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 August 2018, 04:47 AM   #161
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh and Judge Dupree theoretically allowed the MacDonald defense 'discovery' as Byn says,
The official court records/transcripts show that no Brady Violations were found. Discovery was not theoretical it was FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
but the defense and their forensic experts were never allowed to discover anything.
Once again, as you have been told dozens of times (at least) THE FACT THE DEFENSE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME (in their eyes) TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IS THE FAULT OF THE DEFENSE. Bernie Segal is the one who spent months on the impossible never going to happen in any criminal case attempt to have the evidence shipped cross country for review/analysis. The prosecution AS REQUIRED had laboratory space available for the defense use not far from the site of the evidence storage.

Criminals in the US are not given a pass for their own failures. Bernie did not do his due diligence because he was so damned cocksure that he could beat the government case like he did with the Article 32. HOWEVER, there were some major differences that he did not take into consideration.

1. The case was to be tried before a jury of inmate's peers.
2. A distinguished jurist would be assigned to hear the case.
3. All the evidence had finally been analyzed.
4. He would not be arguing a case before an untrained Infantry Officer without any legal knowledge.
5. An extensive re-investigation had taken place since the Article 32.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The exculpatory evidence was covered up
No evidence was covered up, the FACT is that Bernie Segal decided to NOT dig deeply into the available evidence. You really need to stop being ignorant about this subject. I have told you many times over - THE PROSECUTION HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. The notes and documentation etal was provided to the defense including the information on the wool fibers and the saran. THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. The DEFENSE tries its case.....that the defense didn't bother to use the information speaks volumes - unsourced equals forensically useless. PERIOD

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was not fair and just and it has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.
Inmate had 10 years of freedom after the charges were dismissed by the base commander for INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. During the 10 years the rest of the evidence was analyzed. An in-depth re-investigation was done, a Grand Jury was convened. A trial was held at which over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) were presented. This evidence constituted only about 60% of the available evidence. Inmate was convicted. It was justice! It was FAIR! In the time since, inmate has tried and failed to change his fate because the evidence does not support his claims of "factual innocence" and the FACTS do not support your illogical inane insipid ignorant ramblings either.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was manufactured evidence.
No evidence was manufactured. Stamping your little feet and pounding your little fists on the ground are not going to change the fact that your hero is a narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer who deserves to be under the jail!
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 10th August 2018, 08:57 AM   #162
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
The official court records/transcripts show that no Brady Violations were found. Discovery was not theoretical it was FACT.
Three hairs were found at the crime scene at strategic locations which were not MacDonald's. Murtagh then declared in 2006 that this was not significant! Judge Dupree always maintained in the MacDonald appeals that if the Brady violations had been disclosed it would not have changed the mind of an average juror. That's just a silly remark by a very bad judge. The trouble is that none of the judges at the Supreme Court have wide and practical experience of being a criminal attorney. They don't sufficiently appreciate the practical difficulties. Three of them were on MacDonald's side in about 1981/2 but he then lost by a 6/3 majority. There needs to be INVESTIGATING.

The matter is discussed in more detail at this website:

http://www.justicedenied.org/issue/i...d_issue_42.pdf

Quote:
JD Editorial Comment About Jeffrey MacDonald’s Case Brian Murtagh was an Army captain in his mid-20s, when in 1971 he became involved in the investigation of the murder of Jeffrey R. MacDonald’s wife and two daughters at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. After the Army cleared MacDonald and he left the Army, Murtagh continued investigating him. As an Army officer Murtagh assisted the US Department of Justice with the grand jury’s indictment of MacDonald in 1975. Murtagh then accepted an offer to resign from the Army and take a DOJ job assisting with MacDonald’s prosecution. Murtagh became co-counsel to lead prosecutor AUSA James Blackburn by claiming he “would assure a conviction.” Murtagh was true to his word. MacDonald was convicted in 1979 after Blackburn (with Murtagh remaining silent) failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and suborned perjury by key defense witness Helena Stoeckley. For the past 30 years Murtagh has remained the government’s point man in fighting to prevent MacDonald’s retrial by a jury that would hear the truth about Stoeckley’s participation in the murders, as well as additional testimonial and DNA evidence supporting that intruders murdered MacDonald’s wife and children ... just as he has maintained since the day of the crime. Murtagh became involved in MacDonald’s case38 years ago. The evidence supporting MacDonald’s innocence has reached the point that Murtagh’s opposition to a new trial can be interpreted as a strategy to avoid conceding MacDonald should not have been indicted ... much less imprisoned for 30 years. At what point does a prosecutor’s zeal lose legitimacy and become a “truth be damned” psychotic obsession? U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced on April 1, 2009 that “in the interests of justice” the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and set aside former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ October 2008 convictions for making false financial statements. The DOJ acted in response to media stories about the federal prosecutor’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to Steven’s lawyers in order to ensure his conviction. Murtagh and Blackburn acted with the same “win at all costs” mentality as Stevens’ prosecutors. The evidence of MacDonald’s innocence is compelling, and AG Holder should act in “in the interests of justice” and order Murtagh and his DOJ allies to cease opposing a new trial for MacDonald, or in the alternative to move for dismissal of his indictment and to set aside his convictions.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th August 2018 at 09:07 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 10th August 2018, 09:28 AM   #163
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Three hairs were found at the crime scene at strategic locations which were not MacDonald's.
So what? Every dwelling in the world, offices, apartments, trailers, vehicles, tents etc. would be found to have hairs that do not necessarily belong to the people who live in those places. FACT henri! Every day as we live our lives we pick up miscellany (hairs, fibers, skin cells, dirt, sand, etc) from one place and drop it else where. There is nothing shady or amazing or criminal or scary or even RELEVANT about such miscellany. UNSOURCED = FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Friends, family, and neighbors had all been in and out of the apartment. Colette let her neighbors use her dryer these facts alone make unknown hairs probable but they have no forensic value at all. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh then declared in 2006 that this was not significant!
That is because they are not significant they are IN FACT IRRELEVANT, INSIGNIFICANT, UNIMPORTANT. PERIOD!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Dupree always maintained in the MacDonald appeals that if the Brady violations had been disclosed it would not have changed the mind of an average juror.
Not exactly henri. What Judge Dupree found is that there WERE NO BRADY VIOLATIONS and EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN the evidence was of no significance and the average juror would not have changed their vote because of it. The part you keep skipping over is THAT NO BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND IN THIS CASE. PERIOD.

When you have graduated Law School, Clerked for various Judges at different levels of the American Legal System, been appointed to a District Judge position AND have as many years of experience as the EXCELLENT Jurist Judge Dupree then you can provide us with your curricula vitae and PERHAPS we will then consider your opinions on legal matters. Until that time - shut up. You know not of what you speak.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The trouble is that none of the judges at the Supreme Court have wide and practical experience of being a criminal attorney.
irrelevant even if it were true.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They don't sufficiently appreciate the practical difficulties.
yes they do, they appreciate the FACTS even more.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Three of them were on inmate's side in about 1981/2 but he then lost by a 6/3 majority.
So? There is nothing in the legal system that requires decisions to be unanimous. Inmate was found guilty. He has had more chances at appeal than any murderer in US Jurisprudence and he remains convicted and in prison where he belongs.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There needs to be INVESTIGATING.
I believe you meant "there needs to be an investigation". But henri, your poor thing, don't you realize THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING A VERY THOROUGH AND EXTENSIVE REINVESTIGATION. That all took place before inmate was tried.

Also FACT, inmate had his presumption of innocence and 10 long years of undeserved freedom while the bodies of Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and unborn baby boy were buried forever. There was a TRIAL henri. A trial is an event where a judge and jury sit and listen to the DEFENSE and the PROSECUTION present evidence, question witnesses, cross-examine, etc. the Judge makes the legal determinations and provides the jury instructions and then the jury deliberates and makes (if they can) a decision on guilt or innocence.

ALL OF THIS WAS DONE. 7 weeks, over 1,100 pieces of evidence, 28 witnesses both lay and expert, conviction in just over 6 hours.
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 10th August 2018, 02:05 PM   #164
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
Provide The Goods Or Hit The Bricks

HENRIBOY: Inmate has been treated with more respect by the legal system than any murderer in history. No other civilian murder case has been more thoroughly investigated than this case. You clearly need to educate yourself on the distinctions between evidence and opinion.

In this case, the CID, FBI, and DOJ were able to convict inmate on what you deem as being the "lifeblood" of any investigation. This "lifeblood" consisted of blood, hair, fiber, print, fabric damage, and fabric impression evidence. The inculpatory DNA evidence was merely the icing on the evidentiary cake.

Knowing that you will respond with your usual brand of cognitive chaos, I will repeat my decade long challenge. Provide this forum with one or more evidentiary items that were directly sourced to a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven.

Again, knowing that you will respond with your usual brand of cognitive chaos, directly sourced refers to DNA, hair, fiber or print evidence that matched a specific AFIP, CID or FBI evidentiary exemplar.

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 11th August 2018, 02:41 AM   #165
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Knowing that you will respond with your usual brand of cognitive chaos, I will repeat my decade long challenge. Provide this forum with one or more evidentiary items that were directly sourced to a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The blond synthetic hair like fibers with no known source point directly at Helena Stoeckley being at the MacDonald murders. Malone's prosaic explanation that it 'could be' that those fibers came from MacDonald dolls is about as likely as Murtagh's explanation for the black wool fibers around Colette's mouth, and on the murder weapon with no known source, was because there were some photos of Colette found once wearing a black dress! All this was withheld by Glisson and Murtagh at the MacDonald trial. Segal and Thornton knew nothing about it.

The matter is mentioned in a letter on the internet:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-shea-ltr.html

Quote:
……….. Neighbors also described seeing a band of people in the neighborhood matching the description Dr. MacDonald supplied on the night of the murders. Helena Stoeckly was observed by a neighbor arriving home at 4:30 a.m. in the company of others, also on the morning of the murders. When questioned as to her whereabouts, she

page 2

stated she did not know because "I was stoned on drugs." Two days later, Helena burned her blond wig, white boots and floppy hat. Shortly, following the murders, Helena told her first account of what had transpired that night to a friend. This story was presented on several occasions to several different people over the next nine years, right up to the night before the trial in 1979. She consistently stated that she thought she was there the night of the murders, she remembered holding a candle (which matched Dr. MacDonald's recollection of the girl with the blond hair and boots holding a light), but she denied participating in any of the killings herself. She described vividly scenes of blood and violence and often times broke down during her recollection of these events. She described items in the house that she could only know about about if she had been there. This story was repeated by Helena to seven witnesses who were prepared to testify to that fact at the trial in 1979. One of the witnesses was a CID polygraph expert who polygraphed her during her statements and was convinced that she was telling the truth when she stated that she had been there. None of these seven witnesses were allowed to testify in 1979 due to a capricious ruling by the Federal Judge, Franklin Dupree. He stated that Helena was a "burned out drug freak" and that anything she stated could not be considerable reliable. Expert medical testimony was presented at trial that directly refuted Judge Dupree's "theory" but this was ignored. Detective Beasley of the Fayetteville police force described Helena as the "most dependable and reliable informant I have ever worked with." Still, Judge Dupree disallowed testimony by the seven Stoeckly witnesses. Helena was allowed to testify, but while on the stand she stated that she had no recollection of the night of the murders. She stated no recollection in court the day following recounting her previously described story the night before to yet another witness who was not allowed to testify. Judge Dupree remained consistent throughout the trial, denying 17 major motions of evidence to the defense while giving the government prosecutors free reign. By disallowing the Stoeckly witnesses, he effectively destroyed Dr. MacDonald's defense. "Everyone deserves the right to a fair and speedy trial." Had the jury been allowed to hear the Stoeckly witnesses, they could not have been convinced "beyond any reasonable doubt" that Dr. MacDonald had committed the murders of his wife and children...……….

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th August 2018 at 02:45 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 11th August 2018, 04:15 AM   #166
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blond synthetic hair like fibers with no known source point directly at Helena Stoeckley being at the MacDonald murders.
Once again - NO THEY WERE NOT! The blonde synthetic "saran" fibers were sourced to one of Colette's hair pieces and to doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection.

These fibers do not point to Helena's wig or any other persons cosmetic wig because (AS I HAVE TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN) cosmetic wigs were not made of saran in the 1960s to 1970s time frame. Cosmetic wigs required a tow fiber to create them, and saran could not be used to make a tow fiber at that time. PERIOD.

Just because you keep repeating this nonsense does not make it true. NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF SOURCED EVIDENCE POINTS TO ANY OF THE KNOWN INTRUDER SUSPECTS. PERIOD

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Malone's prosaic explanation that it 'could be' that those fibers came from MacDonald dolls is about as likely as Murtagh's explanation for the black wool fibers around Colette's mouth, and on the murder weapon with no known source, was because there were some photos of Colette found once wearing a black dress!
Malone was not wrong, the most likely explanation for the blonde synthetic hair fibers found in the brush were from Kimmie and Kristy's doll collection. The FBI has exemplars (aka samples) of thousands of doll wigs. These exemplars include all the data (even which doll it was used on) and 2 of the hairs matched these exemplars. That inmate rushed to get rid of all the property having belonged to his family is a sign of consciousness of guilt.

Brian Murtagh's explanation of the dark wool fibers was that there was sufficient evidence showing the family wearing dark wool clothing. Wow, shocking isn't it! A family owning mittens, scarves, hats, sweaters, and coats that are made of dark wool! Not to mention the afghan that inmate "struggled" to get out from under.....it was crocheted henri - a very popular pattern during that time frame (I have one in the same pattern) many times made from the scraps of yarn left from other projects. HOWEVER, that too could have shed dark woolen fibers.....it has a dark woolen background and there was crime scene photos of that IN THE APARTMENT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All this was withheld by Glisson and Murtagh at the MacDonald trial. Segal and Thornton knew nothing about it.
I call BULLSH!T! You have been told, you have been shown the documentation - THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION. Also, Janice Glisson would not be the person to tell the defense anything! She was a lab technician not an attorney. The information on the saran and dark wool fibers was included in the discovery material. AND as I have told you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN the prosecution is not required to point out specific evidence to the defense. THE FACT THAT BERNIE DIDN'T BOTHER TO REVIEW THE MATERIAL OR HAVE THE MATERIAL REVIEWED IS ON HIM!!!!
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 August 2018, 09:08 AM   #167
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I call BULLSH!T! You have been told, you have been shown the documentation - THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION. Also, Janice Glisson would not be the person to tell the defense anything! She was a lab technician not an attorney. The information on the saran and dark wool fibers was included in the discovery material. AND as I have told you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN the prosecution is not required to point out specific evidence to the defense. THE FACT THAT BERNIE DIDN'T BOTHER TO REVIEW THE MATERIAL OR HAVE THE MATERIAL REVIEWED IS ON HIM!!!!
That's a lie. Check your facts. Brady violations were deliberately made by the forensic labs and prosecutors and Judge Dupree so that the jury would never be informed, and the truth then be covered up for the public and corporate media and 4th Circuit judges.
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 11th August 2018, 09:24 AM   #168
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Once again - NO THEY WERE NOT! The blonde synthetic "saran" fibers were sourced to one of Colette's hair pieces and to doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection.
That's just another invention, if not another lie. It's all 'only said it could be' stuff and seems to have come from one of Kassab's strange beliefs. The matter was discussed once between MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate and biased, if not corrupt biased, Judge Dupree:

Quote:
MR. SILVERGLATE: It's not exactly disputed, Your Honor. We don't know if it was there or not because Thornton didn't examine microscopically everything in the jail cell. The Government claims it must have been there; we don't know. It's one of those things that we feel is probably impossible to resolve but I don't think that it matters. Our claim does not rest on whether these were made available to Thornton for the following reason, Your Honor.

First of all, Government says he should have seen that there were these boxes with slides and the slides have mounted on them these hairs. The problem is this, Your Honor. The outside of the box of slides did say synthetic fibers; no question about that. However, it said -- it listed synthetic -- dark synthetic fibers. Now, the evidence, the testimony of Doctor MacDonald was Stoeckley -- a lot of other evidence -- but Stoeckley had a blond wig so Thornton would have been totally uninterested in a box of slides that talked about dark synthetic fibers because he wasn't interested in a dark wig. Stoeckley didn't have a dark wig but when you open them up, if you open them up, that box, there was within that a mail order which had the blond synthetic wig fibers.

Now, this makes one very suspicious. As I said in our brief, Your Honor, I don't think we ever have to reach in this case whether what Glisson did was done intentionally or knowingly or simply inadvertently. It's very interesting that she types the report, which is given to Segal, which mentions everything under the sun except the blond bench notes and the physical exhibits is a larger package labeled dark synthetic hair-like fibers. Only if you bother opening that, even if you are not interested in dark fibers, if you happened to open it you would see a blond fiber. It was awfully well hidden, Your Honor. Whether it was intentionally so or this is one of the more bizarre coincidences in American legal history, I don't know. It will probably be a mystery forever but the bottom line is it was well, well hidden from Thornton and from Segal.
Now, Your Honor asked about the rest of the notes. That's one set of the blond wig notes.
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 11th August 2018, 03:30 PM   #169
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Uh, thanks for highlighting the fact that Segal and Thornton couldn't be bothered to do their damn job??? It was Segal's duty as defense attorney to get his butt (or appoint a proxy) to NC and examine the evidence. Segal had the legal experience (in civilian courts) by that time to know that chain of custody would preclude the evidence being shipped to CA (or anywhere else the defense wanted) and yet he still did nada until the last moment and then whined that he hadn't enough time. Shyster Segal then proceeded to make word salad of his closing arguments, blaming the MPs and labs for shoddy work without explaining how that countermanded all the evidence showing his client was guilty as hell. I will say this, though: I believe Federal Inmate Macdonald got precisely the defense he deserved at his 1979 trial. (And I also think it's hilarious that Segal used all his material at the Article 32 hearing because he thought he understood military justice. If he'd understood military justice, he'd have saved the act for a general court-martial and gotten his guilty as hell client off then.)
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 August 2018, 11:00 PM   #170
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
As I Predicted

HENRIBOY: As I predicted, you responded to my decade long challenge with your own brand of cognitive chaos. Again, you need to educate yourself in regards to the distinctions between opinion and fact. The saran and dark woolen fibers were not sourced to a cosmetic wig or clothing worn by Helena Stoeckley, so any proposed link has no forensic value. You also ignore the fact that none of the 29 DNA exemplars matched Stoeckley's DNA profile. You also ignore the fact that no head hairs found at the crime scene microscopically matched exemplars obtained from Stoeckley in 1971. You also ignore the fact that no finger, palm or footprints collected at the crime scene matched exemplars obtained from Stoeckley in 1971. Need I go on?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 11th August 2018 at 11:04 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 12th August 2018, 02:36 AM   #171
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
This business of JTF harping on all the time about Stoeckley and Mitchell DNA not being there seems to have come from something Cormier suggested to look for, who took over the MacDonald defense case after Silverglate retired. Frankly, I have never seen any hard documentary evidence that Mitchell and Stoeckley were ever DNA tested though I'm willing to accept that they were.

I'm even less sure that the other suspects, like Mazerolle and Don Harris and Dwight Smith were ever DNA tested, or the other suspect female participants. Mazerolle did do some various jail terms at the time. I am not sure about the procedure in America then but nowadays in the UK everybody who is arrested gets DNA tested.

The trial judges in the MacDonald case like Dupree and Fox were in bed with the prosecution. The 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court were mostly Judge Dupree rubber stampers, though three Supreme Court judges spoke sense about the MacDonald case in an appeal in about 1981/2 which put MacDonald in prison wrongfully convicted for life.
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 August 2018, 09:13 AM   #172
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
So what? Every dwelling in the world, offices, apartments, trailers, vehicles, tents etc. would be found to have hairs that do not necessarily belong to the people who live in those places. FACT henri! Every day as we live our lives we pick up miscellany (hairs, fibers, skin cells, dirt, sand, etc) from one place and drop it else where. There is nothing shady or amazing or criminal or scary or even RELEVANT about such miscellany. UNSOURCED = FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Friends, family, and neighbors had all been in and out of the apartment. Colette let her neighbors use her dryer these facts alone make unknown hairs probable but they have no forensic value at all. PERIOD.

That is because they are not significant they are IN FACT IRRELEVANT, INSIGNIFICANT, UNIMPORTANT. PERIOD!
The fact of the matter has been explained in the past by MacDonald's wife:

Quote:
In March 2006, after an 8-1/2 year wait, the DNA tests were completed. Before the results were released to Judge Fox, the government issued a press release falsely stating that the DNA results confirmed Jeff’s guilt. The truth was the opposite. A hair forcibly removed with its root intact was found under the fingernail of 2-year-old Kristen – and the hair was not Jeff’s. Another human hair, found on Kristen’s bed also did not match Jeff’s, and a third human hair, found underneath the body of his wife Colette, likewise did not match Jeff’s hair. In later filings Murtagh dismissed the three hairs as unimportant.
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 August 2018, 09:59 AM   #173
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Henri, I'm not so sure even YOU want to be backing a DUI-acquiring, animal hoarder who shoplifts. (That would be that second wife you're quoting.) Oh, wait, you don't mind backing your man crush who slaughtered his pregnant FIRST wife and two young daughters, so I take that back - you're probably her only friend in the world.
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 August 2018, 10:03 AM   #174
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Oh, and unless you have a source (via DNA can prove their source, that is) for those hairs, Murtagh (despite your wishes) is absolutely correct - they are useless forensically. Not that facts matter to you, but it is true: you have to source the item for it to be of any use.
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 August 2018, 01:59 PM   #175
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
Playing Dumb

HENRIBOY: You can play dumb all you want, but I know that you're fully aware of the following facts.

1) In 1999, the government provided the AFIP with DNA exemplars from both Stoeckley and Mitchell.

2) The exemplars included head hairs from Stoeckley and a tissue sample from Mitchell.

3) Inmate's defense team did not request that DNA exemplars be obtained from Smith, Harris, Mazzerolle, Fowler, and Perry.

4) This indicates that inmate's defense team had NO confidence in these individuals being involved in this horrific crime.

5) None of the 29 DNA exhibits matched the DNA profile of Stoeckley or Mitchell.

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 13th August 2018, 01:39 AM   #176
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Henri, I'm not so sure even YOU want to be backing a DUI-acquiring, animal hoarder who shoplifts. (That would be that second wife you're quoting.) Oh, wait, you don't mind backing your man crush who slaughtered his pregnant FIRST wife and two young daughters, so I take that back - you're probably her only friend in the world.
That's nothing compared to convicted fraudster prosecutor Blackburn in the MacDonald case, or Stombaugh and Malone of the FBI, who are under suspicion and investigation by the Department of Justice for false testimony and forensic fraud in other murder cases. Murtagh has no principles. He is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

This is some more about what MacDonald's wife has said about the MacDonald case in the past:

http://www.justicedenied.org/issue/i...d_issue_42.pdf

Quote:
After the McGinniss trial, Jeff learned that his mother was seriously ill and asked to stay in California to be near her. For four years total, he continued to live in solitary confinement, depending on friends to bring his mother to visit until her death in 1990. He used those years of isolation to pore over thousands of pages of government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Exculpatory evidence, suppressed at trial, slowly came to light. Not only was there physical evidence of intruders, but the evidence corroborated Jeff’s account. Among the items the government suppressed were: 22” long blond wig fibers; black wool fibers on the body of Colette and the murder club; and blood in the exact location where Jeff said he had been knocked unconscious. Jeff’s FOIA requests were controlled by the DOJ, which doled them out over many years. By providing the documents piecemeal over time, there was no way to present the suppressed evidence in court all at once. Then, when a new item of evidence was discovered it was ruled to have been found “too late” or “not enough by itself” to overturn the case. Although the evidence had been secreted from him, Jeff had to show due diligence by filing a habeas in a timely manner, or be procedurally barred from ever relying on that new evidence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th August 2018 at 01:41 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 13th August 2018, 06:37 AM   #177
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a lie. Check your facts.
No it is not a lie - the FACTS HAVE BEEN CHECKED - SEE BELOW - NO SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE NO BRADY VIOLATIONS

United States v. MacDonald, 778 F. Supp. 1342 (E.D.N.C. 1991)
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - 778 F. Supp. 1342 (E.D.N.C. 1991)
July 8, 1991
778 F. Supp. 1342 (1991)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeffrey R. MacDONALD, Defendant.
Nos. 75-26-CR-3, 90-104-CIV-3-D.
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Fayetteville Division.

July 8, 1991.

Regarding the first element of a claim under Brady, MacDonald has not shown that the government suppressed any evidence to which he was entitled. While MacDonald was not given access to the handwritten lab notes describing the fiber evidence, the government complied with its duty under Brady by allowing MacDonald to examine and test any of the actual physical evidence, including the fibers at issue here. See, e.g., United States v. Wolf, 839 F.2d at 1391 ("If the means of obtaining the exculpatory evidence has been provided to the defense, however, a Brady claim fails, even if the prosecution does not physically deliver the evidence requested."); United States v. Page, 828 F.2d at 1479 ("[A] new trial is not warranted by evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered and produced at trial."); United States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47, 59 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 929, 107 S. Ct. 3214, 96 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1987) ("no Brady violation occurs if the defendant ... should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence"); United States v. Ramirez, 810 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 844, 108 S. Ct. 136, 98 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1987) ("a Brady violation does not arise if, with reasonable diligence, [defendant] could have obtained the information"); United States v. Griggs, 713 F.2d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1983) ("Where defendants ... had within their knowledge the information by which they could have ascertained the alleged Brady material, there is no suppression by the government.").

Here, it is undisputed that MacDonald was given unfettered access to the physical evidence. Pursuant to a June 19, 1979 order of this court, all of the government's physical evidence was made available to Dr. John Thornton, a forensic expert retained by MacDonald. Thornton made no *1354 effort to examine the hair and fiber evidence currently at issue, choosing instead to concentrate on MacDonald's pajama top, the sheets from the master bedroom, floor boards containing a bloody footprint, and cuttings from the surgical rubber glove fragments. Affidavit of Murtagh at 25. MacDonald now argues that Thornton would have had no reason to look at the fiber evidence since its significance was hidden by the suppression of the lab notes and the fact that the box containing the blond synthetic fibers from the clear-handled hairbrush was labeled "black, black & grey [illegible] synthetic hairs." However, the fact remains that Thornton, for whatever reason, chose not to examine any of the fiber evidence, despite being given an opportunity to do so.

Further, suppression of evidence under Brady can only occur with "information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense." Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103, 96 S. Ct. at 2397. Here, MacDonald has presented no evidence that the prosecuting attorneys had read the lab notes currently at issue and there is no reason to suspect that they were aware of any potential exculpatory material in the notes. Prosecutor Brian M. Murtagh, in fact, states affirmatively that he never read the lab notes pertaining to fiber analysis prior to trial and would have had no reason to have done so. See Affidavit of Murtagh at 7, 14. In a case such as this one, where the allegedly suppressed evidence was discussed only in a few isolated notations buried in hundreds of pages of handwritten lab notes, Brady does not require the prosecution "to peruse through all of its evidence with an eye to the defendant's theory of the case and then to specify to the defendant the evidence which supports that theory." United States v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 252, 256 (N.D.Ill.1987) (emphasis omitted).

Regarding the second element of a claim under Brady, while the court is willing to accept MacDonald's assertion that the handwritten lab notes were exculpatory, there is some doubt as to whether the allegedly suppressed evidence would have actually aided the defense had the notes been available at trial. Without any evidence that saran is used in the production of human wig hair, the presence of blond saran fibers in a hairbrush in the MacDonald home would have done little to corroborate MacDonald's account of an intruder with blond hair or a blond wig. Moreover, Stoeckley testified at trial that she was not wearing her wig on the night of the murders, although she apparently told Jane Zillioux, a neighbor in Nashville, Tennessee, that she was worried about her wig getting wet from the rain. Similarly, the other allegedly suppressed fiber evidence would have been of rather limited exclamatory value given that the unmatched fibers were not found in sufficient quantity particularly in comparison to the large numbers of fibers from MacDonald's pajama top to suggest a life and death struggle with four intruders
.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Brady violations were deliberately made by the forensic labs
No that is not only a LIE but IMPOSSIBLE. The labs do not have any part in providing discovery information. HOWEVER, the labs provided the information to the prosecution, and the prosecution provided the information to inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and prosecutors
There were no Brady Violations found. PERIOD. Check your FACTS.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Judge Dupree
the Judge does not have anything to do with providing the Brady Material to the defense. CHECK YOUR FACTS

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
so that the jury would never be informed,
The prosecution only presented about 60% of the available evidence at trial. there is no requirement to present ALL the evidence. As for the dark wool fibers that you keep bringing up - the were unsourced thus they were forensically useless. The saran fibers were sourced to one of Colette's hair pieces and to dolls. The saran were from different sources so no one wig would have provided them AND they were found in a hair brush. Do you honestly believe that someone doing evil would stop and brush their wig with a hairbrush belonging in the home? That is ridiculous! Still, it is of no import because it has been PROVEN that saran WAS NOT used to make cosmetic wigs in the 1960s-1970s time frame. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS NUMEROUS TIMES.

The prosecution DOES NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. They simply provide the information and the DEFENSE is supposed to review the evidence. So it is Bernie Segal that failed to mention the dark wool fibers and the saran so that the jury was "uninformed". Of course, he probably didn't mention them because they were not as "exculpatory" as the defense tries to claim these days.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 06:46 AM   #178
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's nothing compared to convicted prosecutor Blackburn in the MacDonald case,
Blackburn had legal trouble AFTER this case. He admitted his guilt and did his time. Unlike your man-crush who brutally and savagely slaughtered his pregnant wife killing his unborn son in the process AND his two precious little girls who still tries to get out of his just punishment. While I respect Blackburn for facing his crime and doing his time, I have no respect for the 2nd Mrs. M who has risked many lives by getting behind the wheel of a car and driving drunk. A woman who has shoplifted, hoarded cats, and failed to pay her bills. 2nd Mrs. M is much much worse than Blackburn.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or Stombaugh and Malone of the FBI, who are under suspicion and investigation by the Department of Justice for false testimony and forensic fraud in other murder cases.
prove it....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh has no principles. He is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
Actually Brian Murtagh is a very principled man, a highly qualified attorney, well respected, and with a case history unmatched by many....the only people who claim him to be nasty is inmate and his rabid followers (thankfully fewer and fewer).
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 08:47 AM   #179
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

prove it....
This is the proof you so earnestly crave:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...death-row.html

Quote:
FBI used flawed hair-testing method to convict thousands of people for serious crimes in the 1980s and '90s - including some on death row

The FBI and the Justice Department are re-examining thousands of convictions based on forensic evidence
In the 1980s and '90s, FBI scientists testified in criminal cases based on flawed science

The method involved comparing hairs from the defendant to ones obtained from the crime scene under microscope
Presented by many scientists as irrefutable, the method is inexact

Letters are being sent to many inmates, some on death-row, explaining their right to DNA testing to prove their innocence

By Alex Greig
Published: 16:03, 2 August 2014 | Updated: 16:28, 2 August 2014
I can't quite see how 22 inch blond synthetic hair like fibers can come from a fall or MacDonald dolls as Kassab and Malone insisted, or made up. Real proof please? Had the MacDonald defense team been informed about all this at the time of the trial?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th August 2018 at 08:50 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 13th August 2018, 10:41 AM   #180
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is the proof you so earnestly crave:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...death-row.html
This IS NOT PROOF this is a journalistic article. Proof would consist of DOCUMENTED RECORD IE COURT PAPERS SUCH AS DECISIONS MADE BY JURISTS. 99.9% of anything based on the DEFENSE's claims is pure bs. Just like Fatal Joke and WOE that are replete with errors, cut and paste, revisionist history, misrepresentations and out right LIES.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I can't quite see how 22 inch blond synthetic hair like fibers can come from a fall or MacDonald dolls as Kassab and Malone insisted..... Real proof please?
You can't quite see? how ridiculous are you prepared to get? The 3 blonde synthetic "saran" hair type fibers were tested and came from 3 different sources. One of those sources was matched to a fall that had belonged to Colette. The FBI Exemplar Collection consists of hundreds if not thousands of different dolls. THIS IS FACT. Sorry that I personally do not have access to the collection, but at one time there was a video about the FBI and its labs on YouTube. It is FACT that the fibers were found IN THE BRISTLES of Colette's hairbrush. Not a surprise, little girls use real hairbrushes to brush their dolls hair. Between Kimmie and Kristy there were more than 20 dolls in the household.

For more, try reading Bodies of Evidence. It covers various trials and hearings for various cases. I am NOT the only one who has been providing you with REAL PROOF for years. Just because you choose to ignore what you are provided doesn't not make it "fake proof". Unlike FJ and WOE or even inmate's own website - the Fire Brigade continues to deal in FACTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Had the MacDonald defense team been informed about all this at the time of the trial?
Yes, the defense had been provided the information about the blonde synthetic "hair like" fibers and the dark wool fibers found on Colette and the murder weapon. That the defense never bothered to fully review the evidence is not the fault of the prosecution. Since the dark woolen fibers were unsourced they were of no value to the defense (even if they had brought them up before the jury the prosecution would have made it very clear that UNSOURCED IS FORENSICALLY USELESS. Also, IF inmate etal had brought up the saran fibers they would NOT have helped inmate because the prosecution would have been able to prove that they were sourced and were not from outsiders but from the VICTIMS.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 11:14 AM   #181
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
There Is No Place To Hide

HENRIBOY: Hate to break it to ya, but there is no place to hide. You can play dumb all you want, but I know that you're fully aware of the following facts.

1) In 1999, the government provided the AFIP with DNA exemplars from both Stoeckley and Mitchell.

2) The exemplars included head hairs from Stoeckley and a tissue sample from Mitchell.

3) Inmate's defense team did not request that DNA exemplars be obtained from Smith, Harris, Mazzerolle, Fowler, and Perry.

4) This indicates that inmate's defense team had NO confidence in these individuals being involved in this horrific crime.

5) None of the 29 DNA exhibits matched the DNA profile of Stoeckley or Mitchell.

As I've mentioned before, the inculpatory DNA test results are merely the icing on the evidentiary cake. MacDonald advocates have always chosen inferences over concrete data. Why? Because they have NOTHING. Not a single evidentiary item in this case was directly sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Do the math. Over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items vs. ZERO exculpatory evidentiary items equals inmate spending 37 of the past 39 years in prison.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th August 2018 at 11:17 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 14th August 2018, 03:01 AM   #182
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Do the math. Over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items vs. ZERO exculpatory evidentiary items equals inmate spending 37 of the past 39 years in prison.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The reason even Murtagh and Blackburn never presented to a court those supposed over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items and 60 percent of the evidence which Byn keeps harping on about is because they were inadmissible under American law. Even bad judges Like Dupree and Fox would have put their foot down about it. It was like all that crap from Kassab about invented sexual assaults on the two little girls without a shred of medical or any other evidence, or even the amphetamine psychosis theory, or the urine stain supposedly coming from Kim, instead of Kristen which actually happened, which I don't remember ever being presented to a court by the prosecution.

There is a bit of legal waffle about the matter at this website:

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence/
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 04:42 AM   #183
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The reason even Murtagh and Blackburn never presented to a court those supposed over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items
Murtagh and Blackburn DID PRESENT OVER 1,100 pieces of inculpatory evidence at trial. The evidence was introduced via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. That evidence is what convicted inmate. that evidence also was only 60% of the evidence available to use against inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and 60 percent of the evidence which Byn keeps harping on about is because they were inadmissible under American law.
Byn is not HARPING she is POINTING OUT THE FACTS AGAIN. That is not the same thing, but since you keep posting the same nonsense that has been PROVEN WRONG the only choice I have is to repeat the same FACTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. The prosecution has to decide what evidence they will present at trial. The evidence that was not used was not inadmissible in the courts. The true issue is that if the prosecution had presented every evidentiary item the trial would have lasted months longer than it did. You need to stop posting all the bs; seriously it is long past time you stopped being a troll.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Even bad judges Like Dupree
Judge Dupree was not a bad judge. He was an honest, hardworking, well respected jurist. During the trial he made every effort to keep Bernie Segal from totally alienating the jurors. The inculpatory nature of the evidence presented was sufficient to get inmate convicted as was appropriate. These days the addition of the highly inculpatory DNA test results would put inmate UNDER the jail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Fox would have put their foot down about it.
Judge Fox is also a well respected jurist. HOWEVER, he was not involved in the case until AFTER Judge Dupree passed away.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was like all that crap from Kassab about invented sexual assaults on the two little girls without a shred of medical or any other evidence,
it was not crap, it was an honest, personal opinion about what COULD have occurred. HOWEVER, what has Freddy's reasonable concern/belief have to do with anything we are discussing. His personal theory was not REPEAT WAS NOT presented to the jury. THE THEORY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH INMATE'S CONVICTION.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or even the amphetamine psychosis theory,
Again, this was a theory developed by Joe McG and he had a right to his beliefs. BUT THIS THEORY WAS NOT IN ANY WAY PART OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED INMATE. Joe McG didn't even "voice" that opinion until years after the trial and the first publishing of Fatal Vision. It was in an epilogue for a reprint.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or the urine stain supposedly coming from Kim, instead of Kristen which actually happened
No henri, Kristen was not the one that wet the master bed. PERIOD! IT WAS MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT URINE STAIN TO HAVE COME FROM KRISTEN. The only 2 people who could have made that urine stain was Kimberley or Colette. PERIOD.

try and grasp the following FACTS:

Type A blood contains Antigen A and Anti-B antibodies
Type AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B (no antibodies)
Type O blood contains Antigen H and anti-A and Anti-B antibodies
Type B blood contains Antigen B and Anti-A antibodies

The urine stain was tested and Antigen A was found. Thus the only 2 possible makers of the urine stain were Kimmie and Colette. PERIOD. There was no evidence that Colette had evacuated her bladder but there was plenty of evidence that Kimmie had wet herself (including urine on her nightgown and panties that she was found in).

there is absolutely no evidence that Kristen ever left her bed that night. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
which I don't remember ever being presented to a court by the prosecution.
So what? The prosecution does not have to, nor do they present every piece of evidence collected at a crime scene. The way it works is that the prosecution determines what is the strongest evidence or the evidence that will contradict the story told by the defendant etc. and they create their case.

if the defense thinks that something should be brought in that the prosecution did not present then they are to bring it up during their portion of the trial.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 09:07 AM   #184
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

No henri, Kristen was not the one that wet the master bed. PERIOD! IT WAS MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT URINE STAIN TO HAVE COME FROM KRISTEN. The only 2 people who could have made that urine stain was Kimberley or Colette. PERIOD.

try and grasp the following FACTS:

Type A blood contains Antigen A and Anti-B antibodies
Type AB blood contains Antigen A and Antigen B (no antibodies)
Type O blood contains Antigen H and anti-A and Anti-B antibodies
Type B blood contains Antigen B and Anti-A antibodies

The urine stain was tested and Antigen A was found. Thus the only 2 possible makers of the urine stain were Kimmie and Colette. PERIOD. There was no evidence that Colette had evacuated her bladder but there was plenty of evidence that Kimmie had wet herself (including urine on her nightgown and panties that she was found in).

there is absolutely no evidence that Kristen ever left her bed that night. PERIOD.
The background to that urine stain business in the MacDonald case was that CID agent Kearns, now deceased, was determined to prove MacDonald was lying during the 1972 re-investigation and that Kim was supposed to have wet the bed instead of Kristen. The initial CID lab report was that the urine stain was inconclusive. It is scientifically impossible, even today to retest a urine stain after ninety weeks, with the antigens which Byn continually mentions. The funny thing is that Kearns never testified with all that crap at the Article 32 proceedings, or at the Grand Jury in 1975, or at the MacDonald trial. Kearns was making it up.

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

Quote:
Mr. Semmes advised the FBI report contains a request from the Army to analyze the urine. It is important to note that urine stains cannot be typed. If the Army claims they can, they are in direct conflict with a known scientific fact. He emphasized that this is important.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th August 2018 at 09:09 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 11:25 AM   #185
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Your crime archives link is Ted "never met a conspiracy I couldn't embrace" Gunderson and the fella (Mr. Semmes) mentioned is Ted's friend.

According to my brother (who is also a lab tech and supervisor), you can analyze urine - even back then - for antigens and antibodies. In the 1970s, he tells me, DNA was not available. But for antigens and/or antibodies - yeah, you could do it.

So, what does that mean? It means that if I were a lab technician back then (and not a pre-teen), I could eliminate certain people as contributors of the urine. The father and the youngest daughter lack the antigens/antibodies and can therefore be eliminated. (That means they could not have done it.) The other two people known & proven to be in the house (their bodies were found in it) cannot be eliminated. I may not be able to say definitively that Kim was the source of the urine, but I can say it's possible she did it. If no urine stains are found on Colette's pajama bottoms, but there is a urine stain on Kim's nightie, a reasonable person would conclude Kim did it.
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 14th August 2018, 02:05 PM   #186
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
So, what does that mean? It means that if I were a lab technician back then (and not a pre-teen), I could eliminate certain people as contributors of the urine. The father and the youngest daughter lack the antigens/antibodies and can therefore be eliminated. (That means they could not have done it.) The other two people known & proven to be in the house (their bodies were found in it) cannot be eliminated. I may not be able to say definitively that Kim was the source of the urine, but I can say it's possible she did it. If no urine stains are found on Colette's pajama bottoms, but there is a urine stain on Kim's nightie, a reasonable person would conclude Kim did it.
The point is that Glisson was not at all sure about who caused the urine stain, and ninety weeks later the forensic technicians would have been even less sure. As far as I'm concerned I believe MacDonald that it was Kristen who wet the bed and that's how Kristen got a pajama fiber under her fingernail, if she did, as she kicked and screamed as she was being carried by MacDonald to her own bedroom.

This is Glisson's explanation of the urine stain at the Grand Jury in 1975. it doesn't sound like certainty or scientific fact to me:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...975-01-14.html

Quote:
MR. WOERHEIDE: Let's mark these as Glisson Exhibits.

(GLISSON EXHIBIT #9 AND #10 - JANUARY 14, 1975 - MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)

Q (By Mr. Woerheide) Referring you to Glisson Exhibit #9, did you find two urine stains on that sheet?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was one of them right under the outline of the body, but another one further towards the headboard and further towards the hall wall?
A Yes.
Q And this photograph, taken the morning of February 17, does it indicate that the urine stain under the body was fresh urine stain?
A Yes.
Q And the other one was an old urine stain?
A Yes.
Q So, I take it you found urine stains on each of the sheets of the beds. The urine stain in Kristen's bedroom was consistent with her type of blood. Is that correct?
A No. I didn't find any blood types on her bed sheet.
Q On that -- On the one there?
A (Nods affirmatively)
Q So you weren't able to type the urine stain. Is that right?
A That's right.
Q But, on the bed in Kimberly's bedroom, you were able to type it as AB; and on the bed in the master bedroom, it was either A or AB with the B factor deteriorated.
A That's right.

JUROR: How about the stain in the master bedroom -- the sheet in there. Was there an older stain or fresher stain? You were saying the one in Kimberly's room was fresh -- the urine stain.

A Kimberly's, the one right under her body, was the fresh stain. There was another one that looked like it was dried.

Q (By Mr. Woerheide) How about the urine stain that was in the master bedroom?
A I don't know whether it was fresh or not. We don't have a photograph right here to show the wetness of it. We have a photograph of the Kimberly one.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Here is the photograph of Kim's bed, and that was still fresh. Now, there is other urine, an old urine stain, up here. And the testimony was -- by the agents -- was that there was a good-sized urine stain on the sheet of the master bedroom on the part -- on the side away from where Colette slept. She slept on the right side of the bed, looking -- Well, if this is the bed and this is the head of the bed and that's the foot of the bed, she slept on this side; and the urine was here.
And unfortunately, we don't have a picture that shows it up distinctly; but the testimony was that it appeared to be a fresh urine stain. And this is what she has been testifying to, that that had -- could not have come from Kristen. It had to come from either Colette, herself, or Kimberly.
Q (By Mr. Woerheide) Is that correct?
A That's correct. Now, these stains were dried when I got them, so I can't tell if it had been wet; but the investigators, the ones that took the exhibits from the bed scene, say that was a wet stain.

JUROR: You cannot determine how long the stain has been there by your examination?

A I can't. The investigators who took the evidence would be able to tell whether it was wet. But, when I got it, it would have dried. But, when I say Kimberly's stain -- this one -- I'm saying, that from the picture. From the photograph, I can tell that's a wet stain -- from the photograph.

JUROR: You have no way of knowing how long the urine has been in the fibers of the sheet.
Right?

A No, not when I received it. It was dry.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th August 2018 at 02:09 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 07:48 PM   #187
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
Rinse, Repeat, And Run Away

HENRIBOY: I know this may come as a shock, but you cannot hide from the documented record. You can play dumb all you want, but I know that you're fully aware of the following facts.

1) In 1999, the government provided the AFIP with DNA exemplars from both Stoeckley and Mitchell.

2) The exemplars included head hairs from Stoeckley and a tissue sample from Mitchell.

3) Inmate's defense team did not request that DNA exemplars be obtained from Smith, Harris, Mazzerolle, Fowler, and Perry.

4) This indicates that inmate's defense team had NO confidence in these individuals being involved in this horrific crime.

5) None of the 29 DNA exhibits matched the DNA profile of Stoeckley or Mitchell.

As I've mentioned before, the inculpatory DNA test results are merely the icing on the evidentiary cake. Do the math. At the 1979 trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items. This included hair, fiber, finger/palm prints, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody/non-bloody fabric impressions. Despite the cries of protest from inmate's advocates, the prosecution's case at trial has stood the test of time as evidenced by the FACT that inmate remains in his concrete bunker.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th August 2018 at 07:51 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 15th August 2018, 02:33 AM   #188
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
MacDonald suffered from very bad judges in his case, who were involved in corrupt bias and judicial corruption rather than a fair trial. They accepted fabricated evidence and they were clearly erroneous. The 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court were not much better. They were merely rubber stampers. There was a good Australian criminal trial judge called Sir Joseph Hood in the past, and Judge Carnes in the JonBenet Ramsey case in America gets it right. MacDonald needed an excellent court. There is a bit of legal waffle on the internet about what it takes to be a good judge at:

https://www.apursuitofjustice.com/th...-a-good-judge/
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 15th August 2018, 04:38 AM   #189
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that Glisson was not at all sure about who caused the urine stain,
Glisson was sure that ONLY COLETTE OR KIMMIE could have made the urine stain. It was IMPOSSIBLE for either Kristy or inmate himself to have made that stain. When you take the FACT that urine stains WERE found on Kimmie's nightgown and panties and NO URINE stains were found on Colette's clothing one can state with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that Kimmie made the urine stain.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and ninety weeks later the forensic technicians would have been even less sure.
The technicians were absolutely 100% sure it was not Kristy that made that urine stain since she was Type O blood and Type O blood does not contain Antigen A PERIOD. Even age of a stain cannot turn Antigen A into Antigen H.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As far as I'm concerned I believe MacDonald that it was Kristen who wet the bed
What part of MEDICALLY IMPOSSIBLE are you not understanding? IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR KRISTEN TO HAVE MADE THE URINE STAIN IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. ONLY COLETTE OR KIMBERLEY COULD HAVE MADE THAT STAIN. PERIOD.

Pay attention this time:

Colette - Type A - Antigen A and Anti-B Antibodies
Kimberley - Type AB - Antigen A and Antigen B
Kristen - Type O - Antigen H and Anti-A and Anti-B antibodies
inmate - Type B - Antigen B and Anti-A antibodies

The urine stain was tested and Antigen A was found no antibodies were found. So the only 2 persons in that house that could have made the urine stain are Colette and Kimmie. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and that's how Kristen got a pajama fiber under her fingernail,
WRONG! Kristen got the pj fiber under her nails while she was fighting off her father stabbing her. We know this because the pj fiber was totally saturated in her blood and was at first thought believed to be a blood clot. We also know this because of the defensive wounds on her poor little hands. NOT ONLY THAT BUT INMATE'S STORY OF INTRUDERS HAD YET TO TAKE PLACE SO HIS PJ TOP WAS NOT YET TORN WHEN (according to his lies) HE "TOOK" Kristen back to bed so he would not have been shedding fibers not would Kristen have been bleeding.

inmate's story does not match the evidence. that is plain and simple truth.
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 15th August 2018, 05:47 AM   #190
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,325
this thread should probably be in the conspiracy section at this point.
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 15th August 2018, 06:56 AM   #191
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 21
The only poster on this thread who believes this is a conspiracy is henri. The rest of the posters are using verified evidence to counter his nonsensical postings.
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2018, 09:43 AM   #192
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
WRONG! Kristen got the pj fiber under her nails while she was fighting off her father stabbing her. We know this because the pj fiber was totally saturated in her blood and was at first thought believed to be a blood clot. We also know this because of the defensive wounds on her poor little hands. NOT ONLY THAT BUT INMATE'S STORY OF INTRUDERS HAD YET TO TAKE PLACE SO HIS PJ TOP WAS NOT YET TORN WHEN (according to his lies) HE "TOOK" Kristen back to bed so he would not have been shedding fibers not would Kristen have been bleeding.

inmate's story does not match the evidence. that is plain and simple truth.
That's sheer ignorance of the facts. I have mentioned a bit on this forum in the past about all this stuff about pajama fibers being 'entwined' in blood in the MacDonald case. MacDonald's wife thinks a human hair with no known source was found under Kristen's fingernail. That's forensically significant:

Quote:
"The government added a new evidence claim long after the murders, at the 1974 grand jury investigation, an FBI Lab Technician introduced new evidence he claimed was delivered to him, that year, in a vial, marked as "part of the debris evidence collected by the CID from the bloody bedspread at the crime scene, on the bedroom floor." He then introduced a bloody hair matching Colette’s, allegedly found entwined with a long sewing thread, said to be from MacDonald’s pajama top. (The original lab note seems to suggest that the entangled items had already been mounted on a slide. A general note written later however indicates otherwise.)This was viewed as damning evidence that supports the government’s claim that Jeffrey and Colette had a vicious fight. It is a common forensic requirement for photographs to be taken of the hair and thread before separating them, but the FBI Lab Technician did not do this. He washed away the alleged blood on the hair to make a microscopic examination. So the only "proof" that a bloody hair was entwined with a fiber is solely based on the word of the FBI Lab Technician.There is something drastically wrong with this claim. In previous years, numerous examinations of the debris from the bedspread were recorded by the Army CID. These lab notes revealed a bloody hair was among the debris found, but the hair matched Kimberly’s hair, not Colette’s. The FBI found only one hair matching Colette in the debris from the bedspread. As documented, the CID had already found, examined and cataloged that hair. In a deposition prior to the Army hearing in 1970, the CID Technician who controlled this evidence explained how he washed hairs taken from the bedspread in preparation for microscopic analysis. So the question is, how did entwinement develop? If the bloody hair was Colette’s, why was it identified as Kimberly’s? If the hair was washed by the CID, how did it remain bloody for the FBI?"
The source for that quote is at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th August 2018 at 09:49 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 15th August 2018, 09:48 AM   #193
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,858
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's sheer ignorance of the facts. I have mentioned a bit on this forum in the past about all this stuff about pajama fibers being 'entwined' in blood in the MacDonald case. MacDonald's wife thinks a human hair with no known source was found under Kristen's fingernail. That's forensically significant:
What she thinks is as immaterial as what any other inmate fanboy thinks.
__________________
"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 15th August 2018, 11:57 AM   #194
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's sheer ignorance of the facts.
No, YOU are the one who is ignorant of the FACTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have mentioned a bit on this forum in the past about all this stuff about pajama fibers being 'entwined' in blood in the MacDonald case.
there is no way to "entwine" something in blood. what was entwined was a pj fiber and some of Colette's bloody head hairs.

The pj fiber found under Kristen's fingernail was SATURATED IN BLOOD. IT WAS originally believed to be a blood clot. It was only after rinsing it that it became distinguishable as a pj fiber.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald's wife thinks a human hair with no known source was found under Kristen's fingernail.
What SMQ/cleo knows about the TRUTH in this case can fit into a thimble with plenty of room left over.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The short study is no more accurate then the piece of crap book Fatal Joke. We have spent years disproving both FJ and Bost Short Study. Both of these writings are replete with errors. FJ we've estimated has AT LEAST 1 error for every 5 pages. The book and short study are full of misrepresentation, cut and paste presentation, revisionist history, and outright lies.

There is no doubt that a pj fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail. There is some doubt whether the hair fragment the defense is claiming was actually found there....HOWEVER even if it was, UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS.

What part of the FACT that we all pick up and discard fibers, dirt, sand, skin, and hair as we go about our daily lives. We get them from one place and shed them at another. An unsourced hair fragment has no value BUT a sourced pj fiber covered in the victim's blood is VERY valuable.
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 15th August 2018, 01:24 PM   #195
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
I've Been Waiting For 15 Years

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that DNA profile, hair, and/or fiber that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. I know, I know, you have your own unique definition of sourced evidence, but that definition holds no water on this forum or in a court of law. What has and does hold water in a court of law are the evidentiary items that led to inmate being incarcerated for 37 of the past 39 years.

They include...

- Fibers from his torn pajama top that were found under bodies, bedding, wrapped around a bloody head hair sourced to Colette, under Kristen's fingernail, and under Kimmie's pillow.

- Bloody fabric impressions sourced to inmate's pajama sleeves/cuffs found on bedding used to transport Colette and Kimmie back to their respective bedrooms.

- Three bloody, bare footprints found exiting Kristen's room formed in Colette's blood with one of the prints matching an exemplar collected from inmate's left foot.

- A bloody, broken limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matching inmate's DNA profile.

I could go on, but you get the picture. I can't wait to read your list of evidentiary items that were definitively sourced to a member or members of the Stoeckley Seven.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 15th August 2018 at 01:34 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 15th August 2018, 04:42 PM   #196
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
{snip of Henri drivel}

I can't quite see how 22 inch blond synthetic hair like fibers can come from a fall or MacDonald dolls as Kassab and Malone insisted, or made up. {Snip of more drivel}
Go research how dolls are made, Henri. Pay specific attention to the portion where they insert the hair. We ain't doing your homework for you.
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 15th August 2018, 08:48 PM   #197
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,148
Fake Controversy

The history of this case CLEARLY demonstrates that from 1970-1987, the three saran fibers found at the crime scene were a non-issue to BOTH the defense and the prosecution. It wasn't until the defense team spotted Glisson's mention of the fibers being blonde in color that they began to construct this forensic red herring. It was no accident that the defense ignored the discovery of black synthetic fibers for they didn't fit into the "Stoeckley Wore A Blonde Wig" narrative.

In their rush to create a fake controversy, the defense skipped over Paul Stombaugh's 1974 analysis of the saran fibers and his conclusion that the most likely source was a doll. In 1990, Robert Webb's chemical composition analysis determined that the three saran fibers came from two different source materials. The defense knew that the best way for their theory to pass muster would be to argue that there were two wig-wearing intruders.

Knowing that the appellate courts would laugh at this assertion, the defense approached this issue in the most simplistic manner possible. It must have been difficult to hear that Michael Malone concurred with Stombaugh's conclusion that the source of the fibers was a doll. Malone took his analysis a step further and was able to match one of the saran fibers to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 15th August 2018 at 08:51 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 16th August 2018, 03:07 AM   #198
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Knowing that the appellate courts would laugh at this assertion, the defense approached this issue in the most simplistic manner possible. It must have been difficult to hear that Michael Malone concurred with Stombaugh's conclusion that the source of the fibers was a doll. Malone took his analysis a step further and was able to match one of the saran fibers to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't know where exactly Stombaugh was supposed to have thought those blonde synthetic hair like fibers were supposed to have come from dolls, and not Stoeckley's wig hair, as JTF never provides any legal reference. The very bad judges in the MacDonald case just think it is more likely those fibers with no known source came from dolls, and say also they had different chemical compositions without ever providing any scientific certainty of that. It was a cheap joke shop wig, not some kind of expensive cosmetic wig.

The matter is discussed at this website:

https://koehlerlaw.net/2010/05/on-mi...acdonald-case/

Quote:
But I really don’t know what to believe. The problem is, until the government can take the necessary steps to prevent abuses like the Michael P. Malone cases, we can never know what to believe. Any confidence we might have had in the government’s ability to sort through these same facts and arrive at the right solution through the judicial system is completely belied by the government’s handling of the Michael P. Malone case.

Multiple prosecutors, both federal and state, called Michael Malone to the stand to testify for the government in numerous cases when they either knew or should have known that the testimony he was about to deliver was false. Multiple supervisors within Malone’s chain of command at the FBI refused to take corrective action when alerted to repeated instances of Malone’s perjury.

Malone was relieved of his forensic responsibilities in 1997 and retired in 1999, and while the government claims it is now investigating him and other analysts against whom similar accusations have been leveled, Malone has never, as far as I know, been disciplined or sued. And, in many cases, Justice officials waited for years (13 years in the Donald Gates case) to notify defense counsel of the Malone abuses.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th August 2018 at 03:10 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 16th August 2018, 05:42 AM   #199
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know where exactly Stombaugh was supposed to have thought those blonde synthetic hair like fibers were supposed to have come from dolls, and not Stoeckley's wig hair, as JTF never provides any legal reference.
What part of cosmetic wigs were not made of saran in the 1960s-1970s time-frame are you not understanding? In plain English those hairs could not have come from a WIG because wigs were not made of SARAN. PERIOD.

Also, I would like you to SERIOUSLY think about how ridiculous it is to believe that an intruder bent on mayhem and a search for drugs (as inmate alleges) would search out a hair brush and brush their wig?!?!?! That is the only way the fibers got into the bristles of the hair brush.

1 of the blonde saran fibers was matched to one of Colette's hair pieces. See below for sample:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...irpieces26.jpg

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...irpieces1b.jpg

The saran fibers were found in a clear handled hairbrush, the only way they could have gotten there is for the brush to be used. Thus it is unsurprising that Colette's hairpieces would leave fibers and it should not come as a surprise that little girls use regular hairbrushes to brush their dolls hair. It happens routinely. At the links you will see the hairbrush AND you will see a legal reference - a photo of just ONE of the FBI exemplar collection. Just because you choose to ignore facts and you keep repeating nonsensical inanities over and over again it will not make your delusions real.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ges/pk-019.gif



http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ges/pk-020.gif


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The very bad judges in the MacDonald case just think it is more likely those fibers with no known source came from dolls, and say also they had different chemical compositions without ever providing any scientific certainty of that.
The Judges in this case firstly were not/are not badge. They have all been distinguished jurists in their own rights. Your childish repetition of this sort of comment is annoying and ridiculous. You cannot argue the case with intelligence or FACT so you start playing more and more childish games. We get it - you love inmate. So, become his penpal and leave the rest of us alone.

The Judges did not/do not make the determination on fibers and chemical composition. If you look at the documented record their is plenty of evidence and scientific certainty. The FBI exemplar collections are extensive.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was a cheap joke shop wig, not some kind of expensive cosmetic wig.
No, Helena has a cosmetic wig, it was blonde but it was not stringy nor was it long hair. Helena's wig was cut in a bob so EVEN IF SHE HAD BEEN WEARING IT (she said she was not because Greg Mitchell didn't like how she looked in it) she would not have matched the description inmate gave of the female intruder. Also, we go back to the FACT that cosmetic wigs were not made of saran, the fibers were from 3 different sources, and no intruder would grab a hairbrush and start preening during a mad frenzy of murder and mayhem.

Helena ALWAYS said she didn't wear her wig that night. Inmate's story changed as he learned more of the evidence - consciousness of guilt! Get it through your head inmate brutally and savagely slaughtered Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and his unborn baby boy. He is where he deserves (or at least as close as we are able to get him, really he belongs UNDER the jail) and he will remain there until he dies.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2018, 05:53 AM   #200
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,325
there were no intruders, hence, they couldn't leave behind any evidence. period. bottom line. that's where it ends. to argue this just gives credence to trolls conspiracies.

Last edited by Whip; 16th August 2018 at 05:54 AM.
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
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 12:51 PM.
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.