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 17th April 2019, 08:12 PM   #1241
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is what I have posted on this forum about this matter of MacDonald case juror opinions in 2013:
You didn't answer any of my questions to the extent required.

Here they are again:

Interesting. How many of the jurors did you speak to before reaching this conclusion?
-- no response to this. Is 'none' the correct answer?

Were those sworn statements, take under oath?
-- no response to this. Is 'no' the correct answer?

Are there published transcripts of the jury interviews you conducted that you can link to?
-- no response to this. Is 'no' the correct answer?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for the jurors and telling us what they were thinking.
-- It appears it is entirely second-hand, from an internet post by an unnamed McDonald accolyte. And far from being small-minded and convinced of his guilt, what's provided quotes some jurors who said they were convinced of his innocence.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?
-- So you do have nothing. You're just accepting something you read on the internet. And from that, you pretend to be able to read the minds of the jury.

I'm asking you to defend this claim:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that it was a mistake by Segal at the trial not to cross-examine Laber about the pajama pocket. That created a bad impression on the jury who assumed in their little minds that any mention of blood meant that MacDonald was obviously guilty.
The quotes you provided say they were NOT convinced he was obviously guilty.

Which of those claims is wrong?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th April 2019 at 08:27 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 02:35 AM   #1242
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The quotes you provided say they were NOT convinced he was obviously guilty.

Which of those claims is wrong?

Hank
I don't think any of these claims are wrong. There was another story that one of the female jurors burst in to tears afterwards about having to convict MacDonald because it was all so emotional. The foreman of the jury was overheard before the trial saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald. Personally, I think MacDonald would have done better to have had Lin Wood from the JonBenet Ramsey case rather than Segal. Lin Wood would not have been so easily conned by the lab technicians, and by Murtagh and Blackburn, and Lin Wood would have done a careful preparation and asked relevant questions with clever advocacy.

I wrote a bit about this matter on this forum in 2013:

Quote:
For JTF to say that the juror Fred Thornhill thinks Dr. MacDonald is guilty doesn't make it a fact. There was at least one MacDonald trial juror who publicly said after the trial that she thought the jury was not fully informed about "that woman" by which she meant Helena Stoeckley. There were other jurors who have publicly expressed doubts about the MacDonald case. Their quotes are on the internet somewhere. There are affidavits that the now deceased foreman of the jury spoke to three different people before the trial saying he was going to convict Dr. MacDonald whatever happened in court.
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 2019, 02:45 AM   #1243
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
I was watching an old American Medical Detectives TV show the other day in which the forensic scientist Skip Palenik was consulted by the Alaska police about some junk carpet fiber found at a crime scene which eventually convicted the murderer. The thought occurred to me that he could be consulted about those blonde synthetic hair -like fibers found at the MacDonald murders crime scene. I would be interested if he was in disagreement with Malone about the matter. This is a bit about his background:

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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th April 2019 at 02:53 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 18th April 2019, 05:29 AM   #1244
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think any of these claims are wrong.
One of them must be. They contradict each other. You have all the jurors deciding to convict based on non-rebutted blood evidence, then you offer purported quotes from some of those jurors saying they weren't convinced McDonald was guilty.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was another story that one of the female jurors burst in to tears afterwards about having to convict MacDonald because it was all so emotional.
Interesting. A father murdering his wife, two daughters, and unborn son. That shouldn't bring up emotions of sadness? An autopsy photo of a dead infant isn't something anyone can ever unsee. You're presuming the woman rendered a verdict based solely on emotions, rather than viewing the evidence dispassionately, and voting to convict on the basis of the evidence, but being saddened by the case nonetheless.

Aren't you?

Same questions. This juror, did you speak to her, to confirm this 'story'?

Is there a sworn statement, take under oath?

Are there a published transcript of this juror's interview you conducted that you can link to?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for this juror and telling us what they were thinking.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The foreman of the jury was overheard before the trial saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald.
And now we're onto a third different version. In this new version, the juror wasn't convinced by the non-rebutted blood evidence as you originally claimed. They also weren't convinced MacDonald was innocent but voted to convict because 'reasons'. In this version, they came into the trial already convinced of his guilt.

So which two versions of the three you've posted are wrong? Or are three wrong? They all can be wrong, but they all can't be right.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think MacDonald would have done better to have had Lin Wood from the JonBenet Ramsey case rather than Segal. Lin Wood would not have been so easily conned by the lab technicians, and by Murtagh and Blackburn, and Lin Wood would have done a careful preparation and asked relevant questions with clever advocacy.
First off, nobody cares what you think. This isn't about your opinions. The choice of McDonald's attorneys rests with MacDonald, not with you. He chose Segal. He doesn't get a do-over because you think he should have chosen differently.

Secondly, Lin Wood was fresh out of law school when MacDonald went on trial. If Wood was his attorney, and the outcome of the trial was the same, you'd no doubt be complaining Wood's inexperience led to the conviction, and what was needed was an experienced trial lawyer, someone like a Bernie Segal.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th April 2019 at 06:04 AM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 05:37 AM   #1245
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I was watching an old American Medical Detectives TV show the other day in which the forensic scientist Skip Palenik was consulted by the Alaska police about some junk carpet fiber found at a crime scene which eventually convicted the murderer. The thought occurred to me that he could be consulted about those blonde synthetic hair -like fibers found at the MacDonald murders crime scene.
Go ahead. Consult with him. Or does your advocacy for MacDonald extend only to internet posting?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I would be interested if he was in disagreement with Malone about the matter. This is a bit about his background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_Palenik
So why exactly haven't you contacted him yet?

You however are presuming what you must prove. What if he were to examine the evidence and conclude MacDonald was guilty? What then? He's just another unqualified pseudo-expert that shouldn't have been allowed to testify, right?

We know all your moves already. Even before you do.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th April 2019 at 05:57 AM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 09:30 AM   #1246
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Is there a sworn statement, take under oath?

Are there a published transcript of this juror's interview you conducted that you can link to?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for this juror and telling us what they were thinking.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?
It looks as though Potter and Bost interviewed the MacDonald case jurors for their Fatal Justice book, unless you are accusing them of lying and perjury, like Blackburn and Stombaugh and Murtagh. I haven't personally interviewed them:

Quote:
All the quotes above are taken from "Fatal Justice," pp. 246-247.
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 2019, 10:01 AM   #1247
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks as though Potter and Bost interviewed the MacDonald case jurors for their Fatal Justice book, unless you are accusing them of lying and perjury, like Blackburn and Stombaugh and Murtagh. I haven't personally interviewed them:
Perjury, no. But only because it's not a sworn statement. Lying is always possible.

But if all those claims come from a book, then you're not out of the woods. You've just moved the contradictions to the authors. You still have to explain why you posted them here.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 01:30 PM   #1248
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,178
Nail In The Coffin

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks as though Potter and Bost interviewed the MacDonald case jurors for their Fatal Justice book, unless you are accusing them of lying and perjury, like Blackburn and Stombaugh and Murtagh. I haven't personally interviewed them:
Bost and Potter conveniently ignored several key aspects of this issue and their book presented the better without the bitter. The jury only deliberated for 6 1/2 hours which indicates that Bost/Potter concocted a mythical scenario involving juror unrest and uncertainty. I would argue that the following court document puts this issue to rest.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...t-polling.html
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 06:24 PM   #1249
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 4
Case closed

Henri, I'm sorry to say but you're flogging a dead horse with this case.

No amount of alternative facts or wild conspiracy theories will make a dent in the mountains of legitimate evidence that has been proven in 49 years of legal proceedings.

JMcD murdered his family, and even though he is still breathing, everyone should find some comfort that he is in a cage for the rest of his life.
GiSEQ 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 2019, 07:13 PM   #1250
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Bost and Potter conveniently ignored several key aspects of this issue and their book presented the better without the bitter. The jury only deliberated for 6 1/2 hours which indicates that Bost/Potter concocted a mythical scenario involving juror unrest and uncertainty. I would argue that the following court document puts this issue to rest.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...t-polling.html
Correct me if this is wrong, but the first count was for Mrs. MacDonald, the second count for the oldest daughter, Kimberly, and the third count for the infant, Kristen.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 10:02 PM   #1251
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,178
Correct

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Correct me if this is wrong, but the first count was for Mrs. MacDonald, the second count for the oldest daughter, Kimberly, and the third count for the infant, Kristen.

Hank
You are correct. IMO, the jury let inmate off easy when they found him guilty of murdering Colette and Kimberley in the 2nd degree. Juror Fred Thornhill has stated numerous times that their verdict was the result of the mass of inculpatory evidence, yet this same evidence should have resulted in 2 additional convictions of murder in the 1st degree. The autopsy report on Colette indicates that the fatal knife wounds to Colette's neck/chest were inflicted AFTER she was beaten with the club in BOTH the master bedroom and in Kristen's room.

The autopsy report on Kimberley indicates that the fatal knife wounds to her neck were inflicted AFTER she received the massive blunt trauma wound to her head in the master bedroom. The blood and fiber evidence proved beyond ALL doubt that Colette's fatal knife wounds were inflicted in the master bedroom and Kimberley's fatal knife wounds were inflicted in her bedroom.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th April 2019 at 10:07 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 Yesterday, 02:24 AM   #1252
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Juror Fred Thornhill has stated numerous times that their verdict was the result of the mass of inculpatory evidence, yet this same evidence should have resulted in 2 additional convictions of murder in the 1st degree.
That's not quite correct. The blood and fiber evidence is highly controversial and the prosecution were shown to have been lying about it after the trial. As Murtagh said in a Bench Conference at the trial Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. That's unsafe and unsatisfactory and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence:

Quote:
"During a 1988 interview, Fred Thornhill confided that if the holdouts
had continued to resist, he, not totally convinced himself, might have
swung the other way..." He blamed his vote on a "lack of defense."
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 Yesterday, 03:12 AM   #1253
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
Henri, I'm sorry to say but you're flogging a dead horse with this case.

No amount of alternative facts or wild conspiracy theories will make a dent in the mountains of legitimate evidence that has been proven in 49 years of legal proceedings.

JMcD murdered his family, and even though he is still breathing, everyone should find some comfort that he is in a cage for the rest of his life.
It was a gross miscarriage of justice.
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 Yesterday, 03:49 AM   #1254
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 4
Must be why he’s still in prison 😀
GiSEQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:16 AM   #1255
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
Must be why he’s still in prison 😀
There is a bit about that matter in that book English Justice by an anonymous solicitor published in 1932:

Quote:
I am often reminded of a young solicitor who was doing some prison visiting. He asked a man what he was there for. On being told he said, "But they couldn't give you six months for that." "Yeah!" said the prisoner, "couldn't
they ? Then where the hell am I ?"
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 Yesterday, 08:29 AM   #1256
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
I agree that DNA has been a great advance in forensic science and it has helped to solve murders as well as to exonerate the innocent. I still think there can be problems with DNA if corrupt lab technicians, as in the MacDonald case, deliberately plant DNA to incriminate somebody. That may have happened in the Hennis case, which I think is also in North Carolina. There is a bit about this matter at this website:

http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/polic...ror-and-fraud/

Quote:
The FBI acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 08:32 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM   #1257
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
snipped
None of your references to different cases at different times and places precludes the evidence proving your mancrush murdered his family.

Still waiting for your explanation of how your mancrush confessing to his father-in-law that he had committed murder falls into your definition of a "little white lie."

Do the facts have you tongue-tied?
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 09:03 AM   #1258
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post

Still waiting for your explanation of how your mancrush confessing to his father-in-law that he had committed murder falls into your definition of a "little white lie."

Do the facts have you tongue-tied?
There were never any suspicious deaths of the real culprits that can be attributed to MacDonald, or his mates, unlike the sudden deaths of Stoeckley and Mitchell after being interviewed by the State Bureau of Investigation.

This matter has been discussed by me on this forum before now:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...php?p=12162615

Quote:
KING: Your mistake was telling your father-in-law that you had the killers taken care of, right, to get him off your back? Is that correct?

MACDONALD: I did say that to him. What I was trying to do was give Mildred and Freddy a little closure. They had...

KING: No, I understand.

MACDONALD: ... shut up their house. They had turned off the lights, literally. They had a life-sized doll dressed in clothes from the kids. And I was trying to give them -- I said, Freddy, look, some of the Green Berets I know and I found this guy. We took care of it. And it was a really bad decision. I shouldn't have said that. But that is not what changed Alfred, Kassab.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 09:05 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 Yesterday, 09:52 AM   #1259
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were never any suspicious deaths of the real culprits that can be attributed to MacDonald, or his mates, unlike the sudden deaths of Stoeckley and Mitchell after being interviewed by the State Bureau of Investigation.

[/url]
Inmate told his father in law he and his "mates" murdered one of the culprits.

You've attempted to hand wave away the fact that your mancrush lied about committing a murder.

You can't even articulate why that matters in general sense and why it matters in capital letters wrt every statement that came out of his mouth after HE murdered his family.

You've married a loser that murdered his family and no amount of your nonsense is going to overcome the facts and evidence.
__________________
"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 Yesterday, 04:57 PM   #1260
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,178
Laundry List Of Little White Lies

Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
None of your references to different cases at different times and places precludes the evidence proving your mancrush murdered his family.

Still waiting for your explanation of how your mancrush confessing to his father-in-law that he had committed murder falls into your definition of a "little white lie."

Do the facts have you tongue-tied?
The Landlord has no answers for ANY of the following little and big lies.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

In terms of inmate's most infamous fabrication, the Landlord conveniently ignores the FACT that inmate's rationale for lying to Freddy changed over time. At the 1974-1975 Grand Jury Hearings, inmate claimed he lied to get Freddy and Mildred off his back. He then doubled-down on his scumbaggery by calling Freddy an "alcoholic fanatic," and referring to Mildred as Colette's "so-called mother." In the late 90's, he told interviewers his lie was an attempt to bring Freddy and Mildred peace. Typical thought process of a psychopath.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 05:00 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 Today, 02:58 AM   #1261
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Landlord has no answers for ANY of the following little and big lies.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html
Quote:
The urine stain on the master bedroom sheet was shown to be Kimberley's urine, not Kristen's.
That's one of the biggest loads of crap in the MacDonald case, perhaps only to be compared with the footprints and the "pajama -like" fibers as Kathy Bound so succinctly put it. How can you test the identity of a urine stain after ninety weeks? At least Murtagh and Judge Dupree never mentioned that at the trial, and Kearns was never called to testify about it, presumably because of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 02:59 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, 03:10 AM   #1262
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,465
I was watching one of those Medical Detective American TV shows the other day and the name of Tom Bevel came up as helping to convict in a difficult murder. I think he has written a book on bloodstain and blood spatter analysis The thought occurred to me that he is much better qualified than Stombaugh and Laber or Bunker ever were in the MacDonald prosecution, and he might be able to explain the matter to the 4th Circuit judges, who seem to be obsessed with tunnel vision in the case:

https://www.bevelgardner.com/experts

Quote:
Captain Bevel (Ret.) has served as a crime scene consultant in over 46 U.S. States and 9 foreign countries. He has been qualified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in both state and federal courts.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 03:11 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, 03:22 AM   #1263
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I was watching one of those Medical Detective American TV shows the other day and the name of Tom Bevel came up as helping to convict in a difficult murder. I think he has written a book on bloodstain and blood spatter analysis The thought occurred to me that he is much batter qualified than Stombaugh and Laber or Bunker ever were in the MacDonald prosecution, and he might be able to explain the matter to the 4th Circuit judges, who seem to be obsessed with tunnel vision in the case:

https://www.bevelgardner.com/experts
Why are you presuming he would reach conclusions any different than any of the other experts you named - Stombaugh, Laber, or Bunker?

Don't you have to determine what his conclusions would be before you invoke his name as a MacDonald defense expert? That seems like a minimum requirement. And before accusing the 4th Circuit judges of tunnel vision? What if Tom Bevel reached the same conclusions as the other experts? Would that change your mind any?

I doubt it. Instead you would just add Bevel's name to the list of those conspiring to keep MacDonald in jail, right?

You also don't seem to understand what matters the fourth circuit judges are empowered to decide at this point. They are not a trial court, but an appeals court, and my understanding is they won't be hearing from prosecution or defense expert witnesses in any case. The case doesn't get retried in appeals.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 03:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.