the inconclusive results were due to the fact that he was "frantic with worry."

Interviewer Jeffrey Elliott should have asked inmate, "what was worrying you about the examination?" but failed to do so. Elliott's lack of a follow-up question was not surprising for he was already in negotiations with, wait for it, Fred Bost to write a book that would argue for inmate's innocence.

Elliott then decided to immerse himself in a book project in Africa, Bost had a brief flirtation with Prince Beasley as his co-author, but ultimately decided on Jerry Allen Potter being the guy to help him write his work of fiction.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 08:48 AM   #2819
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Despite his client's poor performance during the 4/6/70 CID interview and his subsequent refusal to take a polygraph exam, Bernie Segal somehow convinced inmate to take a polygraph exam in May of 1970. John Reid was then considered one of the elite polygraph examiners in the country.

Reid's reputation may have been the main reason why inmate performed poorly during the examination. In a 1985 interview in Playboy Magazine, inmate reasoned that the inconclusive results were due to the fact that he was "frantic with worry."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Fred Bost had right judgment in the MacDonald case. The problem with polygraphs is that guilty people pass them and innocent people are convicted by them. That is enough to make anybody frantic with worry if it means they are to be executed, or to spend the rest of their life in prison. It's a serious matter for them.

There is a bit about this matter at this website

www.justicedenied.org/polygraphs.htm

Quote:
Most people don't understand that a polygraph is only a machine that reads physiological responses, such as heart rate, body sweat, and is not a device that miraculously "knows" when someone lies. Poor responses can occur for many reasons. Some people can trick the machine, polygraph results are subject to operator error, and people respond to stress in many different ways. Law officers have been known to trick suspects by using a mimeograph machine that ejects a paper with the report that the suspect is lying. Usually the accused is asked to come down to the local police department and submit to polygraph. The person who is ignorant about polygraphs will often eagerly go to the station and let himself be hooked up to the machine believing he'll pass.

Not likely. Police will also often conduct an intimidating interrogation while a polygraph test is in progress, and suspects have reported that officers standing by would pressure them the whole time. Then when the suspect fails the test, the police have their "probable cause."

The number of people who report telling the truth on polygraph tests only to find themselves called liars, plus those who freely admit to having lied and gotten away with it, is troubling, especially since so many people seem to be impressed when told that someone passed or didn't pass the test. There's also the wrinkle that a person will respond truthfully when he or she believes something untrue. If I believe something, it is true for me. So it seems to be with most people. The truth is not established, but my belief is recorded as an honest answer. There is also the fact that people may respond with anger, sorrow and agitation when the subject of the test has to do with a crime. Add to that each person's trigger words, like mother, God, sex, and any number of things, and the unreliability of these tests rises.

People sometimes have emotional responses when they deliberately lie and sometimes do not emotionally respond to telling the truth. A polygraph machine is simply not a lie detector. It will register false positives and false negatives and will vary from one test to the next.

To use polygraphs as lie detectors is to indulge in pseudo science. There is no way to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth if we can't match it against hard evidence and in that case the test is useless because you have the evidence.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2017, 09:31 AM   #2820
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Fred Bost had right judgment in the MacDonald case.
No, he did not. Fred Bost was wrong, dead wrong in this case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The problem with polygraphs is that guilty people pass them and innocent people are convicted by them.
You really don't care how many times you post hugely wrong comments do you? In the United States of America polygraph's do not have any bearing on a conviction as they ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

You are correct that guilty people pass polygraphs - inmate did eventually pass a polygraph. Of course the one closest to the murders of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy he FAILED! He was not convicted on the strength of this polygraph - it was not even mentioned at trial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That is enough to make anybody frantic with worry if it means they are to be executed, or to spend the rest of their life in prison. It's a serious matter for them.
more BS commentary here....inmate, for example was not frantic when he took his first polygraph and failed it. That first polygraph was paid for and arranged by the defense. The results were not known to the prosecution for years. In 1975 (time of indictment) and 1979 (time of trial) the Death Penalty was not in use so there was no reason for inmate to be concerned about being executed. Besides inmate thought he was smarter then the rest of the world and he would get away with his horrific crimes. He was wrong.
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 19th April 2017, 08:56 AM   #2821
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Negative Arch

One could argue that if inmate was telling the truth, there wouldn't be a negative arc to the following polygraph timeline.

- After initially agreeing to take a CID administered polygraph exam, inmate refused to take the exam a mere 10 minutes after the conclusion of the 4/6/70 interview.

- A month later, inmate agrees to take a defense-funded exam administered by John Reid. The results were inconclusive due to inmate's extreme level of anxiety.

- A few weeks later, inmate agrees to take a defense-funded exam administered by Cleve Backster. Inmate flunked that exam.

Despite inmate becoming increasingly comfortable with the process, he was unable to con CID investigators and two polygraph examiners who, at the time, may have been the two best polygraph examiners in the country.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th April 2017 at 09:02 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2017, 09:00 AM   #2822
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
[quote=byn63;11804100]No, he did not. Fred Bost was wrong, dead wrong in this case.

You really don't care how many times you post hugely wrong comments do you? In the United States of America polygraph's do not have any bearing on a conviction as they ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

The point is that McGinniss used the polygraph information to falsely accuse Jeff MacDonald. JTF has been saying for years that MacDonald failed polygraphs, and that is supposed to be absolute certainty of his guilt, and that there are supposed to be no errors in the McGinniss Fatal Vision book.

As you correctly point out polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in courts. Polygraphs should just be regarded as internet gossip and opinions. The McGinniss book came out in time for the 1985 Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree appeal in 1985 and was used to back up the wrong verdict in the court of public opinion, along with excluding the Helena Stoeckley confessions and the psychiatric testimony.

There is an interesting letter on the internet from Fred Bost to JTF in 1999. I agree with Fred Bost:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...st-ltr-pc.html

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th April 2017 at 09:23 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 19th April 2017, 09:04 AM   #2823
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Negative Arc

One could argue that if inmate was telling the truth, there wouldn't be a negative arc to the following polygraph timeline.

- After initially agreeing to take a CID administered polygraph exam, inmate refused to take the exam a mere 10 minutes after the conclusion of the 4/6/70 interview.

- A month later, inmate agrees to take a defense-funded exam administered by John Reid. The results were inconclusive due to inmate's extreme level of anxiety.

- A few weeks later, inmate agrees to take a defense-funded exam administered by Cleve Backster. Inmate flunked that exam.

Despite inmate becoming increasingly comfortable with the process, he was unable to con CID investigators and two polygraph examiners who, at the time, may have been the two best polygraph examiners in the country.

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 20th April 2017, 03:40 AM   #2824
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that McGinniss used the polygraph information to falsely accuse Jeff MacDonald.
inmate WAS ALREADY CONVICTED PRIOR to Fatal Vision being published so NOTHING in that book had any part whatsoever in the conviction of inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
JTF has been saying for years that MacDonald failed polygraphs,and that is supposed to be absolute certainty of his guilt,
inmate DID FAIL the polygraph tests administered in close proximity to the murders he committed. HOWEVER, that IS NOT WHAT IS PROOF POSITIVE OF HIS GUILT. It was the over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence and the 7 week trial that constituted and still constitutes PROOF OF HIS GUILT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and that there are supposed to be no errors in the McGinniss Fatal Vision book.
What JTF has said, and what I have said, and what many numerous others have pointed out to you THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS IN FATAL VISION. There is, in a later edition, a theory mentioned but that is not an error either. It is not proven but that doesn't make it an error because it was presented as theory and only theory and it had no bearing on inmate's conviction.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Polygraphs should just be regarded as internet gossip and opinions.
No they should not henri. polygraphs ARE A VIABLE TOOL. gossip and internet nonsense posted by people who don't know their heads from their toes ARE NOT VIABLE TOOLS.

[quote=Henri McPhee;11805606] The McGinniss book came out in time for the 1985 Judge Dupree appeal in 1985 and was used to back up the wrong verdict in the court of public opinion, along with excluding the Helena Stoeckley confessions and the psychiatric testimony.

this is the most ridiculous comment. The United States Supreme Court heard the nonsensical arguments, upheld the rightful conviction, agreed that Judge Dupree was within his discretion to exclude the hearsay testimony of the so called Stoeckley 7 and that it was perfectly reasonable and again within Judge Dupree's discretion to exclude psychiatric testimony. It was irrelevant. inmate did not claim insanity (temporary or otherwise) so psychiatric testimony was a moot suggestion. The prosecution could and would have presented equally (or likely stronger) psychiatric testimony showing that inmate DID and WAS the type who could slaughter his family.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 04:07 AM   #2825
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

There is an interesting letter on the internet from Fred Bost to JTF in 1999. I agree with Fred Bost:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...st-ltr-pc.html
Naturally you would agree with Fred Bost even though he makes very little sense. His comments are not logical or based on facts. The best example is his comments about wounds....Fred Bost says that puncture wounds do not always bleed heavily and therefore inmate could have gotten his stab wound and then gone to the bathroom without leaving any blood in the living room where he alleged he got that wound. PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM - inmate did not have a PUNCTURE WOUND he has an INCISED WOUND.

From the American National Red Cross Standard First Aid and Personal Safety Manual:

I. Definitions

A wound is a break in the continuity of the tissues of the body either internal or external.

A. Classification of Wounds
1.Open - an open wound is a break in the skin or the mucous membrane.
2. Closed - a closed wound involves injury to the underlying tissues without a break in the skin or a mucous membrane.

B. Types of Wounds
1. Abraisions
2. Incisions
3. Lacerations
4. Punctures
5. Avulsions

II. Common Causes

Wounds usually result from external physical forces. The most common accidents resulting in open wounds are motor vehicle accidents, falls, and mishandling of sharp objects, tools, machinery, and weapons.

III. Symptoms

B. Incisions
1. An incised wound, or cut, frequently occurs when body tissue is cut on knives, rough edges of metal, broken glass, or other sharp objects.
2. Bleeding may be rapid and heavy.
3. Deep cuts may damage muscles, tendons, and nerves.

D. Punctures
1.A punctured wound is produced by an object piercing skin layers, creating a small hole in the tissues.
2. External bleeding is usually quite limited.

Not that I expect you to change your tactics after all these years, but these are FACTS. FACTS FACTS FACTS.

Also, Fred Bost is the one who insisted most loudly that the "mystery hair" would match the murderer yet didn't admit that when it did indeed match inmate 100% without a doubt that inmate had been rightfully convicted and that he (Fred Bost) had been hoodwinked all these years.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 08:51 AM   #2826
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

Also, Fred Bost is the one who insisted most loudly that the "mystery hair" would match the murderer yet didn't admit that when it did indeed match inmate 100% without a doubt that inmate had been rightfully convicted and that he (Fred Bost) had been hoodwinked all these years.
The "mystery hair" was unidentified until 2006, when it magically became a MacDonald hair for DNA testing at the AFIP lab. JTF keeps saying that the supposed pajama fibers on the murder weapon, which convicted MacDonald in court, were supposed to have been moved to a vial and slide and then photographed. Kathy Bond said they were "pajama-like fibers" and Frier said they were black wool fibers with no known source on the murder weapon. The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers were made up to be doll hairs by Malone. It's what is known technically as forensic fraud. Malone at the FBI lab denies any wrongdoing.

This is what Fred Bost said about the forensic fraud to JTF and how MacDonald was screwed:

Quote:
Subsequently in October 1997 the court authorized the defense to conduct DNA tests of those hairs and certain other unsourced hairs and selected blood stains. Although the Justice Department was ordered 15 months ago to cooperate with such testing, Murtagh and his crowd continue every means possible to delay the tests.

In their latest paper to the court, dated February 11, 1999, they are requesting still more time to meet requirements. More important, in this latest paper there is a hint they will contend a loss of the hairs taken from the children's fingernails. I base this on the fact that Glisson, in her lab note, indicates she put these critical hairs into labelled vials.. In the government paper, though the writer states: "The vials appear empty; however, in order to be certain this is the case, it will still be necessary to open the vials and examine any remaining contents."

So you see, when it comes to the government screwing MacDonald, the old adage fits perfectly. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th April 2017 at 08:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:42 AM   #2827
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The "mystery hair" was unidentified until 2006, when it magically became a MacDonald hair for DNA testing at the AFIP lab.
There is no mystery why the mystery hair remained unidentified from 1970 to 2006. As you have been told numerous times, ONLY HEAD AND PUBIC HAIR CAN BE COMPARED MICROSCOPICALLY. The only information that can be gleaned about other body hair is where on the body it is from (i.e. limb, chest, underarm) and that is FACT. The "mystery hair" is the "distal" or "tip" portion of a limb hair and it was found clutched in Colette's hand and it along with the splinter from the murder club also found in her hand was bloody.

Eventually inmate applied for and was granted the approval to have hairs DNA tested. When the DNA tests were complete and reported the "mystery hair" was and is a 100% match to Jeffrey Robert MacDonald so, Fred Bost did say something true and correct the mystery hair came from the murderer. INMATE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
JTF keeps saying that the supposed pajama fibers on the murder weapon, which convicted MacDonald in court, were supposed to have been moved to a vial and slide and then photographed.[
Not supposedly, the pajama fibers found on the murder club WERE MOVED to a vial. IF you bothered to read the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS you would see it is FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
.....Frier said they were black wool fibers with no known source on the murder weapon.
there were dark woolen fibers that were unsourced. this is not at all surprising considering that inmate got rid of the families possessions as soon as he could after the Article 32 but before the CID or anyone else could complete the analysis. HOWEVER, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that the family did own dark woolen hats, gloves, afghans etc.

I don't know why you keep bringing the dark woolen fibers up, it isn't as if the unsourced fibers were used against him.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers were made up to be doll hairs by Malone. It's what is known technically as forensic fraud. Malone at the FBI lab denies any wrongdoing.
more of your BS. the saran fibers WERE DOLL HAIRS. they were matched to the extensive exemplar collection of the FBI. There was no forensic fraud or any other kind of FRAUD. Fred Bost was an idiot. I pointed out to you just one of his many weird and ridiculous claims and his forensic fraud claim is not any better.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 11:50 AM   #2828
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,906
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
snipped the mooing of a large farm animal

As you correctly point out polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in courts. Polygraphs should just be regarded as internet gossip and opinions.

...snipped likewise
And yet you have no hesitation in citing internet gossip and opinions. You are truly the king of self contradictory behavior.

It takes a special kind of mind to get to the level you've sunk to.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 07:59 AM   #2829
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
there were dark woolen fibers that were unsourced. this is not at all surprising considering that inmate got rid of the families possessions as soon as he could after the Article 32 but before the CID or anyone else could complete the analysis. HOWEVER, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that the family did own dark woolen hats, gloves, afghans etc.

I don't know why you keep bringing the dark woolen fibers up, it isn't as if the unsourced fibers were used against him.


more of your BS. the saran fibers WERE DOLL HAIRS. they were matched to the extensive exemplar collection of the FBI. There was no forensic fraud or any other kind of FRAUD. Fred Bost was an idiot. I pointed out to you just one of his many weird and ridiculous claims and his forensic fraud claim is not any better.
That is not profound enough. The premise of the Joe McGinniss Fatal Vision book was that MacDonald is supposed to be a pathological narcissist and there was an amphetamine psychosis. That is bollocks. Christina (Gwyka) on that biased yuku forum thinks MacDonald is a sociopath and that's bollocks as well.

Psychiatrists, like economists, disagree with each other. There are psychiatrists who think that if you believe you are being bugged, or have your computer hacked, then you must be schizophrenic. That ain't necessarily so. That's just being doctor-like.

It's tragic that Dr Sadoff's testimony was excluded at the MacDonald trial in 1979 by biased 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree. This is part of what Dr. Sadoff said at the Joe McGinniss trial in 1987:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...11-sadoff.html

Quote:
By Mr Bostwick

Q. Dr Sadoff, you testified to a startling proposition that psychiatrists disagree. I just have one question for you: In your daily practice over the course of years that you've been working, if there was a psychiatrist who had diagnosed a patient by reading transcripts of tape recordings nine years after an event in question, and you compared that to the findings of a doctor who had examined the patient two months after the event and had caused psychological tests to be administered, which one would you rely on?

A. certainly, I would rely on the person who examined him closer to the time and had the psychological tests.

Mr. Bostwick : Thank you.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd April 2017 at 08:04 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 22nd April 2017, 08:22 AM   #2830
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
There was another rebuttal at the Joe McGinniss trial in 1987 by Jennifer Andrews. She was a colleague of Jeff MacDonald at St. Mary's in Long Beach, California. She was Chief of the Clinical Social Work Department:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...1-andrews.html

Quote:
Mr. Bostwick: It is in rebuttal to Dr. Stone, the psychiatrist who was able to look at transcripts that were made precisely during the same time period, and to say that this man was a narcissist and had absolutely no empathy for other people.

The Witness: All Right. Okay. I observed his manner with patients and his activities with patients. He took a great deal more time than the other emergency physicians in dealing with patients, particularly underprivileged patients; patients who were street people, he would do a more complete exam than the other doctors of patients who sometimes hadn't showered in many weeks and were difficult to deal with. He took just as long a time, and even a longer time with some of the disadvantaged patients than the upper middle class patients who would come in.
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 April 2017, 08:26 AM   #2831
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
This is a bit more waffle from Jennifer Andrews at the Joe McGinniss trial in California in 1987:

Quote:
Page 203
care be taken with street people, alcoholics, the homeless, that was taken with other patients; and that included ensuring that they had a home to go to, that they had a way to get there, and that they were going to receive some additional professional advice wherever I would refer them.

By Mr. Bostwick:
Q Do you consider yourself a friend of Dr. MacDonald's?

A I knew Dr. MacDonald in a professional capacity, and I would characterize my relationship as a professional one.

Q Did you ever socialize with him when you were at work at Saint Mary's?

A When I was at work at Saint Mary's, the staff would normally sit together in the consulting area. And I listened and participated in conversation during the down times when it wasn't busy.

Q On any occasion, did you socialize with Dr. MacDonald outside Saint Mary?

A I only saw Dr. MacDonald on one occasion outside Saint Mary's. That was at a Christmas party that the entire emergency department came to.

Q Since he was detained in 1982, have you had any communications with Dr. MacDonald?

A I sent Dr. MacDonald a number of letters initially when he was detained, to really just offer my support and also to indicate that I was very sorry for the loss of his
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 April 2017, 02:34 PM   #2832
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That is not profound enough. The premise of the Joe McGinniss Fatal Vision book was that MacDonald is supposed to be a pathological narcissist and there was an amphetamine psychosis. That is bollocks. Christina (Gwyka) on that biased yuku forum thinks MacDonald is a sociopath and that's bollocks as well.

<snip of fecal matter>

It's tragic that Dr Sadoff's testimony was excluded at the MacDonald trial in 1979 by biased 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree. This is part of what Dr. Sadoff said at the Joe McGinniss trial in 1987:
Point of fact: The premise of "Fatal Vision" was the life and trial of Jeffrey MacDonald before, during, after the murders of his wife and children. That MacDonald was convicted is a fact; the psychosis theory was Joe's attempt to explain the unexplainable. Jeff is a narcissist. It's all about him.

Observation: Jeffrey MacDonald's defense was "I didn't do it." Therefore there is nothing for Sadoff to testify about for the defense. Segal has a whole slew of people who've known Jeff all his life to support the "He's not the sort of guy who would do this defense." In fact, bringing in Dr. Sadoff might just make the jury go: Hmmmm, why does he need a shrink?

Last edited by desmirelle; 22nd April 2017 at 02:35 PM.
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 22nd April 2017, 05:22 PM   #2833
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Relying On Belief

When you can't produce a single piece of SOURCED physical evidence at trial and/or multiple appellate hearings, your only option is to bring forth character witnesses, therapists and psychiatrists.

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 April 2017, 03:18 AM   #2834
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
When you can't produce a single piece of SOURCED physical evidence at trial and/or multiple appellate hearings, your only option is to bring forth character witnesses, therapists and psychiatrists.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There was exculpatory physical evidence which was deliberately and dishonestly withheld by the prosecution. The MacDonald case needs some extremely competent judges.

There is a bit about the matter in a British newspaper. It may be inaccurate to say the murder weapon was a baseball bat but this is surprisingly accurate for a newspaper report:

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...d-new-fight-to clear-name

Quote:
Throughout, MacDonald protested his innocence – and new evidence suggests that his story may have been true.

DNA beneath Kristen’s fingernails, and in three hairs found beneath Colette’s body, does not match the family’s DNA.
*
Black wool fibres on the baseball bat match nothing in the home. And long blonde wig hairs, matching the description MacDonald gave of a female intruder, were also found yet never introduced in court.*

“We didn’t know there were any blonde wig hairs,” says MacDonald’s forensic expert, Dr John Thornton, who complains he wasn’t given all the evidence, or enough time to test it.”

Military police had failed to photograph MacDonald’s injuries. His pyjama bottoms, which could have yielded valuable clues, were thrown away at the hospital.*

Other evidence not presented at his trial: Candle wax at the scene didn’t match any of the candles in the house, and a bloody palm print on the bed was not MacDonald’s.*

Most shocking: Helena Stoeckley, a drug addict informant to the local narcotics squad, confessed to prosecutors and friends that she witnessed the killings.*
Deputy US Marshal Jimmy Britt claims prosecutors threatened to charge her with murder if she undermined their case by saying she had been at MacDonald’s home.
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 April 2017, 07:58 AM   #2835
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was exculpatory physical evidence which was deliberately and dishonestly withheld by the prosecution. The MacDonald case needs some extremely competent judges.
No henri there was not ANY evidence exculpatory or inculpatory withheld from the defense. this premise has been brought up and disproven. The courts have thoroughly reviewed this case over the years. in fact this case has been heard before the court more than any other in US jurisprudence. Not one Judge has claimed to find any evidence withheld.

Now there were some evidence items that were in the materials provided to the defense under Brady that the various lawyers ignored at the time and some of the rotating lawyers have since tried to claim was hidden. HOWEVER it has long since been proven that the defense had ALL the files since discovery and thus no basis to claim "withheld evidence". FACT henri nothing but FACT.

British newspapers are not a good source for information on an American murder case. inmate has been convicted honestly and fairly. Fatal Vision is an accurate description of the case - the entire case - and no substantive errors have ever been found in the book. More FACT
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 23rd April 2017, 08:28 AM   #2836
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
It's patently obvious that exculpatory evidence was withheld at the MacDonald trial. Byn is mistaken. The matter was discussed by MacDonald lawyer the late Dennis Eisman in 1985. This is part of it:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...985-12-14.html

Quote:
Efriam Margolin, Esquire
Chairman, Amicus Curiae Committee
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
240 Stockton Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 421-4347

Dennis H. Eisman, Esquire
Suite 1420 Robinson Building
42 South Fifteenth Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 563-1610

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The case of U.S. v. MacDonald has generated enormous amounts of public and media interest for the past 15 years. In addition, to extensive news coverage, this matter has been the subject of a best selling book and a television special viewed by more than 60 millions people. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is submitting this Amicus brief because of the potentially disastrous implications that a decision of this Court affirming the conduct of the Trial Judge and prosecution would have upon citizens throughout our land.

Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald is a professional who is fortunate enough, with the help of friends and relatives, to have been able to afford competent private counsel and investigators. In 1985 most defendants in criminal cases in the United States are represented by court-appointed lawyers who are generally underpaid, overworked, and unable to undertake the extensive investigation that has been on-going on behalf of Appellant herein.

As a result of this investigation, following Dr. MacDonald's conviction, shocking discoveries as more fully described in Appellant's brief and have been made with regard to the apparent misconduct of the trial judge and Prosecutors, before, during and following the trial.

What is also disturbing is that the evidence of the familial relationship of the Trial Court to the prosecution team and numerous instances of suppressed evidence was discovered only by the attorneys for Dr. MacDonald as a result of a momentous battle, following the trial, for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Only a small percentage of requested documents have been provided to Appellant and already numerous instances of impropriety have been uncovered. One can only surmise what the tens of thousands of pages of documents, which the prosecutors steadfastly continue to refuse to turn over to appellant, might contain.

If this type of conduct: the appearance of, if not the reality of impropriety of a trial judge; the surreptitious interrogation of an accused by an investigative agent of the government during trial; ongoing intentional suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence; and the refusal of an apparently tainted trial judge to consider volumes of after-discovered evidence; is condoned by this Court, the rights of all of our citizens to a fair trial are in serious jeopardy.
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 April 2017, 08:45 AM   #2837
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Point of fact: The premise of "Fatal Vision" was the life and trial of Jeffrey MacDonald before, during, after the murders of his wife and children. That MacDonald was convicted is a fact; the psychosis theory was Joe's attempt to explain the unexplainable. Jeff is a narcissist. It's all about him.

Observation: Jeffrey MacDonald's defense was "I didn't do it." Therefore there is nothing for Sadoff to testify about for the defense. Segal has a whole slew of people who've known Jeff all his life to support the "He's not the sort of guy who would do this defense." In fact, bringing in Dr. Sadoff might just make the jury go: Hmmmm, why does he need a shrink?
The psychiatric testimony was relevant because biased Judge Dupree wangled it so that the only testimony the jury were told about came from the biased government psychiatrists, Dr. Brussel and Dr Silverman. Dr. Brussel was suffering from senile dementia at the time.

Quote:
A Judge’s Secret Communication With The Prosecutor

The judge in the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case is one of the big reasons he is still in jail all these years later. In this excerpt from the book Fatal Justice, the judge in 1979 trial, United States federal judge Franklin Taylor Dupree Jr secretly communicated with the prosecution trying to influence the outcome of the trial. This fact was found out years later. Just this revelation alone should free the good Doctor who is currently awaiting on his 4th appeal. In my opinion this is absolute judicial corruption.

JUDGE DUPREE AND CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDA
TO THE PROSECUTORS

After MacDonald’s conviction, nearly ten years passed before the defense
team discovered that Judge Dupree had on at least three different occasions
written to the case prosecutors without sharing that information with written
the defense lawyers.

One of these instances particularly troubled the defense team when
the communications were discovered in FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) material. After Dr. Brussel’s unflattering assessment of MacDonald’s psyche had been put into report form during trial by Brussel’s psychologist, Dr. Silverman, Segal took steps to prevent MacDonald from being further injured by the probability of the Brussel-Silverman report going public.

Upon learning that Dupree wouldn’t allow any psychiatric testimony at all, Segal immediately pre-pared a motion to have the Brussel-Silverman report removed from the record. Segal had, after all, struck an agreement with Brussel and Silverman not to share that report with anyone unless Judge Dupree ruled to allow psychiatric testimony; and that agreement had been ignored when Murtagh gave it to Dupree. Now that report, which Segal considered bogus was going to become a part of the public record which the
prosecution could use at will to point to MacDonald’s “homicidal” nature.

That report, which contained opinions contrary to the reports of
of MacDonald by five other psychiatrists, would be the only official
psychiatric report in the trial record, placed there by Dupree as part of
his response to MacDonald’s plea to be freed on bail pending appeals.
Dupree responded to Segal’s motion to strike the report by writing a
memorandum not to Segal and the prosecutors, but to prosecutor Jim
Blackburn alone. And he marked the memo “CONFIDENTIAL.” He told
Blackburn he had just read Segal’s motion. “I understand you will respond
to this.”

Then the judge wrote, “Just what effect any agreement between
the doctors and Segal would have on you,” Dupree wrote, “l am not
aware…. I would observe that the court did not rule that the defendant
might not offer psychiatric evidence in support of his defense but simply
limited such evidence to that tending to show defendant’s character traits
of peacefulness, etc.

This confidential memorandum, besides incorrectly stating Dupree’s
actual ruling, was a one-sided secret communication with the prosecu-
tor, which offered the judge’s own views, thereby revealing to Blackburn
how he might successfully argue. It is not difficult to understand why
the discovery of this memorandum in the FOIA receipts angered Bernard
Segal when he learned about it years later.

Nor was this memo the first ex-parte communication between Dupree
and the prosecution. Pre-trial, on May 14, 1979, Dupree had written the
prosecution, saying, “Let me know immediately when Segal responds to
your letter of May 11 and I will be prepared to rule on his motion.”
And in an earlier letter from Dupree to then Assistant U.S. Attorney
Jay Stroud February 26, 1975, Dupree had advised Stroud on what he
“should do” to proceed toward the MacDonald trial.
The latest news on the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald Case is here: https://www.facebook.com/FreeMacdonald/

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd April 2017 at 08:58 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 23rd April 2017, 12:41 PM   #2838
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 252
Point of Fact: The memo wasn't in the evidence shown to the jury. So, it's irrelevant.

Observation: You seemed to have confused the evidence the prosecution chose not to use as being 'withheld' - in fact, it was available for the defense to use. They chose not to use it, either.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 12:45 PM   #2839
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 759
Reading Comprehension

As evidenced by the response to my prior post, not everyone has reading comprehension skills. The defense has had multiple chances to argue for the exculpatory nature of several evidentiary items, but their claims have been repeatedly shot down by the appellate courts. In 1998, the 4th Circuit Court concluded that these claims were "specious" and concurred with the government's position that these items were nothing more than household debris.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd April 2017 at 12:50 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2017, 02:59 AM   #2840
byn63
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's patently obvious that exculpatory evidence was withheld at the MacDonald trial. Byn is mistaken. The matter was discussed by MacDonald lawyer the late Dennis Eisman in 1985.
No henri it is NOT obvious (patently or otherwise) because NO EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD. Byn is not mistaken, byn has READ AND UNDERSTOOD the actual documentation. Please try and GRASP THIS FACT henri - the courts have heard all of the defense arguments multiple times. the courts have found that no evidence was withheld. Just because the defense chose not to use items turned over to them during the Brady process does not mean that the prosecution did not give them the material. MUCH of the material was not used by the prosecution either, but that doesn't mean it was not provided. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found the defense arguments regarding "withheld evidence" to be specious.

specious: adjective; Having the ring of truth but actually fallacious.

fallacious: adjective; Containing fundamental errors in reasoning, Misleading; disceptive. (synonyms: false, illogical, invalid, specious, spurious)

What Dennis Eisman had to say is irrelevant.
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
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 10:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.