|
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. |
19th September 2018, 02:05 AM | #361 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The Army CID is about as incompetent as the Portuguese police. Judge Fox should be charged with perverting the course of justice.
|
19th September 2018, 02:27 AM | #362 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You seem to be under the impression that the apartment was in total darkness at the time of the MacDonald murders. The bathroom light was on for a start.
The matter is mentioned in the Rock report after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 if you scroll down to the bottom of the page: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...970-10-13.html
Quote:
|
19th September 2018, 08:54 AM | #363 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is a bit about the lighting conditions in MacDonald's testimony at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...macdonald.html
Quote:
|
19th September 2018, 01:31 PM | #364 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
This Is Too Easy
Kudos to Henriboy for including the following Article 32 testimony in a recent post.
Q So then describe what you did after you went into the master bedroom and turned the light on. Go on from there, please. A I was taking this pajama top off my hands and I threw it away or something, dropped it, and I took the knife out of her chest, and I probably checked her pulse. Gotta luv how a psychopath can lie with a straight face. Inmate admits that he took off his torn pajama top when he "found" Colette on the master bedroom floor, yet this lie is at odds with the fiber evidence found in all three bedrooms. Fibers sourced to the torn left seam/sleeve of his torn pajama top were found under Colette's body, on top of the master bed, under Kimmie's bedcovers, under Kimmie's pillow, under Kristen's bedcovers, and under Kristen's fingernail. The ripples of this lie extend to the blood evidence (e.g., six Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, four Type A blood stains on the left side of the garment) found on the pajama top and pajama fibers found in other crucial locations (e.g., club, bathrobe, near the master bed headboard, bundled bedding, and entwined with Colette's bloody head hair) at the crime scene. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th September 2018, 04:46 AM | #365 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Advocates Exposed By Case Documentation
The beauty of the Internet is that it provides MacDonald case researchers with the tools to separate fact from fiction. From 1983-2002, inmate's advocates were able to talk the talk, but the subsequent availability of case documentation destroyed their ability to walk the walk. This includes case issues both big and small. I ran across this little nugget about an hour ago.
SOURCE: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...f_murtagh.html ISSUE: Response to a claim put forth in Ted Gunderson's 1980 MacDonald Case Report. QUOTE: The Gunderson Report claimed at Volume I Page 196A that alleged murderer Mazerolle was not in custody at the time of the murders, but free on bail. The FBI investigation revealed that this was incorrect and that Gunderson and would-be author Bost, had both blundered. Mazerolle was in jail at the time of the murders. Nice job, Brian. From now on, I will refer to Ted Gunderson and Fred Bost as the Blunder Twins. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th September 2018, 05:03 AM | #366 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
JTF - I seem to recall that it was investigator Ray Shedlick that first created this "ignorance" on the part of Gunderson and Bost. Not a direct quote, but he basically said that he'd requested the bail/bonds information for Mazzerolle and a co-defendant (not one of the 7 people Stoeckley named) and he received envelopes with bail paperwork inside. HOWEVER, he admitted that he didn't bother to read both packages, as he'd seen the co-defendant was bailed out prior to 2/17/70. The other envelope contained Mazzerolle's documentation that showed he had been unable to raise bail and he remained in jail on 2/17/70. Shedlick admitted that he ASSUMED both men were bailed out at the same time. It was apparently some time later that he opened the second set of documentation and realized his error.
Of course, all these years later the conspiracy theorists stick with the reports that were made in error.....ignorance to the nth degree! |
20th September 2018, 08:39 AM | #367 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Detective Beasley saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. He said he thought Mazerolle was on bail. Mazerolle just forged false documentation, like a false passport, to give him a cast iron alibi, probably with the help of some corrupt people at the local jail. That's what so confused Gunderson and Fred Bost later on.
What may I ask is the significance of the pajama fibers and blood stains which JTF always says is conclusive evidence of guilt? The prosecution never had a qualified serologist, apart from Glisson of the army CID lab, and she was in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI about it. Still she kept her trap shut about it. Browning of the CID lab had two months training in fibers. This matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 with the textile expert Professor Wofgang: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-wolfgang.html
Quote:
|
20th September 2018, 12:19 PM | #368 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No he did not.
He did not see him out on bail, he had a brain disease and by the time he was asked about the situation he had already been confabulating. I know you hate it when we insist on clouding your prejudices with FACTS but FACTS are FACTS Mazzerolle did not make bail until March 10, 1970 period. No, Mazzerolle would not have had the ability to "forge" his bail papers to show that he was IN JAIL when he was not. The bail records are "insurance" based and records are meticulously kept. As I stated earlier, Ray Shedlick, an investigator hired by inmate ADMITTED that he had ASSUMED that Mazzerolle got bailed out at the same time as his co-defendant BUT THAT HE WAS IN ERROR. That means he was wrong henri. the official documentation is correct that Mazzerolle was in jail locked up by PEB himself and was not in any way involved in the murders. inmate is the sole perp. period. Gunderson was an idiotic conspiracy theorist he wasn't confused he CHOSE to ignore the admission by Ray Shedlick. that doesn't mean he was confused it means he ignored things that he didn't want to believe. FACTS are FACTS and Allen Mazzerolle was in jail and NOT involved in the murders. PERIOD. JTF - you can take on henri's other ridiculous comments about serologist and fiber examiners etc. |
20th September 2018, 03:40 PM | #369 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Crazy Town
BYN: It would be my pleasure. I found it somewhat disturbing that Henriboy is asking a question to which he already knows the answer. Welcome to Crazy Town.
Inmate's fabricated story about fighting 3 armed men in his living room laid the groundwork for the significance of the pajama fiber and bloodstain evidence. For his story to have any forensic significance, fibers from his torn pajama top would have been present in the living room and not under bodies, bedcovers, pillows, wrapped around bloody head hairs, and under fingernails. His wife's blood would not be present on his pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn, Kimmie's blood would not be present on his pajama top, and bloody cuff impressions from his left and right pajama sleeves would not have been present on the blue bedsheet. Inmate's bloody bare footprints would also not have been present on Kristen's bedroom floor/hallway floor. This is just a bare bones presentation of the inculpatory pajama fiber/bloodstain evidence in this case, but 99 percent of the posters on this thread have a clear understanding of why inmate was convicted in less than 7 hours. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
20th September 2018, 07:26 PM | #370 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Henri: Your boy Beasley also thought that the CID would violate their authority and invade the jurisdiction of the Fayetteville PD without a warrant and come and get his "bad guys". Unfortunately, the CID, not being the Keystone Cops you think they are, very properly stayed on post, where they had jurisdiction. Have you tried a reading for comprehension course, because this has been pointed out to you before - the CID, being the Army's investigation unit, cannot operate off post without the presence of a local police officer. What part of this is eluding you?
|
21st September 2018, 02:30 AM | #371 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I appreciate that the Army CID felt the MacDonald murders were their jurisdiction, but the local police, which included Detective Beasley and the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation obviously felt they were involved in any high profile murder case like that.
What about Mazerolle not turning up for his drugs court case on the day after the murders then, and then he promptly went on the run? He was required to attend court that day at the request of the majesty of American law. Was he sick, or far more likely he jumped bail? Mazerolle never finally attended court on that drugs charge until about a year later when most people had forgotten about it. The Article 32 proceedings were over then, by which time he had been in and out of jail in other parts of the country on other charges. |
21st September 2018, 02:41 AM | #372 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is an interesting posting on the internet about the MacDonald case, with which I agree:
Quote:
|
21st September 2018, 02:58 AM | #373 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The footprints are a load of crap. There was disagreement between the various CID forensic technicians about those footprints and MacDonald himself never denied that his footprints could have been at the crime scene.
It looks like the MacDonald defense recruited a real blood expert to help out Dr. Thornton with the blood evidence, called Charles Morton. Stombaugh of the FBI was never a real blood expert and Laber and Chamberlain of the CID lab were very inexperienced at the time. Morton's trial testimony is at: http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html...ton_trial.html
Quote:
|
21st September 2018, 04:13 AM | #374 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Nope, NCBI and the Fayetteville police did not repeat DID NOT have jurisdiction. EVEN IF PEB's claims were true the CID would not and could not have "come and get 'em" because THAT would have been outside their jurisdiction. HOWEVER, PEB did not ever collect the "suspects" nor did he call the CID to say he had them and for the CID to come get them. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
First, other than from YOU I have never heard that he was due in court on 2/18/70. Second, if he really was due in court his lawyer would have known that, he would have shown up in court and reported that his client was in jail. The court would then have either directed the police to bring him to court or he/she would have taken some other action i.e, reschedule the hearing, or make the judgement without AM being present. He did not go on the run because HE WAS IN JAIL UNTIL MARCH 10, 1970. What part of he didn't make bail do you NOT understand. HE WAS IN CUSTODY, THERE IS PLENTY OF CERTIFIED/VERIFIED documentation proving this to be the case. YOUR RIDICULOUS REPETITION OF THE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY TO DO NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS FACTUAL. Even the defense does not believe that Allen M was involved. When someone has a criminal court appearance but is in jail there lawyer/public defender appears for them and reports the jailed status to Court. The court then makes the determination on whether or not to have the jail bring the defendant, reschedule the hearing, or make the judgement without the defendant present. Nothing odd or unusual about that, happens all the time. THE FACT IS THAT ALLEN M WAS IN JAIL HAVING NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO BAIL HIMSELF OUT. He may or may not have been unwell, BUT HE WAS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOVER IN CUSTODY. HE WAS SITTING IN A JAIL CELL AND HAD BEEN SINCE JANUARY. AM had been unable to raise enough money to get bailed out. IN FACT, it was almost another month before he was able to secure bail. Allen had not yet been bailed out so therefore he could not have jumped bail. He was sitting in the jail cell that he was placed in by PEB for drugs in January 1970. He did not get bailed out until March 10, 1970. The defense KNOWS this is FACT. YOU KNOW it is FACT because I have told you so at least a hundred times. you are being ignorant and refusing to accept the facts and it is long past time that you knock it off. your man crush is guilty - he has been PROVEN guilty. So what? there are often long periods of time between the arrest on drug charges and the court date. there are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for this circumstance. HOWEVER, it is of no concern of yours or of any value to inmate to probe these causes because ALLEN MAZZEROLE WAS IN JAIL ON 2/17/70 AND COULD NOT REPEAT COULD NOT AND WAS NOT REPEAT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS. Inmate was the one who brutally and savagely slaughtered Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy and his unborn son. That has been proven and that is why he is in prison. What does the Article 32 have to do with anything? Allen M may or may not have continued to have legal issues over the years and all over the US, but it is irrelevant to the discussions at hand. He was not involved in the murders, you know that, it has been proven beyond all doubt. FACT FACT FACT |
21st September 2018, 04:27 AM | #375 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No the BLOODY FOOTPRINTS were not/are not "crap". they are valid forensic evidence.
Only 1 print examiner was able to examine the prints "in situ" and he compared them to Colette, inmate, and Ron Harrison exemplars. He stated they were inmate's prints and that you could tell he was carrying something of significant weight. The other print examiner had to try and make the comparison using photos because when they attempted to remove the floor with the bloody footprints the prints were damaged. The 2nd examiner could not see sufficient ridge detail to be certain. Thus at trial, as is SOP the terms used were "appears to be"..... It would have been incredibly ridiculous for him to claim otherwise. HOWEVER, the real issues were: 1. the only bloody footprints found in the house were exiting kristen's room 2. the only bloody footprints were of bare feet AND inmate himself put all the alleged intruders in either shoes or boots. The fact that the only bloody footprints were made exiting a room AND in a blood type that was not on the floor in the rest of the room is quite telling. This shows that inmate moved Colette (the significant weight he was carrying), thus proving that he staged the crime scene. roflmao! that didn't work out so well him. Drs Thorton and Morton did not help inmate at all at trial. The majority of what they testified to only supported the government's case. Yes he was, Judge Dupree accepted him as an expert witness therefore HE WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS. Also, this was not his first or last appearance at a trial as an expert. Just because YOU don't want him to be an expert doesn't mean he was not. AND, Drs. T and M agreed with a large amount of Stombaugh's testimony - so if THEY are experts then so is Stombaugh. I don't know if they were really inexperienced or not, BUT it has no bearing on their testimony. Terry Laber's testimony was so strong that Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine him. Do you know why? When a defense attorney does not cross-examine it is usually because to do so would only strengthen the testimony. Bernie knew that he could not discount TL's findings and therefore chose to not cross-examine in hopes the jury would not look too closely. IT DIDN'T WORK, THE JURY WAS IMPRESSED WITH LABER'S TESTIMONY. FOUND IT HIGHLY VALUABLE TOO! |
21st September 2018, 06:07 AM | #376 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
Quote:
|
21st September 2018, 07:12 AM | #377 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Uh, good luck with this; at least three of us have been dealing with him (under at least two other aliases) for a decade or more. He ignores anything that doesn't fit with his delusion (see Darlie Routier thread and I'm worried for Burke Ramsey because Henri is supporting him). The only thing I can credit him with is consistency: he is consistently WRONG, hence the "majesty" nonsense.
Mazzerolle is a perfect example of this: it's been proven that the lad was in jail that night, but because ONE person (with brain disease) THINKS he saw him, Henri goes on as if it's truth. Sad, really. You'll notice that he rarely addresses anything pointed out to him, except with strawman excuses: the bathroom light was on, so apparently Mac could examine and perform CPR on his daughters from that light alone. The lights in the bedrooms where the bodies were are off, but that bathroom light provided enough light for everything Mac did before the MPs arrived. Henri ignores the fact that there were no fingerprints on the light switches, and instead focuses on the "bathroom light was on". |
21st September 2018, 07:27 AM | #378 | ||
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You are inventing it all
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...984-03-27.html
Quote:
|
||
21st September 2018, 07:44 AM | #379 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
21st September 2018, 07:51 AM | #380 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
This matter of fingerprints on the light switches was discussed at the MacDonald trial with fingerprint expert Osterberg who was "totally mystified" by the CID fingerprint investigation:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...osterburg.html
Quote:
|
21st September 2018, 08:20 AM | #381 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
This is what Detective Beasley said about Mazerolle from a previous posting of mine on this forum in 2015, which I think is true. Beasley once described Mazerolle as a "hard cookie" which I also think is true. The annoying thing is somebody once posted that Mazerolle is now prospering in New Jersey. I suppose crime can pay and there are murderers who never get caught or punished:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...php?p=10891246
Quote:
|
21st September 2018, 10:25 AM | #382 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Two Finger Diet
How do you know when you have shaken Henriboy's fixed delusional system? Well, he produces several consecutive posts, and the content of those posts are word for word regurgitations from prior posts on this and other forums.
The landlord of MacFantasy Island probably isn't up to speed on inmate's 2005 parole hearing, the 2006 DNA test results, and/or the 2012 evidentiary hearing. Why bother with updated case data when you can repeat debunked defense claims from the 1970's? http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
21st September 2018, 11:25 AM | #383 | ||
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
What part of CONFABULATION do you NOT understand? CONFABULATE (psychiatric meaning) to replace FACT with FANTASY in memory. By the time PEB "created" his 1984 affidavit he was seriously ill with the inorganic brain disease that he suffered. there were serious gaps in his memory and he "made up" what in his mind seemed like his reasonable behavior. THE PROBLEM is that despite his years of keeping detailed notes of all his "stops", "arrests", or even "contact cards" there WERE NONE of these to support his story of gathering up the "suspects and calling CID". Another ISSUE as several us of pointed out....CID would not have "gone to get 'em" even if he had called them to say he had them all corralled. That would have been outside the jurisdiction of the CID. On base CID off base PEB and the twain do not meet. the daughter can say whatever she wants, doesn't make it true. it is just like what you write henri....just because you write it doesn't make it true. As for the "later" health problems....they WERE NOT LATER he was already seriously ill by the time of the murders, and he became increasingly symptomatic. sad but true.... |
||
21st September 2018, 11:28 AM | #384 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
I don't know if they were really inexperienced or not, BUT it has no bearing on their testimony.
I don't care if it looks like "a matter of days" to you. The FACT is that Terry Laber's testimony was so strong that Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine him. Do you know why? When a defense attorney does not cross-examine it is usually because to do so would only strengthen the testimony. Bernie knew that he could not discount TL's findings and therefore chose to not cross-examine in hopes the jury would not look too closely. IT DIDN'T WORK, THE JURY WAS IMPRESSED WITH LABER'S TESTIMONY. FOUND IT HIGHLY VALUABLE TOO! |
21st September 2018, 01:58 PM | #385 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Irrelevancies
Once more, all Henri's rantings are irrelevant sideshows designed to pretend there's some type of confusion here.
Who cares if Mazzerolle was standing outside MacD's dwelling that night! There is ZERO evidence that he was inside that apartment, and that is ALL that matters. |
22nd September 2018, 02:49 AM | #386 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Mazerolle is very proud of what he considers to be his superiority in brains over the police and FBI and Army CID, and of his categorical and vehement denials, and his fake cast-iron alibi.
The point is that only real experts can give their opinions in a federal case under the federal rules of evidence. Laber of the CID lab was very inexperienced. Stombaugh of the FBI was never a blood man. Neither of them should have been pontificating in a murder case about pajama pockets or fabric impression bloodstains. Glisson of the Army CID lab was a qualified serologist and she should have testified about things like the pajama pocket. A qualified serologist from the FBI should have testified about the pajama top and bedsheet blood evidence. Glisson was in disagreement with Stombaugh about the fabric impressions. It's what is known technically as bending the rules, like the Brady violations and secret evidence against Helena Stoeckley, and refusal by Dupree to allow the jury to hear psychiatric testimony which supported MacDonald because he didn't want a battle of the experts. The Laber testimony at the MacDonald trial was a farce. Much of it was taken up with Judge Dupree discussing parking arrangements for journalists and a future visit by the jury to the crime scene. This did not leave much time for Segal to cross-examine Laber even if he knew what Laber was talking about at the time. The disastrous result for MacDonald is that the simple-minded jury and 4th Circuit judges got it into their heads that Laber and Stombaugh were somehow proving MacDonald guilt with their "only said it could be" testimony, as Murtagh put it at the trial to Judge Dupree. http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-laber-tt.html
Quote:
|
22nd September 2018, 11:23 AM | #387 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Hmmmm. "I don't recall that Mazerolle was out on bail...…."
And it's on this hill Henri choses to die re the matter of Mazerolle's involvement...."I think" from a man with inorganic brain disease. Why, Henri's even imagining how Mazerolle feels about outwitting the police (apparently by getting out of jail, committing murder and getting back into jail without anyone noticing). |
22nd September 2018, 09:40 PM | #388 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Still Waiting
HENRIBOY: Still waiting (e.g., 15 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Knowing that this was their last shot at garnering a new trial for inmate, the MacDonald Defense Team had to present such an item at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. This was the only way they could meet their "daunting burden," yet they couldn't walk the walk. Nuff said.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
23rd September 2018, 02:50 AM | #389 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The footprint evidence in the MacDonald case is typical "only said it could be" stuff and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. Dr. Thornton always maintained that he had heard that the Army CID lab had made mistakes before with read to blood typing. There was a very heated exchange between Segal and the very inexperienced Army CID lab man Craig Chamberlain about it at the trial asking him if he had ever made mistakes.
There used to be correspondence between the various CID lab forensic technicians about the footprints, on the internet, in which they were skeptical about the footprint conclusions, and about Turbyfill in particular which I now can't find. Helena Stoeckley never said Colette was moved from room to room. There is a bit about the matter at this website which makes sense to me: http://dingeengoete.blogspot.com/201...macdonald.html
Quote:
|
23rd September 2018, 08:39 AM | #390 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
23rd September 2018, 08:48 AM | #391 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald lawyer Eisman made the sensible remark to my mind at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 that the wooden club murder weapon would have been dripping with blood of the various victims and that could easily caused contamination on floors and ceilings of different rooms. That made the Army CID apt to jump to conclusions about moving bodies. Army CID agent Shaw had the ridiculous theory without facts that Colette murdered one of the little girls which so enraged MacDonald that he then killed Colette and the other little girl to prevent having a witness. The matter is discussed with MacDonald lawyers here:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...pa32-shaw.html
Quote:
|
23rd September 2018, 07:36 PM | #392 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Blah, Blah, Blah
I'm not a big fan of responding to rambling nonsense, but I repeat, the defense had their chance to provide proof of their claim that at least 4 hippie home invaders were inside 544 Castle Drive on 2/17/70. At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox provided the defense with the ability to throw the kitchen sink at the government, yet the only thing they produced were cricket noises.
They didn't call a single forensics expert to the stand. They didn't produce a single evidentiary item that was directly sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. They didn't come close to meeting their "daunting burden." Inmate's lawyers seemed bored and unprepared. They talked the talk, but couldn't walk the walk. Ballgame over. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
24th September 2018, 05:24 AM | #393 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
SOP henri means "standard operating procedure" and that is why the footprints were listed as "appeared to be" vice "are" but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM unsatisfactory evidence and certainly not "ludicrously" so....
you take the "appear to be" footprints, the ONLY BLOODY footprints AND the ONLY BARE FOOTPRINTS and present them along with the FACT that inmate said all of the "alleged intruders" were wearing boots or shoes and you have circumstantial evidence that inmate made the bloody footprints while carrying Colette's body back to the master bedroom. Circumstantial Evidence is perfectly acceptable evidence in a court of law. An example of circumstantial evidence: You have just finished baking and icing a chocolate cake. the doorbell rings, you leave the cake on the counter and your 3 year old in the same room and go answer the door. 2 minutes later you come back into the kitchen and a chunk of chocolate cake is missing and the 3 year old has chocolate smeared all over her hands and face. You DID NOT SEE the child eat any of the cake but you have very strong circumstantial evidence that she did. does not matter what Thorton "maintained" and what does CID blood typing have to do with the bloody bare footprints? Whether Chamberlain was inexperienced or not is of no importance. Actually whether he and Segal had a heated exchange is irrelevant. Oh, and what human being has ever lived their lives without making mistakes? NONE.....but Chamberlain was not in error on this case. oh yes, the mysterious disappearance of correspondence on the footprints.....my BS meter is going off |
24th September 2018, 05:39 AM | #394 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Guilty Beyond All Doubt
This is one of those rare high profile murders that contains so much inculpatory evidence, one could take a fraction of the data and still convict inmate on three counts of murder. IMO, the only viable case comparisons would be Lee Harvey Oswald, O.J. Simpson, and Steven Avery.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
24th September 2018, 09:00 AM | #395 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 298
|
An "interesting posting on the internet". Whoa. That's really great documentation there, Henri. Way to make easy for the reader to access the posting's credibility, neutrality, veracity....stop me when you understand.
And tell whoever posted it that MacDonald wouldn't make a good wart on Michael Morton's ass. |
24th September 2018, 09:30 AM | #396 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
24th September 2018, 09:40 AM | #397 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is a bit of waffle about footprints in the MacDonald case at this website:
https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ0...0MacDonald.pdf
Quote:
|
24th September 2018, 11:57 AM | #398 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Who??
Evan Hughes must be a CID/FBI agent or a forensics expert? Oh, he's not? For fecal matter and giggles.
CLAIM: This is a difficult case. RESPONSE: The trial jury convicted inmate in less than 7 hours. CLAIM: The crime scene was badly compromised. RESPONSE: Mr. Hughes' definition of "badly" is different than mine. None of the evidence that led to inmate's conviction was compromised in any way, shape, or form. CLAIM: More than 40 fingerprints were destroyed. RESPONSE: Ah, no. The actual count is more like 10-13. CLAIM: For Weingarten, it was a gotcha moment when a bloody hair found in MacDonald’s wife’s hand turned out to be Jeffrey MacDonald’s. RESPONSE: It was also a gotcha moment for the CID, FBI, and DOJ. CLAIM: Weingarten accuses Morris of slipping past this fact. RESPONSE: Morris does slip past this fact. On its back jacket, Morris provides an endorsement of the book Fatal Justice. The book calls this evidentiary item the "mystery hair," and surmises that the source of this bloody, broken limb hair is Greg Mitchell. In 1999, FJ co-author Fred Bost, told me that this hair was THE most important DNA exhibit in this case. When the hair matched inmate's DNA profile, the MacDonald Camp went in full spin mode and Bost never again spoke (e.g., publicly at least) of this inculpatory hair exhibit. CLAIM: The hair is not revealing. RESPONSE: Sorry to break it to you, Evan, but it is. The hair revealed that inmate wielded the club used to viciously beat his wife. CLAIM: Morris is not a devious conspiracy theorist. RESPONSE: No, he is a devious opportunist with no interest in the truth. CLAIM: Janet Malcolm feels that inmate could very well be innocent. RESPONSE: Malcolm is entitled to her opinion, but her opinion is not based on the documented record. Malcolm admitted that in the 80's, she couldn't bring herself to look at the case with a critical eye, so she focused on the unusual journalistic relationship between inmate and Joe McGinniss. Her 1997 claim that she "read" about the facts of this case is classic journalistic spin. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
24th September 2018, 12:36 PM | #399 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
From Henri's reference:
Quote:
|
24th September 2018, 02:59 PM | #400 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald never carried Colette anywhere, and Colette never hit MacDonald with a hairbrush, as Stombaugh insisted at the trial, and Colette never murdered one of the little girls as CID agent Shaw testified at the Article 32. You people are making it up. It's false evidence and obviously unfair.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|