|
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. |
11th September 2018, 02:12 PM | #321 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Gee, a Green Beret trained doctor has some scratches, a small bump on his head, and a perfectly clean incision between his ribs.....his pregnant wife has both arms broken along with her face and over 40 stab wounds; his eldest daughter's face has literally been dislocated and her brain serum is in the room with her mother but the girl is tucked into her own bed; the younger girl has been stabbed and placed back into bed with a bottle - who do we suspect? Uh, the guy who should at least have more injuries than you get wrestling with your kid brother. Logic, it's a bitch.
Add to that there is no evidence of the highly suspicious story the survivor tells (that curiously matches up with a story in a magazine in the house) and he's well enough to be entertaining friends within a day. That story would make Deputy Barney Fife suspicious of the sole survivor. Of course he's the first suspect. What Henri and the rest of the fan club fail to note is that others were investigated and cleared and there was no evidence that anyone other than the Macdonalds were in the quarters that night. Has anyone else lived in army quarters of that era? I have (on more than one army post). Your neighbor sneezes, you say "God bless you" and nobody has used any tone other than everyday conversational tones - no raising of the voice, no shouting. Had there been strangers in the Macdonald quarters that evening, the neighbors would have known. Especially at 0200 hours. |
11th September 2018, 03:11 PM | #322 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Henri,
It's no mystery why the CID didn't "fully investigate" Stoeckley and some of the people she knew. She was not in the Army, and those people were not in the Army. The CID is an Army investigating unit. That's why Rock in his report asked other agencies to investigate. MacDonald was in his purview, Stoeckley was not directly. |
11th September 2018, 07:32 PM | #323 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
CID Reinvestigation
The CID may not have "fully investigated" Stoeckley in their original investigation, but they sure made up for it in their reinvestigation of this case.
1) Detective Jim Gaddis obtained head hair exemplars from Stoeckley and he provided the CID with those exemplars. None of those exemplars were microscopically similar to the head hair exhibits collected at the crime scene. 2) Gaddis also obtained fingerprint exemplars from Stoeckley and none of those exemplars matched print exhibits collected at the crime scene. 3) CID agents interviewed a number of individuals who were acquainted with the Queen of Serial Confessors. A majority of them disputed her specious claims. 4) During a 1971 interview with Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett, inmate was shown a photograph of Stoeckley and he stated that she was not the mythical woman holding the candle and chanting "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." 5) Pat Reese was a legendary reporter for the Fayetteville Observer and he was well acquainted with Stoeckley. Reese told Peter Kearns that two days after the murders, he spoke with Stoeckley and she claimed she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. Stoeckley's rationale for her memory loss was her excessive use of several substances on 2/16 and 2/17/70. The totality of this data resulted in the CID following more viable leads which included requesting that the FBI analyze the physical evidence in this case. It's important to note that the FBI later launched (e.g., 1980-1983) their own investigation of Stoeckley and they deemed her as being a red herring in this case. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
12th September 2018, 02:44 AM | #324 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Gaddis had a short conversation with Judge Dupree during the trial somewhere, which I now can't find. It may have been pulled and censored. Nashville cop Gaddis told Dupree that from what Stoeckley had told him in Nashville he would have had her further investigated for the MacDonald murders. This is what Gaddis testified at the MacDonald trial in 1979 as it has been transcribed, but it may not be comprehensive. It looks like there may have been one of these numerous bench conferences and on voir dire stuff when the jury were never told what was being discussed, so that Dupree could hush it all up:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...al_gaddis.html
Quote:
|
12th September 2018, 03:01 AM | #325 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Pat Reese was a curmudgeonly Fayetteville Observer reporter, now deceased and a former drug addict, who was up to his eyeballs with the Stoeckley group killer gang. He was interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation right after the MacDonald murders, who for some reason vanished from the MacDonald case police investigation. He was acquainted with the suspect Dwight Smith:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...984-07-12.html
Quote:
|
12th September 2018, 05:07 AM | #326 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Pat Reese was curmudgeonly - so what? most of the BEST investigative reporters of that era were also curmudeonly. It is part of what made them so good. Yes, he was a former addict himself which is what made his insights into Helena etal so impactful. HOWEVER, since there was no Stoeckley Murder group killer gang - there was no Stoeckley group at all, therefore they were not a gang and the only killer was inmate himself.
There is absolutely no evidence of ANYONE other than inmate, Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy being inside the apartment that night PERIOD. No evidence of outsiders means there were no outsiders. PERIOD henri. I have never seen anything that stated that NC SBI was ever involved in this case. PROVE IT. They didn't vanish they were never involved....and everyone other than CID were removed from the case quickly because the Provost Marshall wanted the case to be handled by CID. It was several years later that the FBI was brought back onto the case. |
12th September 2018, 09:52 AM | #327 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I have just mentioned above that Madden of the FBI quotes the suspect Dwight Smith as saying that two agents of the SBI, which is the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation to me, interviewed Dwight Smith and Pat Reese right after the MacDonald murders. It looks to me as though they were then taken off of the MacDonald case, rather like Detective Steve Ainsworth was taken off of the case in the JonBenet Ramsey case for not saying Patsy, or Burke, did it.
I have found that quote where Nashville cop Gaddis tells Judge Dupree that he would have further investigated Stoeckley. The conversation was held on voir dire which means that the jury never heard about it. It just shows what a very bad judge Dupree was, and that he was clearly erroneous, and why the 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court and the U.S. presidents should have put their foot down about it: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...17_gaddis.html |
12th September 2018, 03:15 PM | #328 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Living In A Fantasy World
HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the "Stoeckley group killer gang." LOL. You would have fit right in with the descriptions of Stoeckley leveled by members of this mythical killer gang.
SOURCE: 1983 article authored by investigative reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese. Unlike Ted Gunderson, Huettel and Reese actually made an effort to find and interview several members of this mythical killer gang. Don Harris called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "ravings of a madwoman." Dwight Smith called Helena Stoeckley's claims the "craziest thing I've ever heard," and "totally insane." Allen Mazzerolle labeled Stoeckley's statements as "ridiculous," adding that Stoeckley was "the one who fingered me to the narcotics agents." I would argue that your posts are the ravings of a madman, totally insane, and ridiculous, but I digress. All three of these individuals were investigated and cleared by the CID and/or FBI. No amount of bluster, hyperbole, or plunges into the conspiratorial stew will ever change that fact. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
13th September 2018, 02:16 AM | #329 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
13th September 2018, 08:21 AM | #330 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is a bit of background to what Helena Stoeckley said exactly happened at this website in the CID or FBI records. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page there is a legible print translation. Personally, I consider this to be true:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...r_1980-12.html
Quote:
|
13th September 2018, 01:52 PM | #331 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Wow.
HENRIBOY: You're the gift that just keeps on giving. True crime trolling, conspiracy buff, no critical thinking skills, and a penchant for regurgitating previously debunked claims. I'll give you this, you have managed to be true to yourself for more than two decades.
Unfortunately, I'm going to bring you back to reality and point out the pesky fact that no DNA, hairs, fibers, fingerprints, or bloody footprints collected at 544 Castle Drive were sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Nothing, nada, zip. Your claim that Harris, Mazzerolle, and Smith were "guilty as hell," has no basis in reality. The same is true of Stoeckley, Mitchell, Fowler, and Perry. It's certainly your right to create posts that adhere to the Bellwether Fallacy, but I would like to point out that adhering to this Fallacy is not a good thing. Considering that you either ignore or give a cursory read to a majority of my posts... 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 |
14th September 2018, 02:30 AM | #332 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I still think it's suspicious that the daughter of the Provost Marshal, Colonel Kriwanek, was mixed up with drugs and the Stoeckley gang. That's a conflict of interest. The real detectives, and good murder investigators like Detective Beasley, or cop/detective Gaddis in Nashville, or the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation were sidelined and discredited off of the case. That just left that fool CID agent Ivory and his cohorts. There is quite a detailed and sensible discussion of the MacDonald case and the crime scene at this website:
http://www.earonsgsk.proboards.com/t...ld-case-xiulan
Quote:
|
14th September 2018, 09:36 AM | #333 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
So what if the Provost Marshall's daughter was mixed up in drugs and hung out with other hippie types? Irrelevant henri. What is relevant as that no such "Stoeckley Gang" existed. There is no sourced evidence that puts anyone other than inmate, Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy inside 544 Castle Drive the night of the murders. THE FACTS show that inmate was the one who slaughtered his family. simple fact, actual fact, FACT.
|
15th September 2018, 02:33 AM | #334 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
15th September 2018, 07:38 AM | #335 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Reality Check
HENRIBOY: The CID, FBI, DOJ, Freddy Kassab, Joe McGinniss, Gene Weingarten, Robert Sam Anson, and 95 percent of the general public who have researched this case disagree with your stance on the evidence in this case.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
15th September 2018, 08:21 AM | #336 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is a bit about Gene Weingarten and how biased he is about the MacDonald case at a website. His wife was an assistant to the dishonest prosecutor Murtagh for several years:
http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/stor...ne-weingarten/
Quote:
|
15th September 2018, 10:44 AM | #337 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
No, actually the jury decided there was absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it's a fact.
You can be as delusional as Cleo (his second wife, the Queen of Denial), but you cannot change the fact that all arrows point to Jeffrey Macdonald. You have yet to present us with anything other than: your obsessive belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Macdonald is 'innocent'; anyone who participated in the investigation of Macdonald who did not find him 'innocent' is taking part in a vast conspiracy against him; your seeming pathological inability to refrain from insulting/slandering/libeling any official involved in the case; and your detachment from reality where this case is concerned. Give us facts, give us evidence, or give us silence. |
16th September 2018, 02:30 AM | #338 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There was never any impartial judge or jury, or excellent court in the MacDonald case. Judge Fox is a very bad judge who just uses the law's delay to keep an innocent man in prison. Like his pal Judge Dupree, Judge Fox is in bed with the prosecution. It's like beating against the wind.
|
16th September 2018, 05:13 AM | #339 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Four Decades Of Failure
Since inmate returned to his concrete bunker in 1982, his advocates have failed him at every level. Plenty of bluster and bravado, but they haven't come close to producing the goods. Nary a sourced evidentiary item directly linking a perp not named Jeffrey MacDonald to this horrible crime. False claims and broken promises resulted in a majority of the media skipping town a day after the government began to present their case at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. As the 4th Circuit Court pointed out, inmate faces a "daunting burden," so loading the wagons with hearsay testimony isn't going to cut it.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
16th September 2018, 08:35 AM | #340 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Why did Judge Dupree arrange for the evidence by six different witnesses against Helena Stoeckley to be held on voir dire without any jury or journalists to be there, at the 1979 MacDonald trial? It's clearly erroneous and was only done in case it swayed the jury if it was held in public.
In the UK I think this on voir dire business is termed held 'in camera' which in plain English means it's a secret court. It's usually done in things like National security cases involving spies or that sort of thing. There are also reporting restrictions. Journalists are prevented from many, if not all family court cases which involve sensitive information about children and other private matters. The Daily Mail newspaper had a campaign about the matter of secret family courts a few months ago, I think because there were some bad decisions being made by the judges. Sidney Carton on another forum does not have the same confidence in Judge Fox as the people on this forum: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/lies...t3355-s10.html
Quote:
|
17th September 2018, 01:09 AM | #341 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Sidney Needs Help
Man, why won't anyone listen to Sidney Carton's fantasy narrative? This guy has a firm grasp on the entertainment value of a fixed delusional system.
- The only thing that inmate's defense team can rightfully expect is for the sun to set in the evening and rise in the morning. - Last time I checked, Judge Fox granted a "full hearing on its merits," in 2012. - Sidney clearly can't count for Judge Fox took two years, not three, to make a decision on the merits of both the 2008 filings and the 2012 evidentiary hearing. - Judge Fox wasn't the only one who was confused about the 4th Circuit Court's rationale for remanding the case under the narrow umbrella of the "evidence as a whole." Inmate's defense team was just as confused about the nature and scope of this remand. - Judge Fox didn't make a determination of Britt's credibility in 2008, but in his 2014 decision, he determined that none of Britt's claims were credible. This determination was based on the FACT that Britt's 5 affidavits contained 27 falsehoods. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
17th September 2018, 04:56 AM | #342 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No henri it is not "just my opinion" it is FACT. Just because you continue to stamp your feet and say "he didn't he didn't" doesn't erase the OVER 1,100 pieces of evidence. EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS AT INMATE AS THE SOLE MURDERER. period. those are just the facts!
|
17th September 2018, 07:21 AM | #343 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
I looked at Sidney Carton's posts at that website. They are almost has delusional has Henri's postings. What I especially loved was Carton's nonsense about one of McDonald's injuries coming with a "fraction" of killing him.
What I especially also loved was Carton's systematic ignoring of the utter destruction of Britt's credibility in his later posts. |
17th September 2018, 08:32 AM | #344 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I love the way non medically qualified people discuss the seriousness of MacDonald's injuries on the internet and this forum. I have always thought Sidney Carton writes sense about the MacDonald case, though there is more to the MacDonald case than Jimmy Britt and pajama-like fibers and bad police work.
There is an interesting website which seems to be an analysis of the Morris book 'Wilderness of Errors' which makes sense to me: https://www.womanaroundtown.com/sect...rey-macdonald/
Quote:
|
17th September 2018, 09:37 AM | #345 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is an interesting quote from that Sidney Carton MacDonald case website by retired LEO which makes sense to me:
Quote:
|
17th September 2018, 10:53 AM | #346 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Ignoring The Rubber Room Crowd
HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. I must say, your definition of the word "interesting" is, well, unique. In my world, the only interesting articles on this case are constructed by those who rely on critical thought. For example.
https://archives.cjr.org/critical_ey...rol.php?page=1 Thirty-Seven years in the joint and counting for the Ice Pick Baby Killer. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
17th September 2018, 01:49 PM | #347 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's just an article by some silly fake news journalist. It's flimsy evidence to imprison a man for life on pajama-like fibers, and the pajama pocket, and not being able to find the fingerprints of the real culprits. The Rock report after the Article 32 proceedings got it right. The bad judge Dupree censored any mention of the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 on the spurious grounds that it was ten years old!
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...port-1970.html
Quote:
|
17th September 2018, 02:23 PM | #348 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Further Commentary From The Rubber Room
HENRIBOY: Flimsy evidence? Ah, you mean the over 1,000 pieces of evidence presented at trial and/or the inculpatory DNA evidence that demonstrated inmate assaulted his wife with the club? Not being able to find the fingerprints of the real culprits, eh? For the past 15 years, you've proclaimed on several MacDonald Case discussion forums that the real culprits were members of the Stoeckley Seven, yet print exemplars from all seven suspects were collected or "found" by the CID.
Guess what? None of the exemplars matched prints "found" at the crime scene. I hope this news brings you some closure. Speaking of closure, the author of the article should know that the CID and FBI know exactly where the pajama top was torn, and when the pocket was ripped off the garment. Not only were both the pajama top and the pocket torn in the master bedroom, both evidentiary items were stained with Colette's blood BEFORE they were torn. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
17th September 2018, 04:09 PM | #349 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
From a doctor (yeah, I asked one): "Anyone allowed to drink any alcoholic beverage is not on pain medication or several other sorts of medication, nor are they seriously injured. I'm surprised it was allowed in the hospital, it wouldn't be nowadays. Anyone allowed unlimited visitors is clearly not in serious condition, I'd say they were on their way to a quick discharge."
|
17th September 2018, 04:12 PM | #350 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
deleted so the mods wouldn't have to.
|
17th September 2018, 08:21 PM | #351 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
DESMIRELLE: C'mon, it makes perfect sense for inmate to heal to the point where he could find and kill one of the mythical hippie home invaders. The only reason he was able to survive his attack by 3 armed men was his mastery of the pajama top. Inmate's Matrix-like ability to use a pajama top to shield himself from 21 thrusts from an ice pick and 2 thrusts from the Old Hickory knife, is the stuff of legend.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
18th September 2018, 02:51 AM | #352 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There was never any DNA found on the wooden club murder weapon that I've ever heard about. Even if it was, the explanation would be that it was MacDonald's private property. As far as I can judge, it's fairly normal for a patient to celebrate with a bottle of alcohol when that patient is about to be discharged from hospital.
The pajama pocket is very weak evidence, rather like all that crap about footprints. Fred Bost explained the matter of the pajama pocket in his short study: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html
Quote:
|
18th September 2018, 05:37 AM | #353 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Ducking And Dodging
During one my phone conversations with Fred Bost, I brought up the issue of the pajama top pocket. I found his analysis of the issue in both his letter to me and in his Short Study to be unimpressive. During our phone conversation, he ducked and dodged the prosecution's presentation of this issue at the 1979 trial.
Fred's claim that the pocket only had a "spot" of Colette's blood on it is one of several distortions or falsehoods in his analysis. The pocket was stained in six locations with Colette MacDonald's Type A blood. CID chemist Terry Laber analyzed the six Type A blood stains on the pocket. At the 1979 trial, Laber stated that "the pajama top was soaked with blood over the entire area where the pocket had been." In contrast to the pajama top, the pocket was lightly stained with blood, and all six stains were located on the outside or face of the pocket. None of the stains, however, soaked through the double-layered fabric. Laber also labeled each blood stain found the pocket with a number designation. The following are the blood stains that Laber identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial: •Area 1: Light smearing stain on the pocket •Area 2: Smear and spatter stains along the beading •Area 3: Soaking stain along the pocket's edge •Area 4: Soaking stain •Area 5: Soaking stain •Area 6: Soaking stain Laber concluded that the totality of the evidence indicated that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood before the pocket was torn from the jacket. The significance of Laber's analysis can be seen in the fact that Laber was one of the few government witnesses that Bernie Segal did not cross-examine. In regards to the Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, Brian Murtagh and James Blackburn presented the following analysis during their closing arguments at the 1979 trial: Murtagh: From the photograph, you can see that the rug is turned up and that we appear to have the pocket upside down. I also ask you to recall, you have seen this rug and that there is no blood found on this piece of rug. Now, you may recall the testimony of Mr. Laber, the chemist from the CID lab in 1970, as to the testimony concerning the pocket from the pajama top. Mr. Laber, I believe, testified to not only the blood type of the 6 stains which was Type A, the same type as Colette, and I would ask you to find that it is Colette's blood on the pocket, but also that the stains were of two types —that there was smear on Area Two which is white beading and that the larger stains were contact or soaking stains. From that, I would ask you to find that Colette's blood was on the pocket before it was torn because as you recall, the stains do not penetrate the double layers of the fabric by the seams. Blackburn: We know that the pocket was on the floor. I asked him about that and he said that he could think of a number of ways that it could be kicked over there and torn off when the pajama top was torn. Well, okay, but it is upside down and it has got Type A blood coming from the outside in and it is not spatter —it is contact. How did that happen? You recall Terry Laber's saying that in his opinion, that Type A blood got on there prior to the pocket being torn off and yet it didn't bleed from the inside out, but it bled from the outside in. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
18th September 2018, 05:43 AM | #354 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
henri they didn't test the murder club for DNA HOWEVER as you well know evidence item E-5 "the mystery hair" which was found CLUTCHED in Colette's hand along with a splinter from the murder club WAS TESTED for DNA. The item (E-5) was dubbed the "mystery hair" by the DEFENSE and the DEFENSE always said whoever that hair belonged to was the wielder of that club (thus the murderer). That hair was the distal portion (tip) of a limb hair. it was unsourced prior to DNA testing because ONLY PUBIC AND HEAD HAIRS have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared. E-5 was (again) a limb hair and therefore couldn't be microscopically compared. It was covered in blood also....no surprise to anyone with 2 functional brain cells that item E-5 was a 100% DNA match to INMATE.
well, even if it is common place to celebrate with alcohol when one is about to be released, inmate was not about to be released. He was sitting up drinking his Cold Duck the evening he was admitted. Granted he did not NEED to be in the hospital more than a couple of days, but since his home was a crime scene his stay was extended. That being said, no actually drinking alcohol in the hospital is not at all NORMAL and in most hospitals it is probably not allowed either. actually, no the pj pocket is very good evidence. and the footprint evidence is not crap either. but since you will ignore any FACT that you don't like I am not going to go into it now.... The BOST Short Study is CRAP. It is nothing but cut and paste, misrepresentations, revisionist history and outright lies. |
18th September 2018, 08:01 AM | #355 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There is a fair and just criticism of the Morris Wilderness of Errors book, even though the writer rather stupidly thinks MacDonald is guilty. The forensic evidence against MacDonald is not scientifically reliable:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-w...ris/1111374612
Quote:
|
18th September 2018, 10:30 AM | #356 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Errol Morris may or may not think inmate is guilty - doesn't matter the book is a piece of crap and inmate IS GUILTY.
|
18th September 2018, 11:26 AM | #357 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
JTF: He may have mastered the pajama top, but that afghan around his feet whupped him good.
|
18th September 2018, 12:01 PM | #358 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
|
18th September 2018, 01:39 PM | #359 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Severity of MacD's injuries
|
18th September 2018, 08:25 PM | #360 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
According to Henri's man crush's own words, "..nothing looked wrong, there wasn't really even a cut or anything." This is after the mythical fantasy four have left. So, who inflicted all those life-threatening injuries to said man crush? His dead pregnant wife? The dead five-year-old? The dead two-year-old? The neighbors? Henri? Sidney? JP? Errol Morris?
Macdonald can't even avoid consciousness of guilt with his own mouth. He has, in this instance, admitted that he really wasn't injured. And he was a doctor at the time, so he had a level of expertise above, say, mine. After the "bad guys" left, he was okay, he was walking around, checking on things (in the dark, remember, no prints were found on the light switches and the lights were off when Henri's beau was on the couch). This wasn't one foot, this was both feet in his own mouth. And he put them there. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|