ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Reply
Old 16th September 2016, 08:22 AM   #2041
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
For those not named Henriboy, pretty weak stuff from Joey Z in his reply to the government's brief. Like Henriboy, however, Joey Z makes claims that are in stark contrast to documented fact. For example, he continues to insist that a hair was found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy. Ah, NO.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/dna.html
MacDonald lawyers and MacDonald himself still insist that a hair was found under Kristen's fingernail and that the information was redacted and kept secret, perhaps by Glisson at the Army CID lab. That's why there is no hard documentary evidence about the matter, as JTF keeps saying, and says on his website.

The matter is discussed in an internet article called The Jeffrey MacDonald case : Fatal Conviction? by Resa LaRue Kirkland (July 8 2003)

It starts off "I believe that the government of the United States deliberately covered up evidence to convict Jeffrey MacDonald" Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz."

This is part of that article:

"Point 2: Human skin on Colette's fingernail, left hand, was "lost" by the Army CID . (How conveeeenient!.)

Point 3: Unmatched black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth and shoulder. These were not reported. The fibers were important because the FBI also found black wool fibers on the murder club. At trial these black wool fibers were misrepresented to the jury as blue cotton fibers from MacDonald's pajama top, and were used to convict him. They are also important because Helena Stoeckley, a self-styled witch in her cult group, is known to have affected a wardrobe of black clothing around the time of the murders. (This was a huge part of the prosecution's case. They knew it was a lie. They knew it.)

Point 4: A blue acrylic fiber found in Colette's right hand proved to have no source among the fabrics and clothing in the MacDonald home. Another blue acrylic fiber was found where Jeffrey MacDonald said he lay unconscious. (Oh, and he was unconscious…he had to be revived when MP’s arrived…didn’t know that from the movie, did you? Neither did I)

Point 5: A brown hair with root intact was found under Kimberly's bloody fingernail. This hair was found not to be Jeffrey's or Colette's. It remains a foreign hair in the hand of a murder victim, and was unreported. Yet another brown hair with root intact was also found under baby Kristen's bloody fingernail. This hair possessed different characteristics from the hair in Kimberly's hand. It was found not to be Jeffrey’s or Colette's hair, yet this too was kept secret. (Hair fibers, clothing fibers…denied to exist by the Prosecution…WHY!?)

Point 6: Knowledge about hairs under the nails of murder victims, hairs that didn't match Dr. MacDonald, should not have been kept secret, but in long suppressed lab note "R-11" the Army lab tech wrote in the last line: ". . . they are not going to be reported by me." (Again…WHY!?)

Point 7: Blond, synthetic wig hairs, 22 inches in length, were found in a clear-handled hair brush on the telephone seat near the place MacDonald said he saw the blond female. These wig hairs would have been critical to the MacDonald defense, but even though army investigator William Ivory knew Helena Stoeckley wore a blond wig, and matched the descriptions given by Dr. MacDonald and MP Kenneth Mica, he didn't reveal the presence of these long blond wig hairs. (Why? Why, dammit WHY? This was evidence that supported MacDonald’s story…THIS WAS EVIDENCE! WHY?)

Point 8: On the morning of the murders, an adult bloody palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed near Colette MacDonald's body. The print did not match palm prints of either Jeffrey or Colette MacDonald. Neither could it be matched to palm prints from persons known to have been at the crime scene that morning. Despite extensive efforts by the FBI, the source of this bloody palm print remains unidentified. (Couldn’t that be checked now? We have massive computerized national databases that weren’t available then…what—or who-- is preventing this print from being checked NOW?)"
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2016, 01:19 PM   #2042
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Propaganda

Another prime example of propaganda presented by our resident advocate for the Ice Pick Baby Killer. Though short, AD's list is a mess. For example, he states that a brown hair with a root intact was found under Kimmie's fingernail, yet fails to mention the FACT that this was animal hair.

Henriboy, you've yet to provide a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2016, 02:48 AM   #2043
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Would it not have been faster to say "I have no evidence, only my unfounded belief that all the judges, juries, prosecutors and defence counsel involved in this case got it wrong"?
The Article 32 proceedings in 1970 at a military court under Colonel Rock was fair and just, and it had comprehensive vision. The civilian court under Judge Dupree and Judge Fox was a bad court. There was no impartial judge or jury and there were irregularities, and not right judgment. MacDonald never had a fair trial. The psychiatric testimony was a farce for a start.

This matter of hairs under the fingernails of the two children which JTF is now harping on about on this forum is confusing. I know in the initial investigation at the Army CID lab that an animal hair was once confused with a human hair, but I would have to look up the details of that.

On MacDonald's website it says "a brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberley's bloody fingernail."

Biased Christina, or Gwyka, has an opinion about this on the internet. It strikes me that Glisson with all her illegible markings was told by Ivory to deliberately destroy any exculpatory hair or skin evidence:

"n Fatal Justice it is reported in part that -

(1) “An unidentified hair with its root intact in tact was found under one of Kimberly's (sic) bloody fingernails.

(2) “An unidentified hair with its root intact was found under one of Kristen's bloody fingernails.”

And the defense maintains the above was not disclosed to the defense and jury.

They reference this as coming from CID lab note R11.

When I go the CID lab note R11, I find the following -

(1) Fingernail scraping from the right hand of Kimberley MacDonald.
2 small fragments and debris

(2) Fingernail scraping from the left hand of Kimberley MacDonald.
Questionable hair fragments

(3) Fingernail scraping from the left hand of Kristen MacDonald.
1 hair? 2 fragments.

(4) Fingernail scraping from the right hand of Kristen MacDonald.
3 fragments

The problem with this claim is that it comes from MacDonald's own memorandum of evidence, not from the actual records of the case.

The truth of the matter is there is no evidence of record that a hair was observed, found, or removed from under the fingernails of Kristen MacDonald at the crime scene before her remains were removed or during her autopsy.

The documents that MacDonald relies on for the assertions that hair was bloody and that it was forcible removed does not support his claims.

Instead, it simply states that “D-237, fingernail scrapings from left hand of Kristen MacDonald indicated blood.” It does not say anything about a hair. (D-237 was also referred to as Q-137 and 91A)

What appears to have occurred here is that the defense has relied on the notes of AFIP technician Grant Graham for the assertion that Graham found that the hair had an “intact” root which “strongly suggests” that Kristen grabbed at an intruder.

In essence what the report reported in my opinion was not that at all. The report stated the slide was reported as being in poor condition with dried mounting medium on top of the cover. That it contained one fiber with red adhering material that appeared to be blood. That it also contained one human hair with root but no tissue, approximately 5 mm long...

So in fact Graham never said the hair had an “intact root.” What he said with respect to 91A was “one human hair with root but no tissue.” Hair was reported as white in color."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2016, 11:22 PM   #2044
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Clear And Concise

HENRIBOY: The documentation is not "confusing," but clear and concise. In 1999, the FBI looked at the hair found in Kimmie's fingernail scrapings and immediately noticed that the hair was almost transparent. This indicates that the source of the hair was an animal, not a human being. The most logical source of that 7mm hair fragment was the family cat.

You've yet to provide a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2016, 08:41 AM   #2045
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: The documentation is not "confusing," but clear and concise. In 1999, the FBI looked at the hair found in Kimmie's fingernail scrapings and immediately noticed that the hair was almost transparent. This indicates that the source of the hair was an animal, not a human being. The most logical source of that 7mm hair fragment was the family cat.
I don't know who it was in the FBI who looked at the hair found in Kimmie's fingernail scrapings in 1999, as JTF says. If it was Malone then he was a total liar. Stombaugh wasn't much better.

The trouble with all this hair analysis is that it was never scientifically reliable. It was guesswork, and it has been described as junk science. It has largely become out of date since the introduction of the more scientifically reliable DNA analysis of hairs. Stombaugh of the FBI swore to the grand jury in 1975 that the hair in Colette's right hand was Colette's. That has never been double checked, except perhaps by the FBI and Murtagh tampering with the evidence.

This is what Fred Bost thought about JTF's theory that pajama fibers were found on the murder weapon and which is supposed to have been the conclusive evidence against MacDonald according to Blackburn in his closing argument at the 1979 trial:

"CLAIM 15 -- THE FIBERS ON THE CLUB

When the weathered, splintery stick found in the back yard was examined it was bloodied and had debris adhering to it, including animal hairs and some fibers. The prosecution says that among those fibers were two purple threads matching threads from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. Prosecutors at trial emphasized those two fibers, and in closing arguments they decreed them to be the most damaging of all evidence brought against MacDonald. One prosecutor asked how it was possible for pajama fibers to be stuck on that club if, as MacDonald insisted, he had not torn his pajama top from his arms until after the club was outside.

The question proved effective with the jury. Unknown to them, though, the government had already determined that the fibers introduced on the club as pajama fibers were in reality a case of poor laboratory work. Initial conclusions by the CID in 1970 and the FBI in 1974 found two pajama fibers in the debris from the club. However, problems arose when an FBI lab technician just before trial reanalyzed the evidence. He determined that the two fibers, instead of being dark blue cotton pajama fibers, were actually dark wool of undetermined origin (SHORT #71). He also found dark wool on Colette's mouth and bicep area, and again, the source could not be identified. The prosecution managed to keep this technician from testifying at the trial by stipulating that his knowledge was unimportant to the case. Independent FBI studies made years later reconfirmed that no pajama fibers were found on the club (SHORT #72 & #73). The government took pains to keep the prejudicial conclusion from being baldly stated in official reports. Reports were written in a manner to hide the failure to find pajama fibers. This was done with general remarks such as "No other fibers of apparent significance were found."

The records, however, are clear. MacDonald was convicted using false evidence, false testimony, and false prosecutorial accusations. There were no pajama fibers on the club."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2016, 08:53 AM   #2046
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
This is part of an article from the New York Times dated April 27 2015 with regard to hair analysis at the FBI as junk science:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/op...t-the-fbi.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2016, 12:10 PM   #2047
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
henri you are trying to avoid answering a very direct question and insisting on trying to use things like the Article 32 hearing (held while there were still mounds of evidence to be evaluated) as the definitive response. However, you need to stop it. You can use Grand Jury or Trial transcripts to try your arguments if you must. In the meantime, there is no document that is going to source any physical evidence to a known intruder suspect and there is no/was no exculpatory evidence.

Hair analysis has come a long way over the last 30 plus years, because now we have DNA. But, that DNA exists doesn't make an animal hair any less an animal hair....the hair found under Kimmie's nail was from an animal, period.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2016, 05:01 PM   #2048
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Education, It's A Beautiful Thing

HENRIBOY: Your decade long education regarding the fibers found on the club continues...

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...se_claims.html

You've yet to provide a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 03:48 AM   #2049
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Your decade long education regarding the fibers found on the club continues...

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...se_claims.html
JTF believes anything Stombaugh and McGinniss and Malone said about the MacDonald case. Some people in America are easily fooled.

In an article on the internet by John Boston, which is probably another name for Harvey Silverglate, he writes that the pajama fibers on the murder weapon were a deliberate lie. Some people like Stombaugh and Blackburn and Shirley Green and Malone are like dishonest postmen.

This is what John Boston wrote, and it makes sense, to me if not to biased old Judge Dupree and biased old Judge Fox:

"This foreign fiber in Colette's hand could have been the centerpiece of MacDonald's defense if Segal had been properly informed of it.� "He had been led to believe that MacDonald's hair...had been tested against another hair in Colette's hand, a longer blond one determined to be her own." (Potter & Bost).� As Segal pointed out years later when he discovered the truth, "If it wasn't Jeff's hair, then whose hair was found in Colette's dead hand?"

Hair and skin under the victims' fingernails
Short, brown hair had been found under the fingernails of Colette and the girls, which was naturally and correctly presumed to be the hair of their killer.� Analysis showed it was not MacDonald's blond hair, nor the hair of any of the house's inhabitants.� A piece of skin was also found under Colette's fingernails which was also presumed to be from her killer.� MacDonald had no fingernail scratches when he was taken to the hospital after the murders.� The piece of skin was subsequently lost by the Army investigators in their mishandling of the evidence, so no testing of it could be done to prove MacDonald's innocence.

Not only was the knowledge suppressed at the trial that the hair under the victims' fingernails did not match MacDonald's, but a lab technician had written the following note:�� "[these hairs] are not going to be reported by me."� The pressure was on the Army lab techs to keep quiet about anything that made MacDonald look innocent.� This was precisely why Segal had wanted those lab notes."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 05:26 AM   #2050
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
the reason JTF believes what he tells you is because it is FACT. if anyone was to read your posts, they'd see that you are a conspiracy theorist at best. IF your version of things were true it would mean that every lawyer, Judge, juror, CSI, and anyone else involved were lying and inmate and only inmate is telling the truth. WE all KNOW that it is inmate who lies.....liar, liar, pants on fire!

Now, we are STILL waiting for you to answer JTF's question. Provide 1 document that sources a single solitary piece of evidence to a known intruder suspect. Stop the BS and nonsense. Answer the question.....(we KNOW you CANNOT because there is no documentation showing any such thing) time to admit you know nothing and go away!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 05:26 AM   #2051
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Put The Work In

HENRIBOY: Maybe it's time to take advantage of the data presented to you by posters on this thread? Rather than educate yourself on the facts of this case, you continue to regurgitate the same debunked claims. From what I understand, John Boston was the late Fred Bost and all of Fred's claims have been demolished by the documented record in this case.

If you had bothered to visit the link I provided you, you would have realized that color photographs taken in 1989 put this issue (e.g., fibers on the club) to rest. That link presents a color photograph of the two pajama fibers found stuck to the club in Colette's blood. The photograph depicts the fibers in the Q89 pillbox labeled by Shirley Green. By ignoring the data in this link, you are presenting arguments that have been debunked/dismissed for 27 years.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...se_claims.html

Still waiting on that lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 08:12 AM   #2052
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

Still waiting on that lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.
The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers point to Helena Stoeckley, and the black wool fibers on the murder weapon, and around the mouth and arm of Colette,WITH NO KNOWN SOURCE, point to Mazerolle.

The main fault of the police and FBI, apart from jumping to conclusions, is perjury. This is what actually happened with regard to perjury by the FBI and Blackburn about pajama fibers supposedly being on the murder weapon, according to MacDonald himself, and not just JTF'S made up version of events:

TO: DEFENSE TEAM

FROM: JEFFREY MACDONALD, M.D.

DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1988

SUBJECT: 1. JAMES FRIER STIPULATION AT TRIAL
2. MURTAUGH'S [sic] DECEPTION REGARDING BLACK WOOL
3. EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED BY PROSECUTION

We just received pages 4,610 - 4,760 from Friday, August 10, 1979, during the trial. Shirley Green had finished her testimony (following Paul Stombaugh) on Friday. Murtaugh [sic] then requested that he be allowed to read stipulations into record that he had discussed with Bernie Segal.

The Key pages are 4,619 - 4,613. The majority of pages 4, 614 -4,760 is a reading of Esquire magazine excerpts.

Key points to remember while reading line 4-17 on page 4,612 are:

01. CID handwritten notes of 1970 show that Exhibit 307 (at trial) was CID Exhibit E-205 (debris from club). CID findings: two "purple cotton fibers matching pajama top" and "blue, green and yellow nylon fibers from rug".

02. Paul Stombaugh in 1974 said that E-205 contains "two purple cotton fibers like those in pajama top". FBI number is Q89.

03. James Frier's 1979 handwritten notes withheld from the defense show that CID E-205 is Q-89 and the finding are:

"Two black woolen fibers--source unknown"

"One green woolen fiber--source unknown"

plus

two green, three blue and one gold fiber, all rayon, from rug"

plus

"numerous white cotton fibers"

04. The 1979 FBI typed report of Frier's findings, dictated by Morris Clark and not Frier, does not mention the crucial black wool findings.

05. Frier is listed as a government witness in the 1979 spring and summer witness lists and was in Raleigh, North Carolina, on standby to testify. He never testified.

page 2

06. In June 1979, the FBI was doing fiber studies on sweaters from 544 Castle Drive, apparently trying to match the mystery fibers.

07. Back in March, 1979, Murtaugh [sic] personally picked up the original and carbon copies of the fiber report disguising Frier's real findings.

08. At trial, Dillard Browning from the CID testified two fibers on the club were matched to the pajama top (i.e. that E-205/Q89 had two purple cotton fibers in it matching my pajama top). He also stated there were only two fibers in the exhibit!

09. At trial, Stombaugh, as the FBI "fiber expert", testified he found two purple sewing threads in Q89 (i.e. debris from club). Importantly he said he looked at them on slides, which Frier's report refutes.

10. The crucial deception: See page 4,612. Murtaugh, [sic] the only person besides Frier who knew of the black wool, lies to the court and Bernie Segal. We stipulate that we agree Frier would testify to the other fibers, i.e. the rayon fibers matching the throw rug. No mention is made of Frier's crucial finding of two black wool fibers! Since we stipulate, Frier does not go on the stand; we can't cross-examine him, and we can't discover the crucial notes. Murtaugh [sic] has, as a safety valve, made the FBI typed report, but no mention is made of Frier's crucial finding in it (in addition, we do not believe the defense received the typed report anyway).

Thus, through clever slight-of-hand, Murtaugh [sic] has intentionally and knowingly suppressed the single most crucial piece of exculpatory material in the case other then the (also hidden) loss of skin from Colette's hand on which the blood type of Greg Mitchell was found!

The black wool fibers put assailants at the scene because the black wool on the club (and in Colette's mouth and on her pajama top) is not from a source in the house.

11. Then almost unbelievably, the government asks me on cross-examination (page 6791, Friday, August 24, 1979) to explain "two purple sewing threads identical to those from the pajama top". My answer: "I cannot".

But, the fibers were known by Murtaugh [sic] to be black wool from outside the house.

page 3

12. The final blow is in the closing argument. On August 28, 1979, Brian Murtaugh [sic] tells the jury that the government took two purple cotton sewing threads from the club. Then, Blackburn takes over and states they would throw out the whole shooting match except for two things: the pajama top and the club because two purple threads on the club matched the pajama top and I can't explain it.

And so, the crux of the government case is a knowing lie. The fibers on the club not only weren't blue cotton or purple cotton (they were black wool), but they also were from outside the house. And, when I couldn't answer the government's query based on a lie, I was convicted. The government had subverted discovery for so long we could never do our own testing, and Murtaugh [sic] ingeniously had us stipulate to the one witness most dangerous to the government cover-up and lie, James Frier. If he testified, his cross examination and notes would have provided the defense with knowledge of the real, exculpatory facts, and, would have implicated Frier, Clark and Murtaugh [sic] in the obstruction of justice (and probably Murtaugh [sic] perjury)."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th September 2016 at 08:26 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 09:33 AM   #2053
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers point to Helena Stoeckley, and the black wool fibers on the murder weapon, and around the mouth and arm of Colette,WITH NO KNOWN SOURCE, point to Mazerolle.

No, henri they do not. The blonde synthetic fibers were from doll wigs. NO HUMAN COSMETIC WIGS were made of saran at the time. Helena's blonde wig that she always insisted she did not wear that night was not made of saran. There were 3 fibers, coming from TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES. Therefore, as has been pointed out previously numerous times, they could not have come from Helena's wig EVEN IF SHE WAS WEARING IT.

The dark woolen fibers were UNSOURCED but that DOES NOT POINT TO ALLEN M OR ANYONE ELSE. The fibers were not able to be compared to clothing owned by Colette, Kimmie, or Kristy because inmate got rid of them before analysis could be done. That does not make them belong to any intruders. Also, the question put to you was to point out documentation that SOURCES physical evidence to a KNOWN intruder suspect. This leaves Allen M out because it has been proven beyond all doubt that HE WAS IN JAIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS. Your childish and petty insistence on repeatedly placing him in the category of intruder has more than run its course.

Once again, we want documentation not your delusional claims that have long since been disproven. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION......
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2016, 09:39 PM   #2054
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Coward

HENRIBOY: Yet another post that doesn't include a lab document with a CID or FBI number/letter designation that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. In addition, you're ignoring other aspects of my challenge by posting the opinions of MacDonald advocates. Sorry to break it to you, but opinions are not facts.

I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 03:23 AM   #2055
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
No, henri they do not. The blonde synthetic fibers were from doll wigs. NO HUMAN COSMETIC WIGS were made of saran at the time. Helena's blonde wig that she always insisted she did not wear that night was not made of saran. There were 3 fibers, coming from TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES. Therefore, as has been pointed out previously numerous times, they could not have come from Helena's wig EVEN IF SHE WAS WEARING IT.

The dark woolen fibers were UNSOURCED but that DOES NOT POINT TO ALLEN M OR ANYONE ELSE. The fibers were not able to be compared to clothing owned by Colette, Kimmie, or Kristy because inmate got rid of them before analysis could be done. That does not make them belong to any intruders. Also, the question put to you was to point out documentation that SOURCES physical evidence to a KNOWN intruder suspect. This leaves Allen M out because it has been proven beyond all doubt that HE WAS IN JAIL THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS. Your childish and petty insistence on repeatedly placing him in the category of intruder has more than run its course.

Once again, we want documentation not your delusional claims that have long since been disproven. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION......
It was Malone of the FBI lab who said the blonde synthetic hairs came from MacDonald dolls and Malone was a total liar. The black wool fibers with no known source were investigated in the initial investigation and the conclusion then was that there was no known source. Murtagh later said that those fibers came from photos of Colette once wearing a black dress. That's ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. It's true MacDonald got rid of dolls and clothes after the Article 32, but there is nothing suspicious about that. He didn't know that they had any forensic significance.

Detective Beasley was "almost certain" that Mazerolle was out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders and Mazerolle was implicated by Helena Stoeckley. That little piece of paper on the internet about Mazerolle supposedly being in jail was never a 'true copy' of Mazerolle's jail records. It could have been forged. His jail records have been lost, probably by Ivory and Murtagh. That confused people like Fred Bost and judges and journalists later on.

There is some background to this from Jamison Koehler May 2, 2010:

"The problem is, until the government can take the necessary steps to prevent abuses like the Michael P. Malone cases, we can never know what to believe. Any confidence we might have had in the government’s ability to sort through these same facts and arrive at the right solution through the judicial system is completely belied by the government’s handling of the Michael P. Malone case.

Multiple prosecutors, both federal and state, called Michael Malone to the stand to testify for the government in numerous cases when they either knew or should have known that the testimony he was about to deliver was false. Multiple supervisors within Malone’s chain of command at the FBI refused to take corrective action when alerted to repeated instances of Malone’s perjury. Malone was relieved of his forensic responsibilities in 1997 and retired in 1999, and while the government claims it is now investigating him and other analysts against whom similar accusations have been leveled, Malone has never, as far as I know, been disciplined or sued. And, in many cases, Justice officials waited for years (13 years in the Donald Gates case) to notify defense counsel of the Malone abuses."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 04:57 AM   #2056
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
no henri, Malone didn't come into the picture until after inmate was convicted. besides the doll hairs were matched to exemplars in the FBI collection. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THERE WERE NO COSMETIC WIGS MADE OF SARAN AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS AND THE SYNTHETIC HAIRS WERE SARAN. That is simple pure FACT therefore, Helena's wig could not have been the source of the synthetic hairs, because her wig was a cosmetic wig and therefore could not have been made of SARAN. FACT FACT FACT. you need to stop posting opinion and answer JTFs question or as he says PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:19 AM   #2057
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
no henri, Malone didn't come into the picture until after inmate was convicted. besides the doll hairs were matched to exemplars in the FBI collection. THIS IS A FACT. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THERE WERE NO COSMETIC WIGS MADE OF SARAN AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS AND THE SYNTHETIC HAIRS WERE SARAN. That is simple pure FACT therefore, Helena's wig could not have been the source of the synthetic hairs, because her wig was a cosmetic wig and therefore could not have been made of SARAN. FACT FACT FACT. you need to stop posting opinion and answer JTFs question or as he says PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
The FBI's own documentation states that saran was used in wigs.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 08:59 AM   #2058
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
henri the FBI's documentation says SARAN was used in DOLL WIGS (which is what doll hair is called whether it is fixed or removable) SARAN WAS NOT USED IN COSMETIC WIGS. Obviously you do not grasp the significance of the word COSMETIC - that means a wig designed to be worn frequently, can be washed, and restyled. Unlike costume or mannequin wigs COSMETIC wigs are designed to survive the every day like sweat, make-up, air polution, and odors of life. COSMETIC WIGS WERE NOT MADE OF SARAN AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. Proof of that is simple enough, not one single solitary COSMETIC WIG has been found to have existed. The closest the defense came was the finding of a mannequin wig in a Mexican Museum.

Again ANSWER JTF's question - PUT UP OR SHUT UP. your "opinion" of what is or is not in the record is an unacceptable response.

Last edited by byn63; 21st September 2016 at 09:00 AM. Reason: to add emphasis
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2016, 09:00 AM   #2059
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Clarification

HENRIBOY: You can't even get the little things right. Malone did NOT state that the 24 inch saran fiber was sourced to a doll owned by the MacDonald children because there were no exemplars available for comparison purposes. Your boy discarded most of the children's doll collection a few months after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearing. Malone did conclude that the 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and your beloved defense lawyers for the MacDonald camp did not dispute that conclusion.

I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 08:40 AM   #2060
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: You can't even get the little things right. Malone did NOT state that the 24 inch saran fiber was sourced to a doll owned by the MacDonald children because there were no exemplars available for comparison purposes. Your boy discarded most of the children's doll collection a few months after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearing. Malone did conclude that the 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and your beloved defense lawyers for the MacDonald camp did not dispute that conclusion.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
My beloved defense lawyers have disputed the Malone of the FBI conclusions in the past, but biased old Judge Dupree just rejected and ignored their criticism.

The matter is discussed at this website:

www.wsj.com/articles/SB861140020234454500

"Mr. Buckley was acquitted. Now the defendant's lawyer, Barry Lee Smith, has this to say about Mr. Malone: "The guy's a total liar. My client could have been electrocuted based on his testimony if I hadn't discovered that he'd been shipped the wrong blanket."

Relying on Malone Affidavit
Mr. Malone's other effort on May 21, 1991 -- his statements in the MacDonald case -- appeared to turn out better for the prosecution. In a July 1991 ruling on Mr. Silverglate's plea for a new trial, Judge Dupree relied heavily on Mr. Malone. "According to Malone," the judge wrote, "the blond synthetic fibers ... were not consistent with blond wig hairs from any known wig fibers currently in the FBI laboratory reference collection... . MacDonald has presented no evidence that blond saran fibers have ever been used in the manufacture of human wigs." Therefore, he ruled, there was no cause to reopen the case. (Judge Dupree died in 1995.)

Mr. Silverglate appealed, to no avail. Indeed, a federal appeals court in June 1992 chided Mr. Silverglate for continuing. Noting that the MacDonald court record already "contains over 4,000 pages" and that nothing in it "probably would have raised reasonable doubts in the minds of jurors," the court concluded: "While we are keenly aware of MacDonald's insistence as to his innocence, at some point we must accept this case as final."

Here the story could have ended. But the court's words nettled Mr. Silverglate, who is active in the American Civil Liberties Union and objects to the notion that any case is ever really final. "No justice system ever benefited by having a case end with an innocent man in prison," Mr. Silverglate says. "Here was a court saying, 'It's really time to go away.' But truth is more complicated than that."

Already $175,000 in the hole, Mr. Silverglate remained on the case. For the next four years, he and an associate, Philip Cormier, and several other lawyers filed numerous new Freedom of Information Act requests, interviewed nearly a dozen manufacturers of wigs and makers and users of saran -- all with the goal of getting into court yet again.

Book Search
Was Mr. Malone accurately describing what FBI texts said about saran? To find out, the lawyers requested all materials in the FBI's possession about the possible uses of the fiber. In April 1993, the Freedom of Information Act search turned up two books belonging to the Justice Department that said saran was indeed used for wigs. One of the books was clearly marked as belonging to the FBI crime lab's own collection. Mr. Malone had made no mention of these in his affidavit -- and the court had relied on the absence of any such materials in reaching its decision not to reopen the case.

Was it actually impossible to make saran in the "tow" form required for wig-making? The MacDonald lawyers obtained from National Plastic Products Co., in Odenton, Md., a "tow" of blond saran fibers that the company had once made, contradicting Mr. Malone's statement that saran couldn't be manufactured in this form. The MacDonald defense team also located wig manufacturers and wholesalers who asserted that saran fibers were used in wigs in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Silverglate also learned that Mr. Malone had sought, but failed to get, a statement from a Mattel Inc. doll specialist, Judith Schizas, that a 24-inch saran fiber might have come from a Mattel doll. Though Ms. Schizas says she told Mr. Malone and two of his colleagues that neither Mattel nor other manufacturers she knew had used such long fibers, the government agents continued to press her, she says. "You aren't trying to railroad this guy, are you?" Ms. Schizas says she asked. She says Mr. Malone laughed and then responded, "No, we know he's guilty, and there's a ton of other evidence to prove it."

A couple of weeks after the visit, Ms. Schizas says, she received a draft affidavit from federal prosecutors. It stated that saran was "the major fiber used for doll hair by Mattel" and others until the 1980s. The affidavit also said that doll hairs could be doubled during the weaving process to reduce a 24-inch fiber into a foot-long hair. Disagreeing with both assertions, Ms. Schizas refused to sign.

No Disclosure
Similarly, Mr. Malone sought a statement from A. Edward Oberhaus Jr., senior vice president at Kaneka America Corp. in New York, saying saran wasn't used for wigs. But Mr. Oberhaus, whose company manufactures wig fibers made of other substances, says he didn't have information about saran so declined to sign an affidavit later provided by prosecutors. Instead, he provided his own sworn statement that didn't commit one way or the other on saran.

Mr. Oberhaus's affidavit was neither used by the government nor disclosed to Dr. MacDonald's defense team. The failure of Mr. Malone and prosecutors to disclose what happened with both Ms. Schizas and Mr. Oberhaus was significant, according to Mr. Silverglate, because prosecutors and government agents have an obligation to turn over anything that might be important to the defense, even if it undermines the prosecution."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2016, 02:32 PM   #2061
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Resistence Is Futile

HENRIBOY: Your beloved defense lawyers didn't dispute the following FACTS.

1) The 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection.

2) The FBI's exemplar collection also did not contain a wig used for cosmetic wear that matched any of the saran fibers in this case.

3) Fibers used in the manufacturing of doll hair are double-looped in the skull of each doll. When a hair is dislodged from the doll, it doubles in size which makes the "length" argument irrelevant.

I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2016, 02:36 PM   #2062
ScottPletcher
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 44
OK, Henri, there's a wig hair. So what?! As JTF has pointed out repeatedly, that doesn't provide any evidence of "intruders", let alone proof they were there on the night in question. Even if that one hair was from a different doll, that still doesn't prove anything about that night. Maybe some other girl used the MacD's family hair brush with her doll.

As to the candle wax, the fact that 3 drippings were found removes them from consideration as evidence, since Stoeckley would certainly not have had enough time to burn 3 candles between ~2:20AM and 3:10AM.

Finally, as to claims this was some type of copycat of some Manson slayings ("Pig", etc.), again there is absolutely no evidence that Stoeckley, or Mitchell, knew anything about the Manson murders, let alone that they admired or emulated him or his followers. C'mon, hippies didn't read Esquire magazine or newspapers.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 02:16 AM   #2063
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Irony

SCOTT: The irony of Henriboy's insistence that wig hair was found in Colette's hairbrush is that he is unwittingly presenting a documented fact. A synthetic blond fiber found in the SAME hairbrush that contained the 3 saran fibers matched a blond fall or wig owned by Colette.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 02:52 AM   #2064
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
OK, Henri, there's a wig hair. So what?! As JTF has pointed out repeatedly, that doesn't provide any evidence of "intruders", let alone proof they were there on the night in question. Even if that one hair was from a different doll, that still doesn't prove anything about that night. Maybe some other girl used the MacD's family hair brush with her doll.

As to the candle wax, the fact that 3 drippings were found removes them from consideration as evidence, since Stoeckley would certainly not have had enough time to burn 3 candles between ~2:20AM and 3:10AM.

Finally, as to claims this was some type of copycat of some Manson slayings ("Pig", etc.), again there is absolutely no evidence that Stoeckley, or Mitchell, knew anything about the Manson murders, let alone that they admired or emulated him or his followers. C'mon, hippies didn't read Esquire magazine or newspapers.
It's not a question of "maybe" or Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be, or your personal opinion about burning of candle wax. I can't quite remember when MacDonald, or any of his lawyers mentioned the Manson murders. It's the MacMurderer crowd who always seem to mention this matter, like they keep bringing up the "acid is groovy" as though that is evidence of guilt. It was a coincidence.

The trigger happy American police might not know this, but fibers at a murder scene with NO known source are technically known as EVIDENCE under the rules of evidence and procedures. I know Kassab, and Colette's mother later introduced this theory about blonde fibers coming from Colette's fall to deflect the accusation, but Kassab, like McGinniss, invented a lot of things in the MacDonald case. Those relevant blonde fibers came from Helena Stoeckley's blonde wig.

This is what the MacDonald lawyer Bisceglie had to say about it in 1989:

“It demonstrates that Murtagh had concluded pre-trial that the handwritten bench notes were highly exculpatory and would have been material in producing a verdict of acquittal.

The first memorandum in the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution memo, which, in analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both the prosecution and defense cases concluded that unmatched hairs found in Colette MacDonald’s right hand “would aid the defense”. Clearly the discovery in particular of unmatched black wool fibers on Colette’s body and on the wooden club murder weapon, long blond wig hairs, in addition to other unmatched hairs and fibers would have more than merely “aided” the defense; it would have steamrolled the prosecution case.”
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 01:37 PM   #2065
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Hypocrite

HENRIBOY: Let me get this straight. You are the ONLY poster who can present possibilities or your own personal opinion in regards to the facts of this case? Ah, no. I'm not going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:32 AM   #2066
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
It was NOT a wig that the fiber matched. the dark fiber matched a hair piece owned by Mildred the blonde fiber matched a fall belonging to Colette. Maybe guys don't realize the difference between a cosmetic WIG and a hair piece/fall, but there IS a difference and the hair that matched Colette's FALL may have been made of saran but that doesn't make it a WIG. A WIG is a full head of hair, a fall is just a piece that can be pinned or glued onto your own hair to make your hair longer or fuller. Doesn't make them a wig. THERE WERE NO COSMETIC WIGS MADE OF SARAN AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. IF such a wig existed we'd have heard about it by now - the mannequin wig located by the defense in an Anthropology Museum in Mexico ALSO IS NOT a cosmetic wig.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 07:54 AM   #2067
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
The trouble is the theory of the perfection of English justice is humbug and it's just the same with American justice. Guilty people go free while innocent people get convicted. There is the great official principle of sticking to a mistake through thick and thin. There needs to be some way for innocent people to get out of prison. The judges need to pull their socks up and something needs to be done about media campaigns against innocent people, like the Joe McGinniss media campaign in the MacDonald case.

There was a notorious criminal in the UK called John Palmer who was involved in huge gold robberies in the past. He even had contact with shady Russian oligarchs. He lived in a huge house and he was said to be as rich as the Queen. He was acquitted by a corrupt jury and police and prosecutors, and others, for the gold robberies in the past and he eventually after many years spent four years in prison for a huge time share scam and fraud in Spain. The thing that interested me was that it came out recently that Palmer had been bugged for sixteen years by a remote RAF listening post. Palmer was shot dead at his house in Essex by persons unknown last year.

I think the same thing could be done to Mazerolle and others, like Dwight Smith and Don Harris and Bruce Fowler in the MacDonald case.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th September 2016 at 09:17 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 09:02 AM   #2068
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Red Herrings

HENRIBOY: Spouting red herrings is a subtle or not so subtle way to avoid my simple and direct challenge. Produce a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a specific suspect not named Jeffrey MacDonald or spout your special brand of nonsense on another thread.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 02:33 AM   #2069
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
These North Carolina judges and their bad courts have come in for criticism before. Jeff MacDonald never had a fair trial and it was a gross miscarriage of justice:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...l_regulator_nc
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 07:53 AM   #2070
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Still Waiting

HENRIBOY: Last time I checked, appellate court judges have no expertise in DNA, hair, fiber, or print analysis. Produce a lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a specific suspect not named Jeffrey MacDonald or spout your special brand of nonsense on another thread.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 01:07 PM   #2071
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
henri STILL hasn't even tried to answer JTF's question but he sure has TRIED to misdirect the attention to his special brand of nonsense. roflmao
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2016, 03:54 AM   #2072
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
There have been other gross miscarriages of justice in North Carolina besides the Jeffrey MacDonald case. This is one example on the internet:

"The convictions of two mentally disabled half-brothers were vacated and the two men were ordered released by Superior Court Judge Douglas Sasser in North Carolina on Tuesday. They were freed from prison Wednesday. Henry Lee McCollum, 50, had been on death row for 30 years, longer than anyone else in North Carolina history. He and Leon Brown, 46, who was serving a life sentence, were convicted for the 1983 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. DNA evidence implicated another man, a known sex offender the police had not investigated, despite the fact that he lived next to the crime scene. McCollum and Brown were 19 and 15 at the time local police were investigating the murder of Sabrina Buie. Both confessed to the crime after lengthy police interrogations. They recanted shortly after—in fact McCollum has recanted 226 times—but were convicted, largely on the basis of the false confessions, even though no physical evidence connected them to the crime scene. Police also hid exculpatory evidence for years.

Dahlia Lithwick
DAHLIA LITHWICK
Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate, and hosts the podcast Amicus.

A cigarette found at the crime scene now implicates a man who lived a block away from the soybean field where the girl’s body was found. He is currently serving a life sentence for a rape and murder that happened less than a month after Buie’s rape and murder.

The two teenagers signed confessions after hours of coercive police interrogation, under the erroneous belief that they’d be allowed to go home afterward. Both have since always maintained their innocence, filing various appeals over the intervening decades. It wasn’t until 2010, when the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission came into the case, that the evidence was re-examined seriously. In July, the DNA on the cigarette butt found at the crime scene was revealed to match the DNA of the known sex offender. This led to Tuesday’s extraordinary release order.

This case highlights the same well-known and extensively documented problems that can lead to false arrests and convictions: Police who are incentivized to find any suspect quickly, rather than the right one carefully; false confessions elicited after improper questioning; exculpatory evidence never turned over; the prosecution of vulnerable, mentally ill, or very young suspects in ways that take advantage of their innocence rather than protecting it; prosecutorial zeal that has far more to do with the pursuit of victories than the pursuit of truth; and a death penalty appeals system that treats this entire screwed-up process of investigation and conviction as both conclusive and unreviewable."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th October 2016 at 03:58 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2016, 04:17 AM   #2073
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,105
Nice misdirection there, shame if no one was to pay attention to it.

Now answer JTF`s question.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2016, 05:28 AM   #2074
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Nice misdirection there, shame if no one was to pay attention to it.

Now answer JTF`s question.
What Border Reiver said!!!!!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2016, 02:28 PM   #2075
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Documentation

HENRIBOY: You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that I will drop the challenge. Spouting debunked claims or attempting to connect the dots on unrelated cases have no bearing on the singular focus of my challenge. You make bold claims about the Stoeckley Group being inside 544 Castle Drive and slaughtering 3 people, yet you haven't produced a single lab document that corroborates your hollow boasts. Be a big boy and back up your chatter with sourced trace evidence or kindly present your disjointed rants on another thread.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 04:47 AM   #2076
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that I will drop the challenge. Spouting debunked claims or attempting to connect the dots on unrelated cases have no bearing on the singular focus of my challenge. You make bold claims about the Stoeckley Group being inside 544 Castle Drive and slaughtering 3 people, yet you haven't produced a single lab document that corroborates your hollow boasts. Be a big boy and back up your chatter with sourced trace evidence or kindly present your disjointed rants on another thread.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com


come on henri step up to the plate or go away!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 02:13 AM   #2077
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,109
Well what happens now? I suppose we wait another several months while Judge Fox with his senile dementia and corrupt bias declares in some kind of legal document that he is sticking to a mistake through thick and thin, and that he is sticking to the wrong verdict, while Mazerolle and his pals are getting away with murder.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 11:30 PM   #2078
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Still Waiting

What happens now? That's easy. The 4th Circuit Court has to determine whether your hero gets another bite of the apple. For the time being, Judge Fox has no direct involvement in the decision-making process, so your Judge Fox rant is a waste of time and devoid of logic.

The 4th Circuit has no time limit for when they make their decision, but unlike you, they WILL provide documentation to back their conclusions. Still waiting on that lab document that sources trace evidence to a known intruder suspect. Your attempts at distraction are useless for my challenge has a lifetime guarantee.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 06:37 AM   #2079
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
What happens now? That's easy. The 4th Circuit Court has to determine whether your hero gets another bite of the apple. For the time being, Judge Fox has no direct involvement in the decision-making process, so your Judge Fox rant is a waste of time and devoid of logic.

The 4th Circuit has no time limit for when they make their decision, but unlike you, they WILL provide documentation to back their conclusions. Still waiting on that lab document that sources trace evidence to a known intruder suspect. Your attempts at distraction are useless for my challenge has a lifetime guarantee.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
still waiting for henri to answer the challenge or admit he was/is wrong and go away......actually, if he just went away I'd be fine with that too!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 02:18 PM   #2080
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 858
Timeline

IMO, the 4th Circuit Court is comfortable with waiting several months before denying inmate relief. I believe that their decision will not come until January or February of next year. Despite Joey Z's attempts to make this decision a complex one, the sole issue revolves around whether there is reversible error to be found in Judge Fox's two decisions.

Considering that the 4th Circuit Court provided Judge Fox with a road map (e.g., evidence as a whole, evidentiary hearing) that Judge Fox followed to a tee, I don't see how the 4th Circuit can conjure up any examples of reversible error.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.