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 10th January 2019, 04:54 PM   #841
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Is it bad to say I expected you to say tie a knot in the rope and slip it over your head, Desi?

No, you've been on enough boards with me to expect that one.
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 11th January 2019, 12:29 PM   #842
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
So does anyone (other than possibly henri) think inmate will appeal to the USSC to be heard on this last decision?
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 11th January 2019, 04:13 PM   #843
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
It's A Lock

BYN: I would be shocked if inmate doesn't appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Considering that they've already heard the case (e.g., 1977 and 1981), the chances of them hearing the case a 3rd time are remote.

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 12th January 2019, 03:17 AM   #844
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
Pure Gold

Considering inmate's current legal plight, portions of his rant to Jerry Allen Potter are pure gold.

"And, poor thing, she even thinks she was in my house that night, watching Colette struggling with Greg Mitchell, and Mitchell's a, guess what? A brown-haired, left-handed guy and the experts say that Colette was killed by a left-handed guy."

COMMENT: Interesting how inmate clarifies that Stoeckley "thinks" she was present at the crime scene and that Mitchell merely struggled with Colette. When inmate refers to "the experts," he is referring to a whopping 2 experts. What inmate doesn't say is that both of these experts admit that the wielder of the club could have used a two-handed grip when swinging this brutal weapon.

"Then they find fresh candle wax, and not just anywhere, mind you. They find it where? On the coffee table, and in Kimmie's room."

COMMENT: All 3 wax samples were dry, one sample found in Kimmie's room resembled birthday candle wax, and the other sample found in her room resembled wax found on a wine bottle in the dining room. The 3rd sample was not found on the coffee table, but was located on the underside of the table. That sample was the oldest of the 3 unsourced wax samples as evidenced by the fact it contained household debris.

"Now, the army lab techs find a bloody syringe, a piece of skin on Colette's fingernail, four bloody gloves, blond wig hair, all kinds of unmatched fingerprints, and a hair in Colette's hand that isn't mine, hey a brown hair, by the way, and I'm blond, but they cover all this up..."

COMMENT: Inmate does his usual mixing and matching of debunked claims and evidence that doesn't have any real exculpatory value. The bloody syringe never existed, it was never proven that the evidentiary item was a piece of skin, the four bloody (e.g., blood transfer, too minute to type) gloves were oven mitts and dish gloves, there is ample evidence that the source of the "wig" hair were dolls owned by the MacDonald children, finding unmatched prints in a lived in/ground floor residence is not unusual, and the brown hair eventually was sourced to inmate via DNA.

"And the foreign hair they found in Colette's hand, the one thing that clobbered them in the army hearing, has now become nothing. Somebody had cut it till it's too small to test."

COMMENT: Like Bost and Potter, inmate doesn't understand the basics of microscopic hair comparisons. The only hairs that are comparable under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. The hair that matched his DNA profile is a limb hair, so the cutting theory is just another example of amateur hour in the MacDonald Camp.

Potter: "But you can't prove Murtagh changed the evidence."
Inmate: "Can't prove anything until you can get your hands on it, and get him on the stand in an evidentiary hearing, which they aren't going to let me have."

COMMENT: The AFIP's DNA test results blew that "gotcha" moment out of the water. The results proved that Murtagh changed nothing, that inmate was the source of the broken, bloody limb hair, and that the defense didn't have the stones to put Murtagh on the stand at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The lone government expert on their original witness list was CID lab technician Janice Glisson, but the defense never called Glisson to the stand. The defense knew that Glisson was more apt to hurt their case, so they focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 12th January 2019 at 03:42 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 12th January 2019, 09:51 AM   #845
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
The Army CID are bent cops and the FBI lab are forensic fraudsters.
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 12th January 2019, 04:42 PM   #846
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Army CID are bent cops and the FBI lab are forensic fraudsters.
Yawn. That song is so bad and Henri sings it so off-key and so often that it's become BORING.
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 12th January 2019, 05:50 PM   #847
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,308
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Army CID are bent cops and the FBI lab are forensic fraudsters.
seeing you won't come to this country and get your boy out of jail with all your expert knowledge, shows who the real fraud is. why aren't you doing all you can to get him out and prove his innocence? trolling messageboards isn't going to cut it.
Whip 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 January 2019, 05:44 AM   #848
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Considering inmate's current legal plight, portions of his rant to Jerry Allen Potter are pure gold.

"And, poor thing, she even thinks she was in my house that night, watching Colette struggling with Greg Mitchell, and Mitchell's a, guess what? A brown-haired, left-handed guy and the experts say that Colette was killed by a left-handed guy."

COMMENT: Interesting how inmate clarifies that Stoeckley "thinks" she was present at the crime scene and that Mitchell merely struggled with Colette. When inmate refers to "the experts," he is referring to a whopping 2 experts. What inmate doesn't say is that both of these experts admit that the wielder of the club could have used a two-handed grip when swinging this brutal weapon.
just like when he used the term "alleged intruders" he is telling the world that the intruders did not exist and that he in fact was the murderer, but you won't get the few remaining macolites to see that very simple FACT.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
"Then they find fresh candle wax, and not just anywhere, mind you. They find it where? On the coffee table, and in Kimmie's room."

COMMENT: All 3 wax samples were dry, one sample found in Kimmie's room resembled birthday candle wax, and the other sample found in her room resembled wax found on a wine bottle in the dining room. The 3rd sample was not found on the coffee table, but was located on the underside of the table. That sample was the oldest of the 3 unsourced wax samples as evidenced by the fact it contained household debris.
I have always wondered where inmate got the idea that the wax was "fresh" because none of the descriptions I read came even close to calling the wax deposits fresh. Fresh wax is not brittle.....Oh, and not finding candles matching the drippings? I don't know anyone who saves the stubs of candles when they are past use as candles (unless they make their own candles or are going to make candles as a craft for Girl Scouts or similar).

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
"Now, the army lab techs find a bloody syringe, a piece of skin on Colette's fingernail, four bloody gloves, blond wig hair, all kinds of unmatched fingerprints, and a hair in Colette's hand that isn't mine, hey a brown hair, by the way, and I'm blond, but they cover all this up..."

COMMENT: Inmate does his usual mixing and matching of debunked claims and evidence that doesn't have any real exculpatory value. The bloody syringe never existed, it was never proven that the evidentiary item was a piece of skin, the four bloody (e.g., blood transfer, too minute to type) gloves were oven mitts and dish gloves, there is ample evidence that the source of the "wig" hair were dolls owned by the MacDonald children, finding unmatched prints in a lived in/ground floor residence is not unusual, and the brown hair eventually was sourced to inmate via DNA.
an imaginary bloody syringe is equal to the imaginary bloody partial palm print the defense tried to claim was on the foot board of the master bed. I STILL can not believe the gall of Bost and Potter to claim the oven mitts and dish gloves "as bloody gloves" as if anyone would have worn them while committing murder! geez, I don't know anyone with at least 2 functional brain cells that would even handle a knife while wearing an oven mitt!

I see desperation in the claims made by the defense about the "lost skin fragment" because Bill Ivory although a great investigator is NOT a forensics expert and he is the only one who 'thought' there was a skin fragment in the vial, no one qualified as a forensic tech of any kind ever saw the alleged skin fragment.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
"And the foreign hair they found in Colette's hand, the one thing that clobbered them in the army hearing, has now become nothing. Somebody had cut it till it's too small to test."

COMMENT: Like Bost and Potter, inmate doesn't understand the basics of microscopic hair comparisons. The only hairs that are comparable under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. The hair that matched his DNA profile is a limb hair, so the cutting theory is just another example of amateur hour in the MacDonald Camp.
I agree - they are grasping for an anchor that is going to sink them but they didn't realize that it would take them down. I don't understand how allegedly intelligent people can not understand the basics of hair analysis. I don't know how many times I've replied with the simple fact that microscopy was not an option on that hair fragment just to have another person come back and question this basic FACT.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Potter: "But you can't prove Murtagh changed the evidence."

Inmate: "Can't prove anything until you can get your hands on it, and get him on the stand in an evidentiary hearing, which they aren't going to let me have."

COMMENT: The AFIP's DNA test results blew that "gotcha" moment out of the water. The results proved that Murtagh changed nothing, that inmate was the source of the broken, bloody limb hair, and that the defense didn't have the stones to put Murtagh on the stand at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The lone government expert on their original witness list was CID lab technician Janice Glisson, but the defense never called Glisson to the stand. The defense knew that Glisson was more apt to hurt their case, so they focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony.
Some of the remaining macolites still claim that Murtagh switched that hair. I am waiting for any of them to explain exactly how this occurred without inmate being aware of it AND how did they get it to the exact size, shape, color, and dried blood of Colette as E-5 has been described from the beginning.....just like your time line challenge JTF it has gone unanswered.
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 17th January 2019, 03:45 AM   #849
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I have always wondered where inmate got the idea that the wax was "fresh" because none of the descriptions I read came even close to calling the wax deposits fresh. Fresh wax is not brittle.....Oh, and not finding candles matching the drippings? I don't know anyone who saves the stubs of candles when they are past use as candles (unless they make their own candles or are going to make candles as a craft for Girl Scouts or similar).
That's manufactured evidence.This matter of the candle wax was discussed the 1979 trial and at the Article 32 with the Army CID lab idiot so-called forensic chemist Browning who insisted the fibers in the wooden club murder weapon were pajama fibers in direct contradiction to the opinion of the expert examiner at the FBI lab, Frier, who insisted they were black wool fibers from an unknown source.

The defense were never allowed to examine that hair in Colette's left hand which magically became a MacDonald hair to be tested at the AFIP lab in 2006 after being considered inconsistent and dissimilar to a MacDonald hair from the start of the investigation.

The MacDonald case needs a judge with a strong personality who can seize the situation like a man:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._browning.html

Quote:
Q Now, later on, after this initial examination of wax, were you not asked to make some further comparisons of these three unknowns with other samples that may have been taken in the MacDonald house?
A Yes; I received six more candles. If I remember correctly, three of those were unburned candles or unused candles. The other three had been used.
Q And when did you receive the six additional candles?
A This came the latter part of 1970, I think, or the first of 1971.
Q And do you know who sent those to you?
A Yes, they were sent by the CID at Fort Bragg.
Q And again you were asked to determine whether the three unidentified samples found in the MacDonald house were similar to or the same as the six additional samples the CID sent you?
A Yes, I was.
Q Did you make the comparison between the three identified and the six additional candles?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you conclude?
A They did not match.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th January 2019 at 03:47 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 17th January 2019, 07:20 AM   #850
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's manufactured evidence.
What is manufactured evidence? That they found wax? That is a FACT. That the wax on the coffee table was old, brittle, and had household debris inbedded? That too is FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This matter of the candle wax was discussed the 1979 trial and at the Article 32.
Yes the wax was discussed at it was stated that the wax in the bedrooms and the wax on the coffee table came from different sources. It was also mentioned that the coffee table wax was brittle and had household debris embedded. Not only that, but the wax from Kimmie's room was found to be the type used to make birthday cake candles (which differs from other wax).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
with the Army CID lab so-called forensic chemist Browning who insisted the fibers in the wooden club murder weapon were pajama fibers in direct contradiction to the opinion of the expert examiner at the FBI lab, Frier, who insisted they were black wool fibers from an unknown source.
Chemist Browning had worked for DuPont prior to his service in CID. He was uniquely qualified to identify the pajama fibers since the pajamas were made of a patented DuPont poly-cotton fiber blend. What part of "removed the fibers from the murder club and put them into a vial marked...." in the bench notes do you fail to understand. The black wool fibers were left on the club by Browning as he was not examining those fibers. It was not and is not and never was a matter of "this or that" but BOTH types of fiber were initially found on the murder club. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this very simple principle.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The defense were never allowed to examine that hair in Colette's left hand which magically became a MacDonald hair to be tested at the AFIP lab in 2006 after being considered inconsistent and dissimilar to a MacDonald hair from the start of the investigation.
What part of the basics of hair analysis to you NOT understand?

1. FACT: ONLY HEAD AND PUBIC HAIR CAN BE MICROSCOPICALLY COMPARED.
2. FACT: THE HAIR FOUND IN COLETTE'S HAND WAS THE DISTAL OR TIP PORTION OF A LIMB HAIR. (this means Arm, Leg, Armpit, possibly chest)
3. FACT: A TRAINEE IN HAIR EXAMINATIONS ATTEMPTED TO USE MICROSCOPY ON THE HAIR WHICH WAS USELESS.
4. FACT: EVEN THE DEFENSE ADMITTED THAT WHOEVER WAS THE CONTRIBUTOR OF THAT HAIR WAS THE WIELDER OF THE MURDER CLUB.
5. FACT: 100% DNA MATCH TO INMATE.
6. FACT: NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT IT

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The MacDonald case needs a judge with a strong personality who can seize the situation like a man
Well a good Judge does not have to be male. HOWEVER, that point is moot because they are not going to assign another Judge to hear the case. Inmate has been convicted and the conviction has been upheld and there is no evidence to suggest he didn't commit the murders PLUS the evidence even stronger now with the DNA results would get him convicted again.

Maybe inmate lawyers will apply to the USSC for a hearing in an attempt to over turn the latest decisions, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
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 17th January 2019, 10:07 AM   #851
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.
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 17th January 2019, 10:54 AM   #852
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
It began on 4/6/70 and should have ended in 1975

During the 4/6/70 CID interview, investigators pointed out to inmate there was nothing to indicate that 4 or more home invaders were responsible for murdering his family. This line of questioning was in regards to the condition of the apartment (e.g., no property damage) and the fact that theft was not a motivation for this horrific crime.

That alone should put inmate's ridiculous story in its proper perspective, but once the CID eliminated potential suspects through print/hair comparisons (e.g., 1971 and 1975), inmate's cell door should have been slammed shut. Unfortunately, this case morphed from an open and shut forensic analysis to a convoluted legal battle that lasted for 42 years.

Yes, inmate was in prison for 37 of those 42 years, but the legal system provided him with the kind of hope/freedom that mass murderers should not receive. A big part of this legal circus was inmate's attempts to manipulate the definition of sourced evidence.

The fact that not a single evidentiary item was sourced to an alternative suspect didn't deter inmate from asserting that the source of a specific fiber or hair was a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Inmate's weak hand included the following evidentiary items.

3 unsourced fibers found on Colette's body

2 unsourced fibers found on the club

1 unsourced fiber found on inmate's glasses

1 unsourced hair found under Colette's body

1 unsourced hair found on Kristen's bed

1 unsourced hair found in Kristen's fingernail scrapings

30 unsourced finger/palm prints

3 unsourced candle wax drippings

Compare that ball of nothing to the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial and 3 hairs that were sourced to inmate via DNA testing. One of those hairs was a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. Located next to inmate's broken, bloody arm hair was a splinter from the club. This links inmate to the club used on Colette in the master bedroom and in Kristen's room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th January 2019 at 10:57 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 17th January 2019, 12:13 PM   #853
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.
Then you must be as happy as you can possibly be. Your heart must be pumping so hard it might explode! After a bajillion trips to court, your favorite Americans inmate has had more seemed and seen justice done than any other inmate in USA history!!

Last edited by desmirelle; 17th January 2019 at 12:15 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 18th January 2019, 03:51 AM   #854
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Compare that ball of nothing to the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial and 3 hairs that were sourced to inmate via DNA testing. One of those hairs was a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. Located next to inmate's broken, bloody arm hair was a splinter from the club. This links inmate to the club used on Colette in the master bedroom and in Kristen's room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The fact is that the Army CID decided MacDonald did it from the first day and then they set about trying to 'find' the evidence against him, and covering up any exculpatory evidence. What Stombaugh and Malone and Browning said isn't evidence. The defense were never allowed to test or examine or weigh that evidence, apart perhaps from the bedsheet and pajama top. Malone is a total liar and Murtagh is a legal trickster. Stombaugh "only said it could be" as Murtagh so succinctly put it at a bench conference. The judges were crap.

The matter is explained at this website:

http://whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thr...ds-last-chance

Quote:
Members of the defense team also contend they weren’t allowed adequate time to test the evidence themselves – or even notification that some of it existed. “I would have had all the bloodstain evidence retested,” says Dr. John Thornton, MacDonald’s forensic expert at trial. And he indicates he had no idea about the existence of long blonde wig hairs found in the apartment that night. “I wasn’t able to say, ‘I want to look at that blonde wig hair,” because we didn’t know there were any blonde wig hairs,” he continues. MacDonald claims he discovered additional evidence through Freedom of Information Act requests that he believes bolsters his version of events. “I found a witness statement no one had ever seen before,” MacDonald explains. “It says that morning, somewhere around 5:30 a.m., a neighbor walks into the crime scene and ... notices a sheet on Colette. I didn’t put the sheet on her.”

Also among the items the defense is presenting at the hearing are candle wax found at the crime scene that didn’t match any of the candles in the house, as well as a bloody palm print on the footboard of the bed that was not MacDonald’s. C. Ronald Huff, a criminologist who has been studying wrongful convictions for 30 years, says, “I believe this will ultimately be regarded as one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the modern era.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th January 2019 at 03:54 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 January 2019, 05:56 AM   #855
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that the Army CID decided MacDonald did it from the first day
Actually, the CID didn't decide inmate was the perp until the 2nd or 3rd day. Although, they DID get very suspicious when the FBI agents sent to question the survivor at Womack found that he was not even CLOSE to death and had only 1 wound that required medical treatment while his pregnant wife and 2 very young daughters were BRUTALLY SAVAGED and headed to the morgue rather than a hospital.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and then they set about trying to 'find' the evidence against him, and covering up any exculpatory evidence.
How exactly? The CID crime scene personnel WOULD NOT have been told who was suspected.....they gathered evidence, it was analzyed, the results were used at evidence at trial (9 years later than it should have happened) and there were over 1,100 pieces of evidence used against inmate. As you have been told more times than I can count it was only 60% of the evidence available at the time. Now the case against inmate is even better with the DNA results. FACTS henri not delirium....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
What Stombaugh and Malone and Browning said isn't evidence.
Yes, actually it was just as what Terry Laber said is evidence and what Chamberlain said was evidence......the JUDGE decides what is admissible evidence and Bernie Segal didn't even TRY to keep most of the evidence out at trial which is when he should have at least tried because all of the evidence was damning his guilty client.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The defense were never allowed to test or examine or weigh that evidence, apart perhaps from the bedsheet and pajama top.
Not so henri. That the defense DIDN'T GET ENOUGH TIME TO TEST EVERYTHING is totally and fully the fault of Bernie Segal. The FACT that Bernie wasted MONTHS on machinations attempting to get evidence shipped across country for testing is not a fault of the prosecution/government. He KNEW it would not be allowed...Bernie is the "legal trickster" in this case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Malone is a total liar and
Malone had nothing to do with the trial he wasn't involved until years after conviction and I don't believe he lied.....funny how inmate the one who is guilty claims everyone else in the case is lying. (not really but you are never going to admit he did it any more than inmate will despite the overwhelming proof that he did)

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh is a legal trickster.
Murtagh is not a trickster however he is a professional highly skilled lawyer and inmate (and you) dislike him because he saw through inmate from the beginning and he took him down. inmate thought he was the smartest kid in the sandbox and found out that he wasn't even close.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh "only said it could be" as Murtagh so succinctly put it at a bench conference.
Only said what "could be"?
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 January 2019, 07:35 AM   #856
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
No Chance

When your big guns are hearsay testimony and unsourced household debris, you haven't come close to meeting your burden of proof. That burden is to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found you guilty of the murders of your wife and daughters.

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 January 2019, 09:58 AM   #857
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

Only said what "could be"?
No reasonable fact finder would find MacDonald guilty if they listened to the evidence and did not believe that two and two make five. Men of any business, trade or profession may make good magistrates. Suitability depends entirely on the character of the individual man. If he is honest, fair-minded, able to concentrate sufficiently to listen to the evidence, and capable of making up his mind at the finish, he will make a useful Justice of the Peace. Drunken Irish sons of bitches and hysterical silly cow women are no use.

The judges just keep repeating false evidence which has been demolished years ago, like Stoeckley and Mitchell could have been courting on a bridge at the time of the MacDonald murders!

This matter of Dupree saying old Stombaugh only said it could is mentioned in the 1979 Shirley Green trial testimony:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html

Quote:
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, Ms. Green, although she probably is qualified based on her education and experience --

THE COURT: (Interposing) You did not undertake to qualify her --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) No, sir.

THE COURT: -- as an expert in anything. You told what her educational qualifications were. But I was not asked for any ruling on that.

MR. MURTAGH: No, sir. And I merely asked her what she did and whether the photographs accurately depicted what she did. I asked her no opinions on anything.

MR. SEGAL: As a matter of fact, she said, Your Honor, "This is the way it could be on the body."

THE COURT: Let me ask you this now: just in all fairness, can't you ask your questions without interjecting stuff like "pseudo-expert" and "purported expert" and so forth? I don't think that is fair.
And let me tell you something else, too: I don't say this because I am trying to run your lawsuit -- I am not sure that you are helping your own case when you do that. This is just an observation from this Bench which you may or may not give any weight to at all.
But it just occurred to me that you can ask questions of a witness who is not qualified as an expert without incorporating that kind of language in your questions.

MR. SEGAL: I don't believe I referred to this lady in this regard, Your Honor. I must say the only time that I have said that was in reference to Mr. Stombaugh.

THE COURT: Well, you said -- you asked "purported."

MR. SEGAL: I don't think -- it may be ill chosen.

THE COURT: That is not as strong as "pseudo."

MR. SEGAL: I agree.

THE COURT: Both of them are improper in my opinion. And I don't want to have to hold you to account here before this jury, because I don't want your client to be prejudiced by anything that I do and even what you do. Do you understand?

MR. SEGAL: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, could we merely have for the clarification of the record that Ms. Green has not been qualified as an expert and has merely testified as to what she did?

THE COURT: If you want to bring that out on redirect, of course, you will be in a position to do it. I don't want to make speeches to the jury when I don't have to.

MR. MURTAGH: Let me say this: I refrained from making this reference in front of the jury. But we can put it in as to which seam is where and to what fold is what. It takes her about an hour to do it.

THE COURT: Just tell her to reconstruct the whole thing?

MR. MURTAGH: She can -- yes, sir.

MR. SEGAL: You can prove your case the way you want to, Mr. Murtagh.

THE COURT: Here is one thing: since I am wondering, I am wondering if the jury is wondering about it too. But I got as far into it this morning -- well, I just thought I had misunderstood that man's answers. But apparently I had not. I had misunderstood him as to one thing: because he told me -- I thought he said that if you have got five holes and you put the five fingers down here and make five impressions, there is no way on God's earth that you can ever cover them without having your fingers back in the same position that they were.
Now, that was that. But if I understood him correctly, he said that you could take ten fingers and get the ten fingers so confused as to go into the five holes as he did in this case, but that you could take those same ten things and put them some other way and they would fit. And I don't believe you can do it.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I think what he meant to do -- he was not going to testify that it could not occur in any other fashion. It is the same as Ms. Green is saying: "I did it this way. There may be some other way to do it." That is something we would clarify on redirect.

THE COURT: If he told me that you could arrange 48 places and arrange those same 48 so they would still go into those 21 holes other than the way that they say they arranged them in this case, I wouldn't believe it. But, now, thankfully, I don't have to make that decision, nor will that opinion ever be expressed to this jury.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if there is another way to reconstruct it -- and if it was tough enough to do it one way -- I think this is merely the conservative nature of the laboratory examiner. It is like the hair could have come -- the same thing with respect to the threads.

THE COURT: If I have ever heard a man disclaim, not one time but fifty, old Stombaugh kept saying that, "I only said it could be."

MR. MURTAGH: That is right, sir.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th January 2019 at 10:02 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 January 2019, 01:30 PM   #858
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
No reasonable fact finder would find MacDonald guilty if they listened to the evidence and did not believe that two and two make five.
Obviously you have never bothered to READ and UNDERSTAND the testimony. Reasonable fact finders have found inmate guilty over and over again because they believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
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 January 2019, 01:43 PM   #859
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
Research Is A Dirty Word In The Troll Community

Stombaugh's wording was spot on as evidenced by the 2014 Justice Department Report on proper scientific terminology. This report chided hair and fiber experts who used the word "matched" in lab reports and trial testimony. The appropriate terminology used in hair/fiber comparisons is "similar" and, for the most part, Stombaugh stuck to that terminology in this case.

As Murtagh pointed out to Judge Dupree, Stombaugh couldn't definitively state that Colette was stabbed through the pajama top with the ice pick nor could he state that specific fibers matched a singular garment. Stombaugh was a professional and his testimony at trial adhered to the scientific standard.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th January 2019 at 01:47 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2019, 08:18 AM   #860
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
Trolls/Advocates Want It Both Ways

Bernie's pot shots at Stombaugh's qualifications became laughable after his Stombaugh (e.g., John Thornton), agreed with the real Stombaugh's conclusions on 3 separate bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet. Bernie also never explained why his Stombaugh did not analyze two other bloody fabric impressions found on that same bedsheet. Was it because he didn't want his fake Stombaugh to agree with the totality of the real Stombaugh's bloody fabric impression analysis? Maybe that is why he added a 2nd fake Stombaugh (e.g., Charles Morton) to the bloody fabric analysis equation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th January 2019 at 08:21 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 20th January 2019, 09:55 AM   #861
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Bernie Segal used Charles Morton as a real blood expert to back up Dr. Thornton. Morton was in disagreement with Stombaugh, who was really just an ordinary FBI agent who called himself a hair and fiber man. Stombaugh should never have been allowed to testify in court on the blood evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence which states that only experts can give their opinions. The matter was explained by Fred Bost:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html

Quote:
Yet it is not necessary to rely alone on the integrity of Lt. Paulk to collapse the government theory. We need only pursue the question as to how else the bloody clothing might have been imprinted on the sheet.

A government photograph shows the position of the body of Colette MacDonald on the floor of the master bedroom (SHORT #5). The photo shows she is wearing her pajamas. The photo also shows the pajama top of her husband draped across her chest. If the sheet were taken from the bed and spread atop the corpse prior to this photo being taken, the imprints of both pajamas could have resulted.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th January 2019 at 09:57 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 January 2019, 04:11 PM   #862
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
Old Fashioned Butt Whipping

The trial verdict clearly demonstrates that Thornton/Morton got their butts handed to them by Stombaugh/Murtagh. Examples include...

- Thornton's infamous "ham" experiment.

- Thornton's admission that he agreed with Stombaugh's bloody fabric impression analysis.

- Morton admitting that a bloody impression on the blue bedsheet matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th January 2019 at 04:12 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2019, 04:15 AM   #863
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
- Morton admitting that a bloody impression on the blue bedsheet matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That is not quite correct. The 4th Circuit judges, or the Supreme Court, do not understand all this:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...15-morton.html

Quote:
D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 3:10 p.m. (resumed)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Morton, were you present -- you don't even look alike -- just the beards. That's all. Were you present in this court during the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh -- Mr. Paul Stombaugh -- formerly of the FBI?
A Yes; I was.
Q Did you hear his testimony in regard to the sheet taken from the master bedroom of the MacDonald house?
A Yes; I did.
Q And I want to hand you this sheet again -- 211 -- and just let me leave this here for a few minutes and take these other things away. Were you present when Mr. Stombaugh testified that in the area he has marked "G" he found an impression in blood that he described as one which conforms to the right cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top?
A Yes; I was.
Q Now, based upon your own knowledge, information, experience, and your own examination in this matter, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the impression that Mr. Stombaugh identified as "G" was made or could have been made by the pajama cuff of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes; I do.
Q And what is your opinion, sir?
A That it was not.
Q It was not.
A That is correct.
Q By the way, I perhaps presumed something I hadn't fully stated. Had you examined that sheet you have in front of you prior to my handing it to you today?
A Yes; I have.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd January 2019 at 04:16 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2019, 09:40 AM   #864
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The trial verdict clearly demonstrates that Thornton/Morton got their butts handed to them by Stombaugh/Murtagh. Examples include...

- Thornton's infamous "ham" experiment.

- Thornton's admission that he agreed with Stombaugh's bloody fabric impression analysis.

- Morton admitting that a bloody impression on the blue bedsheet matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

I must say, ridiculing the "ham" experiment is unfair to Thornton. Ham is in fact used in tests as a reasonable work-around replacement for human flesh.

Morton's admission was indeed devastating to MacDonald. Segal's comment on it was pathetic ("no one knows when that stain was made"; uh, yeah, we do, it had to be THAT NIGHT).
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2019, 12:55 PM   #865
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
All Over The Map

In terms of the bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet, Stombaugh's analysis was streamlined, yet thorough. The same cannot be said of Segal's dubious strategy to have multiple experts analyzing different bloody impressions.

Stombaugh labeled each bloody impression found on the blue bedsheet with a letter designation. The following are the impressions that Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial.

Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff
Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

The conclusions drawn by Thornton and Morton were as follows:

Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.

Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Area G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.

Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F.

This lack of cohesion was not lost on jurors and was a factor in their final decision.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd January 2019 at 01:02 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 23rd January 2019, 04:16 AM   #866
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
I must say, ridiculing the "ham" experiment is unfair to Thornton. Ham is in fact used in tests as a reasonable work-around replacement for human flesh.

Morton's admission was indeed devastating to MacDonald. Segal's comment on it was pathetic ("no one knows when that stain was made"; uh, yeah, we do, it had to be THAT NIGHT).
I can't quite see that Morton's admission was devastating in any way to MacDonald. Segal tried to explain it all to the jury in his closing speech but it was too academic and a bit like trying to explain to an American jury about foreign policy or military conflict. Those 4th Circuit judges can't see further than their noses and Murtagh and Blackburn are crooks. From Segal's closing argument:

Quote:
As a matter of fact, the Government's explanation as to these various markings -- the ones particularly that Mr. Stombaugh characterized as handprints -- if there is anything in this case that I think has been disproven by the simple truth of showing you rather than saying, "Take my word," it is what Chuck Morton from the Institute of Forensic Sciences did here in this courtroom -- the demonstration -- when he showed you in the little demonstration here that in fact that there was no cuff print there; it was a contact of a palm print and that Mr. Stombaugh doesn't know when the fibers went off of the cuff and that what you have here are friction ridges that run a different way, you can't call them cuff prints.

How did that happen? Chuck Morton explained that what you have when blood touches and when you have impressions and when you are making contacts that you have a transference process. We did the same thing with the palm prints. The palm prints went this way (indicating) -- the handprints. If you push your finger down, as Chuck pointed out to you, and you have blood underneath, what happens to the fat part of your finger? It squishes the blood out -- it lays it out. What should be there, then, when the fat part of the finger touches? The least amount of blood, because it has displaced the blood and it pushed it out.

What do you have in Mr. Stombaugh's exhibit? The so-called handprint is where the fat part of the finger should be is the darkest circle of imprint and it is like the other way around. Now, you have two choices. One, in which you can say that we have had a forensic scientist who has come in and said, "In order to try and answer the question that has been put before me -- could this be a handprint -- this is what I have done and I show you the process whereby I did it," or you can take Mr. Stombaugh's word, "That is a handprint."
We said to Mr. Stombaugh, "What experiment did you conduct? What did you do in the way of scientific approach or in science as a whole?" He says, "No. I looked at it and I recognized it. I am an impressions expert." I want to say to you that deductions made by the Government from the sheet which is gathered up in the fashion I described with blood on it and which you have a right to conclude was still moist and there is probably the transfer of the contact as the explanation of the so-called Stombaugh handprint, they are not handprints at all. I do not know how anyone in this jury could say that beyond a reasonable doubt, you have seen evidence that overcomes the demonstration that Chuck Morton did that says when the fat part of the finger touches, the blood is least there as opposed to what Mr. Stombaugh showed you where the fat part of the finger should be, there is the most blood there. There is no basis for his opinion. It is sheer poppycock and there is no basis for the jury to consider this as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that portion of the Government's theory.
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 January 2019, 05:55 AM   #867
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
I must say, ridiculing the "ham" experiment is unfair to Thornton. Ham is in fact used in tests as a reasonable work-around replacement for human flesh.
It was not the use of "ham" that was the ridicule inducing part of the experiment. it was the poorly thought out/executed "movement" of the ham that did not in any way replicate human motion. The point the defense wanted to prove was that the pj top was not stabbed through while Colette was down and unconscious but stabbed through while inmate allegedly used it as a shield while it was "bunched" around his wrists and hands. The ham on a sled in no way proved the defense point of view. In fact, it made the courtroom demonstration of Brian M using a similar pj top to deflect knife or ice pick (don't remember which) thrusts made by Blackburn. Not only were all the holes "torn and ragged" but Brian M ended up with a bleeding injury on his wrists (of which inmate had none - and the prosecution could/did point out that the courtroom was a pretend attack - a real attack inmate would have had defensive wounds on his wrists and hands at least if things had happened in the manner he claimed).
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 January 2019, 09:40 AM   #868
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
It's true that Dr.Thornton did conjecture and speculate that the holes in the pajama top could have been caused in some sort of defensive motion by MacDonald. He may not have been quite correct about that because he didn't know exactly what happened. Fred Bost was on the right murder trail in what he said about the matter on his short study:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html

Quote:
CLAIM 9 -- STABBING THRU THE PAJAMA TOP

The government claims that Jeffrey MacDonald forgot he had placed his pajama top on his wife's body and that he later proceeded to stab through it with an ice pick. They say because the pajama top was not perfectly flat on the body, but was in folds, the 48 circular holes in the fabric could be matched to the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. Officials contended that if a true fight occurred the garment holes would have to be torn and jagged. For the holes to end up "round," officials say, the pajama top would have to be on an unresisting body. It is impossible for scientists to duplicate the fight described by MacDonald, so the government contention remains unproven.

The government's argument can be stolen by the defense. According to MacDonald, he was unconscious for awhile in the hallway. No tears in fabric would result if he were attacked at that time with an ice pick. An unknown number of thrusts through the pajama top twisted around his wrists could have produced 48 holes. Since the ice pick wounds in both Colette and Kristen were for the most part superficial, most of the thrusts into MacDonald's pajama top might have been specifically aimed at the garment and equally hesitant. If so, they would not have penetrated fully through the twisted cloth. Other thrusts might have been up to the hilt, penetrating flesh. MacDonald's wounds were never probed for depth. Wounds that did result, because they weren't resisted, could have ended up close together as a result of repetitious thrusts into the unresisting body -- something like the four curiously close wounds he suffered on his chest (SHORT #37).

Such a thought is merely conjecture, but so is the "physical proof" claimed by the government. Two FBI laboratory technicians folded and manipulated MacDonald's pajama top so that its 48 ice pick holes lined up with the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. This was done with the pajama top configured roughly in the position in which it was photographed on her body. That is the extent of the proof.......

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd January 2019 at 09:42 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 January 2019, 11:34 AM   #869
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's true that Dr.Thornton did conjecture and speculate that the holes in the pajama top could have been caused in some sort of defensive motion by MacDonald. He may not have been quite correct about that because he didn't know exactly what happened. Fred Bost was on the right murder trail in what he said about the matter on his short study:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html
What a joke! He was stabbed 20+ times with an ice pick and didn't wake up?? That's worse than trying to claim aliens did it. (Oh, damn, I just opened up 20 more years of appeals.)
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2019, 11:36 AM   #870
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
It was not the use of "ham" that was the ridicule inducing part of the experiment. it was the poorly thought out/executed "movement" of the ham that did not in any way replicate human motion. The point the defense wanted to prove was that the pj top was not stabbed through while Colette was down and unconscious but stabbed through while inmate allegedly used it as a shield while it was "bunched" around his wrists and hands. The ham on a sled in no way proved the defense point of view. In fact, it made the courtroom demonstration of Brian M using a similar pj top to deflect knife or ice pick (don't remember which) thrusts made by Blackburn. Not only were all the holes "torn and ragged" but Brian M ended up with a bleeding injury on his wrists (of which inmate had none - and the prosecution could/did point out that the courtroom was a pretend attack - a real attack inmate would have had defensive wounds on his wrists and hands at least if things had happened in the manner he claimed).
FV made a point of the ham itself being "silly".

Quite right, though, that the "sliding sled" would not at all have equaled the force, misdirection and trauma of a person trying to deflect a crazed attacker ... but then we all knew anyway that didn't happen.

For the record, the demo was with an ice pick.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2019, 10:34 PM   #871
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
Location, Location, Location

Bernie Segal studiously avoided the fact that Stombaugh was able to identify the source of a majority of the 79 blue fibers found in the master bedroom. That source was the torn left front seam of inmate's pajama top and the two pajama fibers found on the club were also shed from that location of the garment. Segal also gave a hand wave to the significance of the tear in the garment. The tear began at the yoke of the pajama top and extended down through the left cuff. This tear measured a whopping 72 inches. Segal and Thornton knew that a tear of that size would have resulted in most of the threads being shed in the location where the garment was originally torn. The fact that not one thread from that garment was found in the living room casts a huge shadow on the validity of Thornton's ham on a sled experiment.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd January 2019 at 10:38 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 January 2019, 09:29 AM   #872
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
The fibers found on the murder weapon were black wool fibers with no known source, and not pajama fibers as Blackburn in a clearly erroneous way informed the jury. JTF keeps repeating that story that Browning of the Army CID lab and Stombaugh of the FBI removed pajama fibers from the murder weapon and then put them in a pillbox and then photographed them but they were inventing it. The defense were never allowed to examine or test those fibers and according to Kathy Bond of the FBI lab they were "pajama -like" fibers.

The lost pajama bottoms were crucial evidence and should never have been disregarded by the 4th Circuit judges. There is an interesting discussion about the pajama bottoms at this website, though not very profound or academic:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/jeff...oms-t1126.html

Quote:
MacDonald has actually included "pajama bottom fiber" arguments in very recent circuit and appellate pleadings. Clearly, MacDonald is clutching at straws (fibers) which have long since become irrelevant (certainly as "new evidence" admissible under 2255 as undiscoverable with "due diligence"), but clutch he does.

Kristen is a whole different topic--and, I think, an important one which has been explored here many times, but which might be worth exploring again in a different thread.

Assuming the PJ bottom's crotch seam was torn that night (and I've got to assume that because the alternative of MacDonald parading around his house with two small daughters in a pair of PJs with a torn out crotch seam is, frankly, just too much for me), it seems logical that, just like the PJ top was shedding seam sewing fibers (as well as fabric fibers, since the fabric was also torn), some PJ bottom fibers (at least sewing threads) were shed.

It just remains a puzzlement to me.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th January 2019 at 09:32 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 24th January 2019, 09:42 AM   #873
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
What a joke! He was stabbed 20+ times with an ice pick and didn't wake up?? That's worse than trying to claim aliens did it. (Oh, damn, I just opened up 20 more years of appeals.)
MacDonald didn't know how the holes in the pajama top got there because it all happened so quickly. Dr. Thornton put forward a theory that the holes could have been caused in motion based on the directionality of the thrusts which Murtagh tried to demolish in court. Personally, I think Fred Bost had right judgment with his theory that the holes were made when MacDonald was unconscious on the ground and he would have known nothing about it:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html

Quote:
Q Have you had occasion to read the reports that Mr. Stombaugh prepared in connection with his work that he testified to in this case?
A I have read several reports that he had written.
Q All right, now, I want to first of all direct your attention to one of the subject matters that was testified to in regard to fabric tears. I want to ask you a question concerning a statement made by Mr. Stombaugh at page 4074 of his testimony given here before this Court on August 7th, 1979. At that time, Mr. Stombaugh was testifying with respect to puncture holes in the blue pajama top in this case and made the following statement, which I will seek your opinion. "In examining the puncture holes, we noted that there was no tearing. The holes were clean, and it was my conclusion that the holes had been placed into this garment while the garment itself was in a stationary position."
First of all, have you read that testimony also?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you agree with that testimony?
A No, I don't believe it is true.
Q What is the basis of your statement that you do not believe that testimony is true -- that the holes in that garment were made or placed in it while the garment was in a stationary position?

MR. MURTAGH: I would OBJECT unless there is a proper foundation other than just reading the testimony.

THE COURT: Well, the witness says he disagrees with a conclusion offered and testified to by another expert witness. I suppose the question is, "How come he does?" I will let him say. I would remind counsel and the jury that it is for the jury to determine whether or not testimony of any witness is true. It is not the province of any witness to say that other testimony is true or untrue.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me put it to you in an additional fashion. Do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Stombaugh that the puncture holes in the blue pajama top were made while the garment itself was in a stationary position?
A I disagree that that is the only possible conclusion.
Q Let me ask you: have you ever examined the blue pajama top we have talked about?
A Yes.
Q What is the basis, if any, for your statement that you disagree with the statement made by Mr. Stombaugh as I have read it to you?
A I conducted a series of experiments in which I put a target in motion and stabbed at it with an ice pick. I then examined the holes resulting from those punctures and found that the holes were circular in appearance despite the fact that the target was in motion.
Q Let me back up if I can for a second. I neglected to ask you one thing about this statement that Mr. Stombaugh made. Are there any authoritative textbooks or articles or treatises which you know of which support the opinion to be made on the basis that Mr. Stombaugh made his that this garment had to be stationary to have the puncture holes made in the fashion they were made?
A Not to my knowledge. I suppose that there could exist something in the literature that discusses this topic, but not to my knowledge.
Q You are not aware of any authority, textbook, or treatise which discusses or supports such a conclusion made without experimentation or demonstration?
A No.
Q Now, before I get back to the basis of your opinion, did you examine the holes that were made in the blue pajama top in some fashion?
A Yes.
Q How did you conduct your examination?
A With the aid of a seven "x" or seven-times magnifying glass.
Q Did you do any other examination before you devised the test you described -- and I'll come back to that test very shortly?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q In your opinion, based upon your own background, education, knowledge, training, and experience in the field of criminalistics, is it possible to have arrived or is there a scientific basis for Mr. Stombaugh to have arrived at the conclusion he did without conducting some experiments in regard to tearing or puncturing the fabric?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th January 2019 at 09:45 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2019, 10:53 AM   #874
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,143
No Real Change

In their 1998 decision to deny inmate relief, the 4th Circuit Court ruled that the defense fell far short (e.g., "specious evidence") of meeting their burden of proof. This didn't stop inmate's rotating band of lawyers from rinsing and repeating those same arguments for the past 20 years. Even DNA testing on 29 exhibits could not move the legal arrow in a positive direction for inmate. In many respects, the DNA test results actually lessened his chances (e.g., inculpatory test results) at receiving a new trial, and eventually led to the end of the legal phase of this case on 12/21/18.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 24th January 2019 at 10:54 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 25th January 2019, 03:55 AM   #875
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
It's the evidence against MacDonald that is 'specious evidence' and, in my opinion, much of it was fabricated out of whole cloth. How can you possibly say now that people like Blackburn or Malone were honest prosecutors? It's a pity that DNA had not been discovered at the time of the MacDonald murders. There is a discussion of this at this website:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/...gal-fictions/#!

Quote:
As in Malcolm’s narrative, the player who should be the most impartial emerges as the most predisposed. Dupree had clearly made up his mind as to MacDonald’s guilt prior to the trial, and appears to have been less than sympathetic to Segal, rejecting motion after motion in an “openly hostile” courtroom. Even McGinniss concedes:

From the earliest days of the trial the expression most often seen upon [Dupree’s face] as Bernie Segal conducted cross-examination was one of distaste. With even casual spectators openly remarking on the judge’s expression, it seemed only logical to assume that it would, to some degree, indicate to the jurors where his sympathies (or lack of sympathy) lay, and possibly even suggest to some where their own belonged. His rulings on several major evidentiary motions did much to shape the course of the trial.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th January 2019 at 03:59 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 25th January 2019, 05:12 AM   #876
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
henri why do you insist on ignoring the FACT that there were pj fibers found on the murder club? the bench notes clearly state that they were found, removed from club, examined, and placed in pill bottle for storage. FACT henri. The evidence AGAINST inmate is solid, verifiable, and points directly at inmate as the sole perp FACT FACT FACT. the "specious evidence" inmate and his rotating lawyers keep bringing up (res judicata) are NOT worth the length of time it takes to type them out. 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 25th January 2019, 08:41 AM   #877
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
henri why do you insist on ignoring the FACT that there were pj fibers found on the murder club? FACT
The point is that Blackburn at the trial swayed the jury by saying the conclusive evidence was that pajama fibers were found on the murder club. Blackburn also asked MacDonald to explain why there were pajama fibers on the murder club. The trouble is it was a lie. They were black wool fibers with no known source. The matter is explained at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...996-06-02.html

Quote:
f.) Harvey, I believe this memo is as important as Fred Bost reads it. It is very clear, now, that Murtagh asked the specific question to the FBI - "Are there four fibers on the club, or two?" And the only written answer I can see, or find, is twofold:

1. Malone's written results in the lab reports issued late 1990 which do not indicate purple cotton threads in Q89. (Found in Headquarters packet of May 1996 FOIA release - our 1st view ever, I might add, of Malone's lab work), and...

2. Malone's affidavit at 1990-91-92 appeals - In one affidavit, on page 11, he lists the contents of Q89 and does not mention two purple cotton threads, only 2 wool ones (he calls them one black and one green wool). On page 12 of this same affidavit, he proceeds to discuss Q100, on which he lists the 1 black wool fiber, 1 blue cotton fiber, and pointedly adds, "These are in addition to 2 purple cotton threads previously found and removed by Stombaugh". Yet, he does not mention any purple cotton "previously found" by Stombaugh in Q89.

g.) Since we know (now) that Murtagh was desperately trying to find 2 "purple cotton threads" in Q89, it seems really strained to say now that there "may be" 2 purple cotton threads still hidden somewhere, but originally derived from Q889. Malone wasn't given general tasks - he was specifically asked to prove or disprove 2 or 4 fibers on the club. His results only indicate dark wool fibers.

Just in review - Recall that in Shirley Green's 1990 cataloguing of contents of Q89 for Malone, she wrote "pillbox containing 2 purp. thr" (2 purple threads). Yet, Malone still reported only 2 dark woolen fibers. The end result, to me, is very clear: Fred Bost has been correct all along. Paul Stombaugh negligently never bothered to actually study the fibers. He simply assumed 2 dark fibers had to be "purple cotton" from Q89, the pajama top. When Frier did his evaluation in 1979, Frier only saw 2 dark woolen fibers and no purple cotton.

And now, in 1990, we have Malone, even more specifically, being asked to find 2 purple cotton, yet he reports only dark wool. The clincher is in his affidavit where he does remind the reader Stombaugh did find 2 purple cotton threads in Q100, but he does not say it about Q89. Malone must have discovered, on real analysis of the 2 dark fibers, that they were wool, not purple cotton.

h.) Recall that it is these exact fibers that were the crux of the government closing argument in 1979. Blackburn and Murtagh specifically used "2 purple cotton fibers" on the club to convince the jury. If we now, via a 1996 series of 2 FOIA releases - February 5 and May - can prove the purple cotton never existed, we have a major new argument. And two more things:

1. It goes directly to "actual innocence".

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th January 2019 at 08:45 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 25th January 2019, 08:51 AM   #878
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,376
Christina who is very anti-MacDonald made some interesting comments about the lost pajama bottoms which are probably beyond the comprehension of the 4th Circuit judges but indicates that the pajama bottoms should never have been disregarded or ignored by the 4th Circuit judges:

Quote:
I have to respectfully disagree - Michael Newman testified that the pajama bottom was torn with blood on them.

Donald Jeffrey, ambulance driver gave a statement to the CID that the pajama bottom was torn.
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 25th January 2019, 12:19 PM   #879
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 807
Again henri you are IGNORING THE FACT THAT BLUE PJ FIBERS WERE FOUND ON THE CLUB. REMOVED FROM THE CLUB FOR EXAMINATION AND THEN STORED IN PILL VIALS. FACT! The black wool fibers were unsourced (mainly because inmate got rid of the family property so there was nothing to compare them to) and unsourced equals forensically useless.
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 25th January 2019, 01:26 PM   #880
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,841
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
What a joke! He was stabbed 20+ times with an ice pick and didn't wake up?? That's worse than trying to claim aliens did it. (Oh, damn, I just opened up 20 more years of appeals.)
McPhee's mancrush is a virtual superman.
__________________
"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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 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.