|
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. |
1st August 2018, 02:12 AM | #121 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There isn't a shred of evidence that those blond synthetic hair like fibers came from a doll. Stombaugh and Malone were total liars. They were making it up. Stombaugh and Glisson also never mentioned the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and biceps with no known source, which were discovered by the FBI expert examiner, Frier, but covered up and kept secret from the defense by the prosecution and Judge Fox and Dupree. Thornton was never allowed to test the hairs and fibers, and he was never told about them half the time until after the trial.
|
1st August 2018, 08:08 AM | #122 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes, there IS evidence that at least 2 of the saran fibers came from dolls. The FBI exemplar collection has thousands of doll wigs in it. Chemical composition, exact dye information, length, thickness etc. The 3rd saran fiber was matched to one of Colette's hair pieces.
HOWEVER, MORE IMPORTANTLY IS THAT THERE IS NO WAY THE SARAN FIBER CAME FROM A COSMETIC WIG. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE COSMETIC WIGS WERE NOT MADE WITH SARAN IN 1960s-1970s TIMEFRAME. TO MANUFACTURE A COSMETIC WIG, ONE NEEDED TO CREATE A TOW FIBER. SARAN COULD NOT BE MADE INTO A TOW FIBER AT THE TIME. PERIOD. No, Stombaugh and Malone were experts in their field. Just because you don't like what they concluded doesn't make them wrong. So? The prosecution only presented about 60% of the evidence available against inmate. IF the DEFENSE wanted to bring it up then they could have, but since the did not, it is a case of "oh, well, too bad, soooo sad". The government witnesses were not required to, nor would they "answer questions that were not asked....." UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. The existence of dark fibers were not kept secret from the defense. All the bench notes etc mentioning those fibers were given to Bernie Segal during discovery. That Segal didn't use any of that information is on him....BUT the most likely reasons he didn't are: 1. unsourced equals forensically useless 2. random household debris not sourced to an alleged intruder suspect is not only forensically useless, but just points out that inmate was a viable suspect. It is not the responsibility of the prosecutors to give hints or provide direct assistance to the defense in how to try the case. the information about the fibers was in the discovery material. Anyone with 2 functional brain cells should be able to see that since Bernie didn't mention those dark fibers he OBVIOUSLY realized they were useless to the defense. [quote=Henri McPhee;12380286] and Judge Fox and Dupree.[/QUOTE It is not up to the Presiding Jurist to provide the defense with ANYTHING other than his/her attention, his legal judgement and wisdom, and to ensure a fair trail. Judge Dupree did this, and Judge Fox since he took over the case has continued to be fair and impartial. Thorton had ample time to test ALL of the evidence if Bernie Segal had not wasted time attempting to get the evidence shipped across the country for testing. That is the DEFENSE' fault. The prosecution made arrangements for laboratory space to be used by the defense in the Raleigh Research Triangle area. IF Bernie Segal had not wasted all that time on an endeavor that was never going to fly (shipping the evidence) then Thorton would have had plenty of time. HOWEVER, THORTON DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO EXAMINE THE HAIRS AND FIBERS BECAUSE HE AGREED WITH THE FBI ANALYSIS. So what? He had no reason to be "told about" hairs and fibers if the DEFENSE (the people who hired him) didn't tell him about the hairs and fibers that is on them. Even the defense doesn't try to argue these lame positions because they know if is of no value to them, it wouldn't help inmate's case at all. |
1st August 2018, 08:45 AM | #123 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You are talking a load of empty waffle. Both Segal and Thornton wanted to test the hairs and fibers, and the blood evidence microscopically, and to be informed about those hairs and fibers, particularly the hairs and fibers which were exculpatory and with no known source. The disclosure of exculpatory evidence is enshrined in American law. Murtagh and Judge Dupree and Judge Fox have prevented the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, except by several Freedom of Information requests after the MacDonald trial over which they had no control.
The matter is explained at this website: https://everything2.com/title/Mispla...frey+MacDonald
Quote:
|
1st August 2018, 11:28 AM | #124 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 10
When backed into an evidentiary corner, Henriboy has always flailed about with erroneous claims, hyperbole, and conspiracy narratives. The legal system has provided Jeffrey MacDonald with more chances to prove his innocence than any convicted murderer in history. Despite these opportunities, inmate and his rotating band of lawyers haven't come close to proving that mythical hippie home invaders are responsible for the brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two daughters. Jeffrey MacDonald is not merely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilt beyond all doubt.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
1st August 2018, 12:10 PM | #125 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No, I am talking FACTS you are the one who has no evidence to back up your nonsense.
Thorton never made any such request henri and you have been told this numerous times. Bernie Segal didn't pay any attention to the evidence against inmate and spent precious time on an impossible quest to have the evidence shipped across country for testing. FACT henri not make believe. hairs and fibers with no known source are forensically useless. there was no additional blood testing because to test the remaining blood it would have been necessary to damage or destroy evidence. NOT ALLOWED! once again, it is not up to the prosecution (or Judges) to point out possible evidentiary items that may or may not help the defense. That Segal didn't bother to have much of the evidence tested is solely his fault. THAT IS FACT. Thorton has stated that he was in agreement with the FBI hair and fiber conclusions. FACT FACT FACT. The evidence was provided to the defense via the discovery process. What you seem to be having trouble processing is the FACT that the prosecution IS NOT REQUIRED TO TELL THE DEFENSE ANYTHING ABOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. The defense is responsible for setting up their own case. IF they wanted to use unsourced fibers as a possible "reasonable doubt" issue then they should have tried that route. The FACT that the defense didn't test the hairs is not the fault of the prosecution. Using Fatal Joke (a much better title than the one the authors gave it) as a source of valid information is RIDICULOUS. Over the last 10 years or more, we have spent plenty of time "FACT CHECKING FATAL JUSTICE". It has been shown to contain at least 1 error for every 5 pages of text. That piece of drek (most painful reading experience of my LIFE!) is replete with errors, cut and paste presentation, misrepresentation, outright lies, and revisionist history. It is a tragic comedy right from the B movie beginning in the fog shrouded alley with the dragon door Chinese restaurant down to its putting together 2 or 3 documents to attempt to make a counter argument for some damning evidence. Perfect example of a FJ mash-up was the document that said there was a palm print on the footboard in the MB and another document that said there was some blood splatter on the footboard in the MB. Put the 2 documents together (as Bost and Potter did) and you have a "latent" bloody palm print. Problem: 1. there was no bloody palm print 2. a print (palm, finger or foot) in blood or other substance would be a PATENT print not a latent print. 3. there was a partial palmprint (not bloody) 4. there was some blood (not a bloody print of any kind) THESE ARE FACTS henri. |
1st August 2018, 12:13 PM | #126 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
|
3rd August 2018, 07:02 AM | #127 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Polar Opposites
One of the main reasons why inmate has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison is that inmate has no salient explanation for the inculpatory nature of the physical evidence. This is in stark contrast to ALL of the evidentiary arguments put forth by the defense. The government has had no problem providing prosaic explanations for unsourced hairs and fibers found at the crime scene.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
4th August 2018, 03:07 AM | #128 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Murtagh said the explanation for the black wool fibers around the mouth and biceps, and on the murder weapon with no known source, and illegally never disclosed at the MacDonald trial, was that photos were found once of Colette wearing a black dress! It's similar to Malone's prosaic explanations for unsourced hairs and fibers when he had no real proof, or him doing a swap of hairs to be sent to the AFIP lab. He just thinks he will never be caught or punished. It's manufactured evidence. A good judge would have put his foot down about it, and a good President would have pardoned MacDonald.
|
4th August 2018, 07:09 AM | #129 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 11
HENRIBOY: Please educate yourself and discover the definition of the word "prosaic." The government has produced several prosaic explanations for the saran and dark woolen fibers.
- Dolls owned by the MacDonald children. Their combined collection was in excess of 20 dolls. - Dark wool caps and clothing owned by the MacDonald family. - Dark wool-lined sleeping bags owned by the MacDonald family. For the past 48 years, the defense has failed to provide a prosaic explanation for the presence of fibers sourced to inmate's pajama top under Colette's body, under Kristen's fingernail, under Kimmie's pillow/bed covers, and under Kristen's bed covers. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
5th August 2018, 03:06 AM | #130 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I have discussed this matter of so-called pajama fibers on this forum before. JTF always rejects and ignores my criticism. The fact is that MacDonald wore an old pair of pajamas which shed fibers easily, and that it was his apartment and his master bedroom. It's not conclusive proof of anything. The pajama bottoms were lost by incompetency at the hospital. As MacDonald has said himself the pajama bottoms could have been responsible for pajama fibers which were shed. Also any pajama fibers which were found under Kristen's fingernails, if they were which is doubtful, were caused by Kristen kicking and screaming as Macdonald carried her to her bedroom after she wet the bed in the master bedroom.
This is what I posted about the matter on this forum in 2013:
Quote:
|
5th August 2018, 07:01 AM | #131 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 12
HENRIBOY: Setting aside the odd notion that one could ignore AND reject a critique, you are in concert with the defense in regards to being unable to innocently explain how fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top found their way under bodies, bed covers, pillows, and fingernails. You conveniently forget that Bernie Segal did not challenge Paul Stombaugh's fiber comparisons nor did he argue that Stombaugh was not a qualified expert in hair and fiber analysis. In addition, Segal did not challenge Stombaugh's conclusion that a majority of those fibers were deposited from specific locations of inmate's torn pajama top. For example, all of the pajama fibers found under Colette's body were shed from the torn left front seam of the garment.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
5th August 2018, 07:55 AM | #132 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You are fabricating it out of whole cloth. The crime scene was hopelessly contaminated. The Army CID were incompetent. The matter is mentioned at this website, though it mentions hairs under Colette's body and not pajama fibers:
http://www.whatliesbeyond.boards.net...ds-last-chance
Quote:
|
5th August 2018, 09:21 AM | #133 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
You Can Run, But You Can't Hide Part 500
HENRIBOY: You have the right to avoid the question as has been the case in most of your posts in the past 15 years. You also have the right to refuse to answer the challenge put forth to you in regards to listing a single evidentiary item sourced to a known intruder suspect. I also have the right to call you out for your use of hyperbole, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Jeffrey MacDonald has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison due to the inculpatory nature of DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody/non-bloody fabric impression evidence. Nuff said.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
6th August 2018, 02:41 AM | #134 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
It's not Nuff said. It was false evidence and false testimony, and disregarding leads and suspects, and exculpatory forensic evidence.
There was more to the MacDonald case than so-called pajama fibers, or Jimmy Britt. Possible suspects were mentioned and they should be closely questioned if they are still alive: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...w/3fHDRoqVo_cJ
Quote:
|
6th August 2018, 07:32 AM | #135 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Shooting Fish In A Barrel
HENRIBOY: Despite your notorious history in these matters, I challenge you to list the evidentiary items that were definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. Knowing that you play dumb with terminology, "definitively sourced" equates to evidence (e.g., DNA, hairs, fibers, prints, bloody footprints, fabric impressions) that matches exemplars obtained from potential suspects.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
6th August 2018, 08:28 AM | #136 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I was watching an old Poirot TV show the other day and in it Poirot says that a good murder investigator should have a passion for the truth.
It's not logical to say that because there are no fingerprints that there were no intruders. A fingerprint expert hopes to find fingerprints but does not expect to find fingerprints. MacDonald never denied that footprints were caused by him. The CID lab technicians disagree about the matter themselves.. It proves nothing. Prints and fabric impressions are all hotly disputed by the MacDonald defense, and by Dr. Thornton. The MacDonald defense have never been allowed to test the DNA and hairs and fibers themselves to see if the Army CID lab and FBI lab were making it up. As far as I'm concerned the blond synthetic hair-like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig point directly at her, and the black wool fibers around Colette's mouth and on the murder weapon with no known source point directly at Mazerolle, who was wearing velveteen clothes during the MacDonald murders. That was withheld by Murtagh at the MacDonald trial. The matter of forensic investigation is discussed at this website, which might be too academic for this forum, but is interesting just the same: https://flylib.com/books/en/2.57.1.55/1/
Quote:
|
6th August 2018, 12:36 PM | #137 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Inmate stands convicted so obviously the evidence presented WAS INCULPATORY. JTF is not imagining or making up anything. FACTS are FACTS henri. not one singled evidentiary item has been matched or sourced to a viable intruder suspect. the dark woolen fibers were not unknown to the defense their existence was included in the discovery items. The prosecution is not responsible for telling the defense what evidence is in the notes or telling them what to use. The simple fact is that inmate is convicted and he is guilty.
|
6th August 2018, 03:05 PM | #138 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Coward
HENRIBOY: As expected, you were unable to answer the challenge and your inherent cowardice again rears its ugly head. For the past 15 years, you've chosen to run to the hills rather than to admit to your failures in coming up with the evidentiary goods. You're certainly not unique to this history of failure. You join a long list of advocates who have failed to produce evidentiary items in a Court of Law or in media circles that definitively links the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven to these horrific crimes.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
7th August 2018, 08:13 AM | #139 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That is patently false. Dr. Thornton had never heard of black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon with no known source until after the MacDonald trial in 1979, and also the blond synthetic hair like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig. It was deliberately withheld at the trial by Murtagh and Blackburn and it was crucial and vital evidence. The inability of the defense to obtain the lab notes thanks to the very bad judge, Judge Dupree and the FBI, meant that Dr. Thornton and Segal were ill-informed about the exculpatory evidence. The jury should have been informed. The matter was explained, and the background to it, by Segal in an affidavit:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...990-10-13.html
Quote:
|
7th August 2018, 08:45 AM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
7th August 2018, 12:06 PM | #141 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
So what? that doesn't make what I said untrue. It just further indicates that Bernie Segal didn't pay a bit of attention to the evidence.
IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION TO POINT OUT EVIDENCE OR EVEN POSSIBLE EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. The information was included in the discovery materials. when Dr. Thorton did or did not learn of the wool fibers is irrelevant. the government did not use the unsourced fibers against inmate. Neither Helena nor her wig were ever inside that apartment. The blonde synthetic fibers were from 3 different sources therefore eliminating Helena's wig. 2 of the fibers match doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection and the other matched one of Colette's hair pieces. You have been told time and time again that COSMETIC WIGS were not made with saran in 1960s-1970s. Therefore it is impossible for Helena's wig to have been the source of any of the saran fibers. PERIOD. your repeating this nonsense over and over is not going to make it any more accurate. The prosecution only used about 60% of the evidence available to them at trial and that was their prerogative. The information about the saran fibers was also included in the discovery material. Once again, it is NOT the responsibility of the prosecution, or the presiding jurist to point out any specific evidence to the defense. The defense chose to ignore it. the lab notes were included in the discovery material. even the defense does not argue this ridiculous stance. the FACT that the government did not use the saran fibers against inmate, nor did they use the dark wool fibers is not surprising since UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. Bernie Segal had the responsibility to prepare the defense case that he chose to ignore saran fibers and unsourced dark woolen fibers is on him and him alone. Judge Dupree, Blackburn, and Murtagh have absolutely no responsibility for even mentioning these items. Just because you keep repeating the same nonsense does NOT mean it will become any more accurate. inmate is convicted. over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert were presented at trial. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY |
7th August 2018, 01:13 PM | #142 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
"Henri",
I'm not focusing on the irrelevancies you want to throw in. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate some wool fibers and a few unidentified stray hairs. Those don't prove intruders, period. And they do absolutely nothing to change the absolutely overwhelming evidence of the pajama top. Even inmate himself admits there were no icepick holes in the pajama top prior to that night (after all, how could there be, since in his story [in every sense of the word] they didn't even have an icepick in the apartment [which is itself unbelievable: *everyone* had an icepick then]). So what's his story/theory for how the perfectly round holes got there? "It must have been" that he used it a shield from a vicious, violent attacker. But somehow the hole pattern effectively exactly corresponds to the pattern of wounds on Colette. That's just statistically not possible. Truly, truly not possible. You'd win the lottery 50 times in a row before that "coincidence" could ever occur. The only reasonable explanation for the hole pattern is that the pajama top was on Colette before she was stabbed with the icepick (it's so horrible, I literally tear up some just writing this). Remember, initially the prosecution must prove the case beyond (all) reasonable doubt, not beyond all crazy theories whatsoever. And now, after his conviction, inmate must prove his innocence to the same degree. As we all know, that's just not possible. There is no reasonable way to get those icepick holes on that pajama top that doesn't completely expose the lies in inmate's story. And, deep down, we all know that, even you. |
8th August 2018, 02:16 AM | #143 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The pajama top experiment was conceptually unsound and contrived and impossible by pseudo and purported experts from the FBI lab. It has been discussed endlessly in detail on this forum but still people, and very bad judges think two and two make five. The main fault of the police and FBI is perjury. They are apt to jump to conclusions. They decide who did it and then 'find' the evidence after. They are apt to disregard leads and suspects. There is more to the MacDonald case than pajama fibers. It was a gross miscarriage of justice.
|
8th August 2018, 03:14 AM | #144 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Under the Brady law in America there must be disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense. That never happened in the MacDonald case. Any exculpatory evidence had to be obtained after the trial by Freedom of Information requests by MacDonald lawyers. Judge Dupree said at a bench conference that he would order a reversal if the prosecution did not comply with the Brady law, which was a lie by Judge Dupree. Ignorance of the law is not good enough:
Quote:
|
8th August 2018, 05:56 AM | #145 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes, all the exculpatory and inculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE SPECIFIC ITEMS. The DEFENSE has to read and review the notes, lists of evidence, statements, affidavits, test results, etc. So, BERNIE SEGAL should have known about the various fibers found. ALL OF THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO HIM. That he was unaware is his fault. He did not do a complete and thorough review.
WRONG. All the material was provided to Bernie. PERHAPS, if he had not wasted all that time on an impossible quest to have the evidence moved to California for review he'd have had the time to sufficiently review all the evidence. Patently untrue. It was long ago PROVEN repeat PROVEN that the information on the dark wool fibers and the saran fibers were in the notes etc that was provided at discovery. Once again, Bernie Segal decided to waste time on tilting at windmills rather than do the work of reviewing evidence and deciding what to use and what not to use. HOWEVER, since the saran and the dark wool fibers are unsourced they are forensically useless and were not used by the government in the conviction. and the prosecution DID provide all the material required under Brady. There were no Brady violations in this case. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN repeat PROVEN. Even the defense does not argue these ridiculous positions. really, it is long past time that you stop bringing up nonsense. SPEAK TO THE PROVEN FACTS OR GO AWAY. |
8th August 2018, 08:34 AM | #146 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You need to back up your statements with references that Segal and Thornton were provided with the evidence as a whole with regard to the fibers before the trial. The matter was discussed between Segal and the bad judge Dupree before the 1979 trial:
http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html...ald_trial.html
Quote:
|
8th August 2018, 09:07 AM | #147 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I fully appreciate that Judge Dupree once described Segal as the only lawyer he knew that would take three days to litigate an uncontested divorce case, and that Segal's closing speech and argument in the MacDonald trial is one of the worst in legal history. That was not MacDonald's fault. There is more to it than that:
https://medium.com/@lajp/a-judges-se...r-733f61d6673a
Quote:
|
8th August 2018, 09:43 AM | #148 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
8th August 2018, 09:57 AM | #149 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
uh, henri, JUDGES (unless the defendant has asked that the judge alone makes the decision of guilty or not guilty) are not responsible for the jury's decision.
Federal inmate macdonald's biggest problem is that he did it. His main attorney at the 1979 trial was his second biggest problem. Had Segal saved that savaging of the army's investigation for a general court-martial instead of an Article 32 hearing, this would be a thread about how macdonald got away with murder. Irony: in 1970, in order for him to have gotten any sort of serious sentence for murdering Colette, she would have had to been a service member as well. Until the late 1980's/early 1990's - domestic violence did not get the consideration it deserved. (One guy got ten years for killing his wife and severely injuring his child and it was reduced to seven - 7 - years when the final affirmation order was issued. He served FOUR YEARS, not even half of the original sentence handed down.) Mac would have been better off (time-wise) to have been found guilty by court-martial. Fortunately, for justice, Bernard Segal, Esq. SUCKED when it came to military justice and used all his firepower at the A32 hearing. |
8th August 2018, 01:44 PM | #150 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
I'm not talking about how the top was folded. That's just icing on the cake -- again, more an inmate lawyer distraction than a really relevant point.
The pattern in the pajama top matches the pattern of wounds on Colette. Obvious, irrefutable and absolutely convincing evidence of guilt. It just can't be a coincidence, too remote to even be possible. |
9th August 2018, 03:21 AM | #151 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That was a con trick by the pseudo experts and purported experts at the FBI hair and fiber department. It was the only new so-called evidence after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 when MacDonald was cleared. Photographic fakery was used. Blackburn said to the simple-minded North Carolina jury in his closing speech that Dr. Thornton had questioned the entrance and exit holes, but he asked the jury to accept his version because the fabric was eighteen months old!
Professor Segal replied in his usual academic and rambling way, but which makes sense to me: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html
Quote:
|
9th August 2018, 04:39 AM | #152 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
If anyone in this trial was a pseudo expert it would have been Drs Morton and Thorton. The experts that presented evidence at trial were DEEMED EXPERT BY THE ONE AND ONLY PERSON WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION.
There was nothing "so-called" about the Article 32 Hearing. That is exactly what inmate received an Article 32 Hearing which is UCMJ version of a Grand Jury but without a Jurist. Inmate WAS NOT CLEARED the charges were DISMISSED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. That is NOT the same thing as being cleared. AND the FACT is that most of the evidence had not yet been analyzed or reviewed at the time of the hearing. PROOF? AND HOW EXACTLY? First, you need to watch yourself. There is no cause for you to insult people that you do not even know. The jury in Raleigh was not "simple-minded" they were intelligent people who listened to the evidence presented and deliberated a just conclusion. Second, no matter how many times you try to ignore the FACTS stomping your tiny feet and throwing a temper tantrum it will not CHANGE THOSE FACTS. The FACT is that you cannot FORCE A PATTERN TO EXIST. It either does exist or it does not. FACT the pattern of ice pick holes in the top match the pattern of ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. PERIOD. |
9th August 2018, 05:14 AM | #153 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
United States v. MacDonald, 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985)
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985) March 1, 1985 640 F. Supp. 286 (1985) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey R. MacDONALD, Defendant. No. 75-26-CR-3. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Fayetteville Division. March 1, 1985. ........Turning to the second motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, MacDonald claims that his conviction should be set aside because the government suppressed exculpatory evidence which, had it been introduced at trial, would have caused the jury to acquit him of the murders. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." From this brief passage, the court left no doubt that once a criminal defendant requests material, exculpatory evidence, the prosecution is under a duty to supply the evidence. .......After reviewing the evidence and arguments on both sides, the court concludes that the government did not suppress evidence and, in any event, there has been an insufficient showing that the four items would have been favorable to the defense if introduced at trial. LOL, I find it incredibly funny that you demand ANYONE back up their comments with documentation. But because I am being nice, I have provided the above snippets of the Court Decision that states there was no Brady Violation. |
9th August 2018, 09:32 AM | #154 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
9th August 2018, 10:04 AM | #155 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Still Waiting
HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item(s) that matches an exemplar from a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven. Got news for ya...
1) The AFIP DNA tested 29 evidentiary items collected at the crime scene and not one of those items matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect. 2) Not one fingerprint, palmprint or footprint collected at the crime scene matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect. 3) Not one hair collected at the crime scene microscopically matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect. 4) Not one fiber collected at the crime scene microscopically matched a clothing exemplar from a known intruder suspect. This list demonstrates why the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
9th August 2018, 10:35 AM | #156 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Murtagh and Judge Dupree theoretically allowed the MacDonald defense 'discovery' as Byn says, but the defense and their forensic experts were never allowed to discover anything. The exculpatory evidence was covered up by dishonest prosecutors, and corrupt hair and fiber purported experts from the FBI and CID lab, and by very bad judges like Judges Dupree and Fox, supported by a majority in the Supreme Court, and the 4th Circuit judges. It was not fair and just and it has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. It was manufactured evidence.
|
9th August 2018, 03:13 PM | #157 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 13
HENRIBOY: I repeat, still waiting on that evidentiary item(s) that matches an exemplar from a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven. Got news for ya...
1) The AFIP DNA tested 29 evidentiary items collected at the crime scene and not one of those items matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect. 2) Not one fingerprint, palmprint or footprint collected at the crime scene matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect. 3) Not one hair collected at the crime scene microscopically matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect. 4) Not one fiber collected at the crime scene microscopically matched a clothing exemplar from a known intruder suspect. This list demonstrates why the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
10th August 2018, 02:12 AM | #158 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
You follow the evidence, not opinions. Information is the lifeblood of any police investigation. The pajama folding experiment was arithmetically lunatic. The surgical glove fragment found at the crime scene was proved to not be a MacDonald glove fragment, without mentioning the candle wax and the fibers with no known source, and all the rest of it, which points to intruders if not the name of an intruder, which so bewilders JTF. The suspects and real culprits should have been relentlessly pursued. Murtagh and Blackburn swayed the simple North Carolina jury, and simple Supreme Court, and American corporate media by forensic fraud, and cover-ups of the exculpatory evidence. It was an unsafe verdict.
|
10th August 2018, 03:39 AM | #159 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
|
10th August 2018, 04:27 AM | #160 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|