|
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. |
5th September 2018, 09:00 AM | #281 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
5th September 2018, 10:18 AM | #282 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
|
5th September 2018, 11:00 AM | #283 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Sure you could IF said fibers were first removed from a murder weapon and placed in a pillbox or other container AND fully annotated in the bench notes. The pillboxes, vials, and slides created were also give evidence numbers like Q89. All items were examined, reviewed, and where possible sourced and all that information was in the bench notes. These are among the reasons that they could be used as evidence. (it also helps that the threads in the pillbox were matched (aka sourced) to inmate's pjs.
the jurors and those of us who deal in FACTS accept that the threads in the pillbox were removed (per the bench notes) from the murder club and placed in the pillbox. AND the FACT that they were examined and SOURCED to inmate's pjs. fools and conspiracy theorists who get upset by the FACT that we INSIST on clouding out their ridiculous prejudices with FACT don't have a clue how the real world works. inmate viciously brutally slaughtered his pregnant wife and 2 precious daughters. he is where he belongs and the EVIDENCE proves it. |
5th September 2018, 01:57 PM | #284 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Bost And Potter Wasted 10 Years Part III
"Consider Ivory," McCoy continued, "a guy of his low rank and meager experience, 26 years old, with absolutely no command authority, heading up his very first murder case, this green investigator should not go into the Fort Gordon lab and pick out evidence and mess with it. I'm talking about the piece of skin now. Then it vanished! Who let him have the run of the lab like that?"
COMMENT: At one point, the book intimates that McCoy's knowledge of this case was limited which indicates that all of the information contained in this excerpt was provided to McCoy by Bost and Potter. The first clue is McCoy's reference to Ivory being 26 years old at the time of the murders. In the original hardback version of Fatal Justice, the authors state that Ivory was only 26 years old when he entered the crime scene. That is false. William Ivory was 30 years old when he investigated this murder case and he had enough command authority to oversee the crime scene prior to Franz Grebner's arrival. Robert Shaw had 7 years of experience as a CID investigator, yet he had to follow Ivory's instructions during the initial stages of the investigation. Ivory may have been green in terms of murder investigations, but he was involved in narcotics cases for almost a decade. In a few of those cases, people were murdered in drug deals, so Ivory was hardly intimidated by the MacDonald crime scene. While still in its container, Ivory asked to look at the piece of skin or surgeon's glove under a microscope and Ivory stated he never removed the item from its container. McCoy intimates that Ivory lost the piece of skin or surgeon's glove, but it's clear that this evidentiary item was lost by a Fort Gordon lab technician. "Where'd Ivory get the balls to cover up his knowledge of Stoeckley's wig, her boots, the lack of alibi, yes, and Ivory's own avowed knowledge that her friends were dangerous little *****? Who let him get by so long with that cockamamie theory that MacDonald staged the scene?" COMMENT: Again, most of the information in this rant was supplied to McCoy by Bost and Potter. There is no way of knowing how the authors couched the data presented in the "heart" of their files, but I would hazard to guess that it was presented in a one-sided fashion. Stoeckley's possession of a wig wasn't exactly a secret and roommate Kathy Smith claimed that the wig in question was actually her own. Similar to the wig issue, Ivory didn't cover up the existence of boots that were found at the residence of Cathy Perry. There is documentation of the CID obtaining the boots from Perry's landlord and a macroscopic examination determined that no blood was on the boots. Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told Fayetteville Observer Reporter Pat Reese that she had no memory of her whereabouts due to excessive drug use. Ivory was simply one of several individuals who was given this same explanation by Stoeckley. Ivory's avowed knowledge came from his personal experiences with drug addicts and dealers. The FACT that the drug world is a dangerous place is hardly eye-opening information. Lastly, the origin of the staged scene theory was a group effort which included Ivory, Robert Shaw, and Franz Grebner. The rest of the CID endorsed the theory and for several years, the FBI used the living room at 544 Castle Drive in their literature as a prime example of a staged crime scene. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
6th September 2018, 01:57 AM | #285 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Stoeckley always maintained that CID agent Ivory was corrupt and that he was personally involved in the Fort Bragg drugs scene. He did attend the 2012 evidentiary hearing, but I have never seen a transcript of what he said. There was some brief report that he is now going deaf. It's true that he was very inexperienced to be the senior officer in charge of the MacDonald case investigation. There is a bit of background to all this at this website:
https://medium.com/@lajp/the-botched...e-8e9cd3463736
Quote:
|
6th September 2018, 03:34 AM | #286 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
The "Me No Nothing" Ploy
HENRIBOY: Despite the fact that you're lying about never having read the transcript of Ivory's testimony...
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._corrected.pdf Hail to the competence and diligence of CID Hall of Famer William Ivory. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
6th September 2018, 07:46 AM | #287 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Helena Stoeckley NEVER, I repeated NEVER "always maintained" anything but her drug and alcohol habits. Depending upon what combination she was doing, her story changed. Depending upon with whom she was talking, her story changed. She probably changed her story about the Macdonald case more often than she changed her underwear. She was a drug addict and probably an alcoholic who, for the price of a fix or a drink, would tell you whatever you wanted to hear. But her first statement was probably the closest the truth and went roughly along the lines of: I was too stoned to know where I was and don't remember anything of that night.
|
6th September 2018, 08:42 AM | #288 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Stoeckley also had a penchant for telling tall tales (much more polite then saying she lied, which she did frequently) including but not limited to stories of her "standing watch" in the guard booth with MPs. In fact, IF (and it is a very big if) she was ever actually IN a guard booth on base then she was not likely to be "standing" anything.....
the only consistent story she told was that she was too stoned to have any memory of that night.... |
6th September 2018, 09:34 AM | #289 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
This is an example of CID agent Ivory's pathetic questioning of Stoeckley from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. It's nearly as ridiculous as his interview with Mitchell during the re-investigation in 1972:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html
Quote:
|
6th September 2018, 10:05 AM | #290 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
6th September 2018, 01:49 PM | #291 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Your Point Being?
HENRIBOY: Despite your "Me Know Nothing" ploy, you are fully aware of the fact that the excerpt from Ivory's 2012 testimony mirrors his testimony from the 1970 Article 32 Hearings and the 1979 trial. Ivory had no control over the timeline of his arrival at the crime scene, but once he did arrive at the crime scene, he performed his duties in a professional manner. It's important to remember that even Bost and Potter admitted that Ivory's work on the MacDonald Case would earn him "a reputation for brilliance." Of course, they had to purge themselves of their sour grapes by adding, "whether or not it was deserved." The totality of Ivory's work for the CID earned him a spot in CID Hall of Fame in 2007.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
6th September 2018, 03:58 PM | #292 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Exactly. This is more of the minutiae that Mac-olites like to cling to, as useless as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
The pajama top could have been on her and one breast still be exposed. The top was folder over, after all, and not necessarily spread out over her entire chest. Does Henri really think this could serve as some type of "proof" of "innocence"? Or even "proof" that others were there? |
6th September 2018, 07:41 PM | #293 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
The End Is Near
The excellent literary essays constructed by Joe McGinniss, Gene Weingarten, Robert Sam Anson, and a slew of dedicated case researchers explains why the approach by Bost/Potter/Morris and other MacDonald advocates lacks critical thought. I understand why MacDonald advocates have a fervent desire to ignore logic and plunge headlong into the largely irrelevant and irresolvable minutiae that is the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case.
It is far easier to focus on the fact that Stoeckley confessed on multiple occasions or that the CID's original investigation was not a model of its kind, but as McGinniss pointed out, "Facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they can't be overcome by hype." MacDonald advocates have no salient retort to most of the government's massive forensic case against inmate, so they rely on an artificially-created dichotomy between "MacDonald is the lone perp" and everything else, where everything else is most commonly (and pseudo-categorically) written as "Some of kind of conspiracy." No amount of failure to prove a conspiracy of any kind (e.g., CID, FBI, DOJ, or all three) confirms the categorical-only inference of a conspiracy in this case. Illogical as it is, this conspiracy theory stands on two legs. Kick either one out from under you and you fall flat. The problem in debating this theory is how easy it is for conspiracists to bait their critics into having to defend the CID/FBI investigations while they themselves lay out a purely passive, presumptive case. Fortunately, the case records became part of the public domain and researchers were able to fact check the work produced on both sides of the fence. Much to the chagrin of Bost/Potter/Morris, FJ and WOE were exposed as literary propaganda and the only readers who took their "work" seriously were those who embraced woo. In essence, FJ/WOE joined a journalistic brotherhood that specialized in advocating for cold-blooded killers and having the ability to spot a conspiracy around every corner. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
7th September 2018, 02:30 AM | #294 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Bost and Potter and Morris in the Wilderness of Errors book wrote sense about the MacDonald case. Fatal Vision was only written for the McGinniss bank account at the Bank of New England. As I have said many times in the past on the MacDonald forums, Ivory should have been in the Hall of Infamy not the Hall of Fame.
Ivory never really explained the candle wax at the crime scene at the 2012 evidentiary hearing which never came from MacDonald candles, or the fingerprints which a fingerprint expert testified at the trial that he was "totally mystified" about. From that evidentiary hearing in 2012:
Quote:
|
7th September 2018, 05:29 AM | #295 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
henri - I always knew you were capable of putting your foot into your mouth. what astonishes me is that you are then capable of opening your mouth even wider and sticking the other foot in there as well. Fatal Joke is replete with errors, misrepresentation, cut and paste presentation, and out right lies. At least 1 error for every 5 pages of prose. FACT henri. I have not bothered with WOE because people that KNOW this case inside and out have said it is a piece of crap and since reading FJ was such a painful experience I do not desire to repeat the pain with an equally crappy book. NONE of the authors mentioned above spoke sense. In all the years since Fatal Vision (and Final Vision) were published not one single substantive error has been found. The same cannot be said of FJ or WOE. Bill Ivory EARNED his place in the HOF. I know what your problem is with Ivory....sour grapes because he was a big part of getting your man crush convicted. Too bad for you! If inmate had not brutally slaughtered his family he would not be where he is today. What is there to explain about the wax? Did the defense bring up the wax? The wax found on the coffee table was old and filled with household debris so we KNOW that the wax was not from any candles held by any alleged hippy home invaders. The wax found in Kimmie's room was the wax from birthday cake candles so we KNOW that was not from any candles any alleged hippy home invaders might have carried. The fact that the investigators didn't find any candles in the home that matched wax deposits IS NOT SOME SINISTER SITUATION. You see henri, MOST PEOPLE throw the stubs of candles away when they can no longer be lit. One does not move stubs from home to home once the candles cannot be used they become TRASH and get tossed. Presence of wax of unexplained origin is not proof of hippy home invaders. Besides Helena said her candle dripped blood not wax roflmao even though sentient beings know Helena was not there so the whole point is that inmate was not convicted over wax deposits. Not all the fingerprints were identified so? that does not put intruders into the house. You know what else henri? It also eliminates all of the known or suspected intruder suspects because the unidentified prints were compared with their print cards and no matches found. Thus Helena, Greg M, and all the rest were eliminated as suspects. They could not have been there and not left evidence of their presence. |
7th September 2018, 06:20 AM | #296 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
|
7th September 2018, 06:24 AM | #297 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,474
|
|
7th September 2018, 08:13 AM | #298 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
7th September 2018, 08:54 AM | #299 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
|
7th September 2018, 08:58 AM | #300 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Not everybody agrees with you about that. In the McGinniss court case in 1987 McGinniss confessed to a MacDonald defense lawyer that he did not even believe the amphetamine psychosis theory himself, yet he still kept it in his book. The matter is discussed at this website:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J...nald/Archive_1
Quote:
|
7th September 2018, 01:08 PM | #301 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Uh, Henri, Joe only THEORIZED (trying to explain the unexplainable) that your man crush had taken too much amphetamines. In "Fatal Vision" he clearly (well, maybe not to you) writes that this is a theory, an idea, a possibility for why Jeffrey Macdonald went ballistic and slaughtered his pregnant wife and two daughters. It's a better idea than the probable truth: your man crush (who admitted he walked into a bar and punched someone because he THOUGHT the man was a drug dealer) lost his temper and murdered the people he was supposed to love and protect.
|
7th September 2018, 01:47 PM | #302 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I have always thought the confessions of Mitchell were disregarded as well as the confessions of Helena Stoeckley. That was clearly erroneous by the very bad judges in the MacDonald case and the CID and FBI. An example of this comes from that evidentiary hearing transcript in 2012 which JTF found with former CID agent Ivory being cross-examined by a MacDonald defense lawyer:
Quote:
|
7th September 2018, 03:28 PM | #303 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
The Regurgitation King
HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. You're fully aware of the fact that there is no tangible evidence of Greg Mitchell confessing to this crime, and even if he did confess, there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime scene. No DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no prints, nothing, nada, zip. Mitchell also signed statements for the CID and FBI denying any involvement in the murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
8th September 2018, 03:09 AM | #304 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Polygraphs are not used as evidence in the UK because they are not considered reliable, I believe there are some states in America where polygraph evidence can be presented to a court, and it is not inadmissible, like perhaps Arizona. As far as I can remember, Brisentine was suspicious about the polygraph of Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry, but for some reason he gave Mitchell a pass. To my mind, if I was in Brisentine's shoes I would consider Mitchell's answers to be a load of bollocks. How many people in their twenties go to bed at 9p.m. without some very good reason? From that 2012 evidentiary hearing:
Quote:
|
8th September 2018, 05:24 AM | #305 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
All Over The Map
HENRIBOY: Mitchell was given a pass, eh? Why would Brisentine only give Mitchell... Oh, wait a minute, he also gave Bruce Fowler a pass. You already knew that, but that has never stopped you from jumping from topic to topic without any rhyme or reason. This is the same Bruce Fowler that your favorite serial confessor accused of driving her to the crime scene. Sorry about interrupting your rambling narratives with facts. You can now travel back to Crazy Town.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
8th September 2018, 09:32 AM | #306 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Brisentine testified at the MacDonald trial in 1979. He made some statement once, which is probably still in the depths of the CID evidence somewhere, that the chances of both Stoeckley and Cathy Perry both saying they were there at the MacDonald murders and it not being true was very small. Cathy Perry, who is now deceased, went off her head and her parents then insisted that she categorically denied it all when she was interviewed by CID agents. I still think it was a mistake for Brisentine to give Mitchell or Fowler a pass after being polygraphed:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...risentine.html
Quote:
|
8th September 2018, 01:21 PM | #307 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Coward
Not only did CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine determine that Fowler and Mitchell passed their polygraphs, inmate backed out of a proposed Brisentine administered polygraph exam 10 minutes after telling Franz Grebner that he would take the exam. Just another example of inmate's cowardice.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
9th September 2018, 02:51 AM | #308 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The matter of polygraphs in the MacDonald case was discussed during the McGinniss trial in 1987 with MacDonald defense lawyer Gary Bostwick. MacDonald was naturally reluctant to take a polygraph while he was still recovering from his collapsed lung. Some guilty people, like Mitchell and Fowler pass polygraphs while innocent people may fail them:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ster_1987.html
Quote:
|
9th September 2018, 12:01 PM | #309 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Your Boy Failed
Not only did Mitchell and Fowler pass polygraph exams administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine, none of their head hair or print exemplars matched exemplars found at the crime scene. Unlike Mitchell and Fowler, inmate refused to take a CID administered polygraph exam and he gave no salient reason as why he wouldn't take it. The CID interview was 6 weeks after he suffered a collapsed lung from a self-inflicted stab wound, so this latter excuse for not taking the exam is bogus. Heck, there are photographs of inmate assisting with the carrying of the caskets of Kimmie and Kristen.
Inmate then took a defense funded polygraph exam from John Reid and the results were inconclusive due to inmate's claim that he was "frantic with worry." Jeez, this Green Beret tough guy was/is the biggest wimp in the world. Inmate then took a defense funded polygraph exam from Cleve Backster and he flunked the exam with flying colors. As he is prone to do, he concocted an excuse for this result which has no link to reality. Inmate's excuse was that Backster didn't complete the exam. If inmate's excuse was legitimate, why refuse to give Joe McGinniss permission to speak with Backster? http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
9th September 2018, 10:19 PM | #310 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Bellwether Fallacy
Fred Bost, Jerry Allen Potter, Ted Gunderson, Jeffrey Elliott, and Errol Morris have all put forth a conspiracy narrative involving the CID, FBI, and DOJ. This cognitive process is known as the Bellwether Fallacy, a common pattern of argumentation in conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories are, to a large extent, theories of history. That is, history tells us that something happened, but a conspiracy theory says that some other (typically poorly defined) events unfolded instead to give us that evidence.
Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives. Hence historical lines of reasoning talk about preponderances of evidence. And so when we dispute a conspiracy theory, we point back to the preponderance -- the totality of available evidence that en masse suggests a particular cause. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
9th September 2018, 10:32 PM | #311 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Partners In This Fallacy
Here is a prime example of how MacDonald advocates become partners in this fallacy with Helena Stoeckley being the main ingredient in this cognitive stew. MacDonald advocates have relied on the statements made by Helena Stoeckley in order to justify the position that unsourced trace evidence equals hippie home invaders. To MacDonald advocates, it doesn't really matter that unsourced synthetic fibers, hairs, dark woolen fibers, and candle wax were never linked to Stoeckley in any tangible sense.
It matters not to these same advocates that Stoeckley recanted about 50 percent of her confessions and that she testified under oath that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. It carries no weight with MacDonald advocates that none of her confessions match-up with one another and there seems to be a collective shrug when it is pointed out that there isn't any evidence of her presence at the crime scene. The only thing that matters to MacDonald advocates is that Stoeckley's CLAIMS make her involvement and the involvement of others in these horrific crimes a foregone conclusion. Stoeckley and her acquaintances have to be the perps because Stoeckley said so. They add that there is evidence of her presence at the crime scene, but the CID/FBI/DOJ have conspired to manipulate, distort, and supress that evidence. All of the other more logical explanations for the household debris found at 544 Castle Drive are dismissed. Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation. Errol Morris ignored most of the physical evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction, so his bellwether was a two-fold process. In essence, Morris created twin straw men. One is the credibility of Stoeckley's confessions and the other is the Pajama Top Theory. Morris believed that he had to cut down the "single most convincing" bit of proof on the other side of the case, in order to propose that the other points would fall similarly or easier. He was wrong. The 2012 evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the government's case remains rock solid and that regurgitating previously debunked claims does not provide the defense with the tools to meet their client's "daunting burden." http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
10th September 2018, 02:36 AM | #312 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I don't know why I am the only person on this forum who has to have an unseemly wrangle with a bunch of hysterical and biased women, and others with no sense of abstract justice about the MacDonald case. Mitchell confessed several times, but he was disregarded, and he passed a mumbo-jumbo polygraph. It was not only Stoeckley who confessed as JTF suggests. There was exculpatory evidence, but it was withheld from the jury and the MacDonald defense team, and there was also manufactured evidence by the FBI. I suppose the forensic evidence does not point directly at any names, as JTF says, but that is not unusual in difficult murders.
There have been murder cases in the past where fingerprints were found which pointed directly at the real culprit. There is some background to all this at this website: http://www.smithforensic.blogspot.co...na-people.html
Quote:
|
10th September 2018, 05:07 AM | #313 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Anyone who has READ Fatal Vision is fully aware of the FACT that no substantive errors have been found within its pages. The same cannot be said of Fatal Joke or WOE.
IF you say so....HOWEVER, the issue at hand is SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS. Theories, whether the author believes those theories or does not believe those theories are just that THEORIES. SUBSTANTIVE: (adj) 1. Substantial 2. Independent in function or exestence; not subordinate 3. Not imaginary: actual 4. of or relating to the essence or substance 5. having a solid basis: firm 6. expressing or denoting existence. THEORY: (n) 1. systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances 2. Abstract reasoning 3. an assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis It is perfectly reasonable for this theory to have been kept in the book. Still, since the book was not published until AFTER inmate was tried and convicted what difference does a theory make? None. The FACT is that inmate himself admitted to taking Eskatrol (amphetamines) AND the FACT is that people might have been able to understand (to a VERY LIMITED degree) how inmate got enraged enough to so brutally butcher his wife, his unborn son, and his 2 daughters if they believed in that theory. Personally, I know that he is a sociopathic narcissistic familial slaughterer. The reality is and will always be that he has a temper, he has gotten into trouble due to his inability to control that temper in his past, and he continues to have issues due to his temper tantrums. FACT henri. Point out a SUBSTANTIVE ERROR in Fatal Vision.....you know you cannot any more than you can answer any of the challenges we've directed your way.... .....single item of evidence sourced to known intruder suspect? nope .....salient time line that exonerates inmate? nope .....substantive error in Fatal Vision? nope .....explanation of how someone could have "swapped" E-5 hair? nope |
10th September 2018, 08:21 AM | #314 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Not everybody agrees with you about the accuracy of that Fatal Vision moneymaking book, and that's why MacDonald sued McGinniss:
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/Ed...al-Vision.html
Quote:
|
10th September 2018, 08:36 AM | #315 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The FBI made it up. There is a similar sort of controversy about these silly polygraphs in the JonBenet Ramsey case when the lousy detectives and the FBI falsely tried to imply that the Ramseys were reluctant to take a polygraph. This is from the deposition of the bad cop Steve Thomas about the matter with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001
Quote:
|
10th September 2018, 10:36 AM | #316 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Again, POINT OUT A SUBSTANTIVE ERROR IN FATAL VISION. Just as I said, you cannot....
It is not about you agreeing with my statement it is ABOUT FACTS. IF you believe there are SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS in Fatal Vision then point them out. And, as I have already explained to you SUBSTANTIVE means "real" or "actual" it does not include whether you or anyone else believes the amphetamine psychosis theory. FACTS henri. point out one ERROR OF FACT. you can't because there are not any....but go ahead and prove your claim or shut up about it. |
10th September 2018, 10:40 AM | #317 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
The FBI made up what, exactly?
first this IS NOT the Jon Benet' Ramsey case second you cannot have it both ways henri. first you want to proclaim inmate's innocence because he passed "A polygraph" singular and then you get mad when we point out that he FAILED "two polygraph's" and that he chickened out and cancelled the first one offered. |
10th September 2018, 11:42 AM | #318 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Thank You
I want to thank our favorite conspiracy theorist (e.g., Henriboy) for providing this forum with a prime example of the Bellwether Fallacy. The Bellwether Fallacy is a common pattern of argumentation in conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories are, to a large extent, theories of history. That is, history tells us that something happened, but a conspiracy theory says that some other (typically poorly defined) events unfolded instead to give us that evidence.
Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives. Hence historical lines of reasoning talk about preponderances of evidence. And so when we dispute a conspiracy theory, we point back to the preponderance -- the totality of available evidence that en masse suggests a particular cause. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction. MacDonald advocates have become partners in this fallacy with Helena Stoeckley being the main ingredient in this cognitive stew. MacDonald advocates have relied on the statements made by Helena Stoeckley in order to justify the position that unsourced trace evidence equals hippie home invaders. To MacDonald advocates, it doesn't really matter that unsourced synthetic fibers, hairs, dark woolen fibers, and candle wax were never linked to Stoeckley in any tangible sense. It matters not to these same advocates that Stoeckley recanted about 50 percent of her confessions and that she testified under oath that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. It carries no weight with MacDonald advocates that none of her confessions match-up with one another and there seems to be a collective shrug when it is pointed out that there isn't any evidence of her presence at the crime scene. The only thing that matters to MacDonald advocates is that Stoeckley's CLAIMS make her involvement and the involvement of others in these horrific crimes a foregone conclusion. Stoeckley and her acquaintances have to be the perps because Stoeckley said so. They add that there is evidence of her presence at the crime scene, but the CID/FBI/DOJ have conspired to manipulate, distort, and supress that evidence. All of the other more logical explanations for the household debris found at 544 Castle Drive are dismissed. Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
11th September 2018, 08:36 AM | #319 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
What happened was that MacDonald gave a general description of his assailants at the time of the MacDonald murders and this was relayed to Detective Beasley, who was a front line local police officer. It fitted the Stoeckley gang who were known to the local police.
For some unknown reason best known to the genius detectives of the Army CID, with their brilliant detection, the suspects were disregarded by the Army CID. They were being held by Detective Beasley at the local police station. Beasley had to let the suspects go because of the CID lack of interest and the police records of their names were later mysteriously 'lost' probably by Murtagh and Blackburn. The Army CID had wrongly decided MacDonald did it right from the start. It was just the same in the JonBenet Ramsey case with the same sort of lousy detectives. There is background information to all this in the cross-examination of Detective Beasley during the 1979 MacDonald trial: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...7-beasley.html |
11th September 2018, 11:38 AM | #320 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No, inmate gave a DETAILED descriptions of his alleged intruders.
Actually, there was no "Stoeckley Gang" and the description didn't ACTUALLY fit Helena nor her associates, unless you lessened the details in the descriptions. For example, Helena was a brunette not a blonde and lots and lots of men walked around in fatigue jackets.... They local hippies were checked out by CID. They didn't match the description. They had iron clad alibis. There was absolutely zero evidence of their existence at the crime scene. AND, none of the local hippies were involved in the murders and EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS TO INMATE AND ONLY INMATE AS THE MURDERER. FACTS! No they were not. In FACT there is not even any proof that PEB stopped, questioned, and/or held anyone (including Stoeckley). no evidence that he ever contacted the CID saying he had some persons of interest for them to come pick-up. PEB never had any suspects, he never stopped them, he never contacted the CID to say he had any, and at that point IF HE HAD they would have been persons of interest not suspects. CID could not take an interest in something they knew nothing about. PEB never stopped and held anyone, he never contact the CID about having anyone for them to come talk to, and PEB would have been the one to have any notes related to such an event as stopping a car full of persons of interest. Murtagh and Blackburn would not have EVER been in a position to "lose" mysteriously or otherwise a police detectives personal notebook. Once again we get to remind henri that PEB was already showing signs of his illness by this point. he confabulated the entire story about having stopped anyone and calling the CID. WE won't call it lying (although it is in fact lies) because he couldn't help it. The inorganic brain disorder caused gaps in his memory and he would "fill those gaps" with things that seemed logical to him. They didn't happen but you can understand why he would have claimed to have done certain things. Poor inmate, if he hadn't slaughtered his family he wouldn't have had to have crazy people and conspiracy nuts on his team. Actually, the Army CID started the investigation believing inmate's story. Although it did start to fall apart very quickly. They rushed someone to the hospital to get his story assuming that he'd be on death's doorstep after seeing what happened to a pregnant woman and 2 little girls. What they found was a man who was barely scratched. This same person admitted that ALL THEY ALLEGED INTRUDERS wore either shoes or boots (thus cementing that the bloody foot print was his) and the biggest gaff of all was for him to be sitting up in the hospital bed eating a steak dinner and drinking Cold Duck that he had a friend bring. he did not behave like an innocent victim - he behaved like someone who knew his family was dead by his hand and was celebrating that FACT. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|