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 10th December 2017, 10:22 PM   #3401
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Please produce the evidence that Beasley's recollections and suppositions are correct. Otherwise they are just that: recollections and suppositions, not supported by the evidence, and something we should give little credence to.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Beasley's daughter once posted on the internet that her father knew what happened in the MacDonald case but he was not believed.
I asked for *evidence* Henri. Not hearsay. Beasley's daughter's opinion is not evidence.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The problem with all this is that the documentation has vanished
Or it never existed in the first place. In either case, this is an admission by you that you don't have any evidence you can produce to support the claim you made.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I believe by Murtagh and Blackburn.
Your belief system troubles me not in the least. You already admitted you have no evidence.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle was due to appear in court at the time of the MacDonald murders but he never did appear.
Sorry, repeating the assertion you can't prove doesn't make it more true. You already admitted you have no evidence of this.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That should raise alarm bells even with amateur lawyers.
That you post unproven assertions? No, I'm pretty much inured to that by now.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
By the way, most people in America think JFK was bumped off by the CIA.
Actually, that's just another false claim by you. I'd invite you to the JFK forum on this board to debate that, and ask you to post your evidence, but we both know you won't, because you have no evidence of that.

And of course, it goes without saying that you're just trying to change the subject because you cannot provide any evidence to establish your claim.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is some hard evidence that Detective Beasley was due to testify in court at the time of the MacDonald murders but he never did, and you can't say that he did :

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...a_beasley.html
This establishes that Mazerolle was in custody, doesn't it? What's the point of requiring Beasley to appear and testify against the defendant if the defendant isn't in custody and able to appear in court to hear the testimony against him and mount a defense?

So you lose. You just provided evidence that your chief suspect was in custody on the day of the murders.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th December 2017 at 10:33 PM.
HSienzant 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 10th December 2017, 10:29 PM   #3402
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle was actually sentenced about a year after the murders which is very odd. That was 1971, not 1970 when the murders took place...
More to the point, it appears Mazerolle was released on bond on March 10th, 1970. That means he was in jail on the night of the murders.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ance_bond.html

Thanks for the link.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant 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 December 2017, 06:24 AM   #3403
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
roflmao! talk about Cuckoo in the Cuckoo's Nest henri....BRIAN IS NOT JTF's name, never has been his name......

I don't recall ever seeing a point by point salient rebuttal by Ken Adachi! JTF did I miss it?
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 11th December 2017, 07:52 AM   #3404
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
Fake Bravado

BYN: Adachi never answered BRIAN'S point by point destruction of Gunderson's conspiracy narrative. Since the documented record is at odds with 90 percent of Gunderson's long-winded report, Adachi was relegated to hurling grade school insults at BRIAN and engaging in hollow boasting.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 11th December 2017 at 07:53 AM.
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 December 2017, 08:12 AM   #3405
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
BYN: Adachi never answered BRIAN'S point by point destruction of Gunderson's conspiracy narrative. Since the documented record is at odds with 90 percent of Gunderson's long-winded report, Adachi was relegated to hurling grade school insults at BRIAN and engaging in hollow boasting.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That is what I figured. The FACTS are on the side of those of us who can make salient, well thought out argument and not on the side of the ridiculous "used to be a document on the internet" and "I think/feel" irrational trains of thought types......
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 11th December 2017, 10:04 AM   #3406
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
BYN: Adachi never answered BRIAN'S point by point destruction of Gunderson's conspiracy narrative. Since the documented record is at odds with 90 percent of Gunderson's long-winded report, Adachi was relegated to hurling grade school insults at BRIAN and engaging in hollow boasting.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Brian sounds like JTF to me. I suppose he could have been JTF's father but it's the same sort of writing style.

Mazerolle says he was in jail until March 10th 1970, but there is no documentation to back that up apart from that silly little piece of forged paper that appears on the internet. All the court records and police records, and most of the jail records, have vanished.

Detective Beasley thought he was out of jail on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders, and Helena Stoeckley certainly thought that as well. That gave Mazerolle the perfect false alibi. Mazerolle never appeared in court when he was due to appear in court at the time of the MacDonald murders, but he did appear in court about a year later to face the initial drug charges after the heat had died down, and the focus was then only on MacDonald.

Surely there must have been witnesses to back up Mazerolle's story that he was in jail till March 10th 1970? The judges are being absurdly credulous about this matter.

This is what Ken Adachi thought about the MacDonald case. He mentions a timeline of the case as well, which JTF keeps harping on about:

Quote:
No individual in the history of this country has been more thoroughly abused by judicial misconduct than Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. The American public must come to know the true facts surrounding this case and realize the gravity of the crime perpetuated against him by those responsible for his railroading. The man is INNOCENT and always has been. A chronology of the events surrounding the MacDonald case can see seen at this link: http://educate-yourself.org/jm/macdo...timeline.shtml
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 11th December 2017, 12:08 PM   #3407
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
since JTF HAS A WEBSITE that discusses THIS CASE and he openly uses his own name on that website, even someone with as limited research and comprehension skills as yourself henri, should be able to determine that JTF IS NOT BRIAN. perhaps you think they sound alike because they point out the same facts that YOU and Ken Adachi ignore?

When it comes to this case Ken Adachi obviously does not know a thing about this case since inmate is guilty, and has been PROVED GUILTY by a court of law.
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 11th December 2017, 12:41 PM   #3408
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
In henri world, certified true copies of the paperwork associated with being "bonded out" is silly and can be ignored. IN THE REAL WORLD THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES ARE PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT ALLEN M. WAS IN JAIL UNTIL MARCH 10 AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS.

Of course, also in the real world even inmate, Mrs. Inmate, and the rotating band of lawyers have all conceded that Allen M was in jail on 2/17/70 and that he is not a suspect.
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 11th December 2017, 01:21 PM   #3409
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Question:

In this TV documentary, at the 17:40 mark, there's an image of Freddie and Mildred Kassab sitting on a bed holding a life-sized child's doll that appears to be about the size of a two or three year old child.

https://www.investigationdiscoverygo...d-the-accused/

That doll has blonde hair.

So,
1. Was this doll owned by the MacDonald family and was it in their home during or before the murders?

2. Could this doll have contributed the blonde fiber that elsewhere in the documentary Dr. Cyril Wecht claims came from a blonde wig?

3. Has any attempt by the defense or prosecution ever been made to track down an identical doll from the same manufacturer and determine if the fibers from the doll match the fiber retrieved from the MacDonald household?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant 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 December 2017, 02:28 PM   #3410
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle says he was in jail until March 10th 1970, but there is no documentation to back that up apart from that silly little piece of forged paper that appears on the internet.
Wait, what? You mean the silly piece of paper to which YOU gave me the link in this post?
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Sorry, I'm not impressed by arguments that links are okay when you cite them but invalid and forgeries when I cite them.

In addition, you level the claim that the document is forged. Can you cite for that claim? Where and when was that established?

Or is this just another assertion by you of things you believe but cannot prove?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Detective Beasley thought he was out of jail on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders
Asked and answered. We've established the paperwork shows otherwise, and what Beasley recalled years later doesn't make a difference.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Surely there must have been witnesses to back up Mazerolle's story that he was in jail till March 10th 1970?
Huh? The case has been tried and MacDonald has been found guilty. No one needs to disprove your arguments by finding witnesses to Mazerolle being in jail until March 10th, 1970. That's what the documentation says. You need to establish the documentation is a forgery. You've already claimed it, now you just need to post the evidence supporting it.

Hint: Recollections by a detective years after the fact and by a drug-addled hippie aren't going to overturn the documentation. Show the forgery.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is what Ken Adachi thought about the MacDonald case.
Dude! I've pointed out before nobody cares about your thoughts on the matter. What's pertinent is what the evidence indicates. Nobody cares about what some post named Ken Adachi thinks about the case either.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He mentions a timeline of the case as well, which JTF keeps harping on about:
Although I don't want to speak for JTF, I'm pretty sure JTF means a timeline of the night of the murders, and explanations for things like how MacDonald's bloody footprints appear where they do, not a timeline that covers the night of the murders in this fashion:

February 17, 1970 --- Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen are murdered in the family apartment.

See here: http://educate-yourself.org/jm/macdo...timeline.shtml

That's not exactly a lot of detail.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th December 2017 at 03:02 PM.
HSienzant 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 December 2017, 02:56 PM   #3411
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
Prosaic Explanation

HS: A few months after the conclusion of the Article 32 Hearing, MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items and all but one of the dolls owned by Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. The large doll in the photograph was the lone existing doll exemplar in this case. The photograph was taken in 1990, and included in a People Magazine article on the case.

The issue of the synthetic fibers was first broached in 1989, by the MacDonald Defense Team. They filed multiple briefs to Judge Dupree and argued that the source of the blonde fibers was a cosmetic wig once owned by Helena Stoeckley. The defense knew that Stoeckley claimed she had burned her wig in 1970, but that didn't deter them from making this evidentiary claim.

In 1990, the FBI compared hairs from the lone doll exemplar to 5 blonde fibers found in two hairbrushes. None of the 5 fibers matched hairs from that doll, but 2 of the 5 fibers were sourced to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald. Two dark synthetic hairs found in one of the two hairbrushes were unsourced, but even the defense agreed that the likely source was a dark wig once owned by Mildred Kassab.

That left the 3 blonde saran fibers found in a hairbrush in the dining room. One of the fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection and 1 of the 3 fibers differed in chemical composition. This indicated two separate sources for the three fibers. The defense has never argued that two home invaders wore cosmetic wigs, so they were forced to remain laser focused on the tenuous connection to Stoeckley.

Since 1989, the defense has attempted to prove that at the time of the murders, cosmetic saran wigs were manufactured in the United States. The best they could come up with was a dark saran wig used on exhibits in a museum in New Mexico. This type of evidence did not come close to passing muster with Judge Dupree and/or the 4th Circuit Court.

The most likely explanation for the three unsourced blonde fibers was Kimmie and/or Kristen brushing two separate dolls with their mother's hairbrush. In the 1990 People Magazine article, Freddy Kassab pointed out the fact that the MacDonald children owned over 20 dolls. He added that this prosaic explanation made far more sense than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the commission of a triple homicide.

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

Last edited by JTF; 11th December 2017 at 03:10 PM.
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 December 2017, 04:09 PM   #3412
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HS: A few months after the conclusion of the Article 32 Hearing, MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items and all but one of the dolls owned by Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. The large doll in the photograph was the lone existing doll exemplar in this case. The photograph was taken in 1990, and included in a People Magazine article on the case.

The issue of the synthetic fibers was first broached in 1989, by the MacDonald Defense Team. They filed multiple briefs to Judge Dupree and argued that the source of the blonde fibers was a cosmetic wig once owned by Helena Stoeckley. The defense knew that Stoeckley claimed she had burned her wig in 1970, but that didn't deter them from making this evidentiary claim.

In 1990, the FBI compared hairs from the lone doll exemplar to 5 blonde fibers found in two hairbrushes. None of the 5 fibers matched hairs from that doll, but 2 of the 5 fibers were sourced to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald. Two dark synthetic hairs found in one of the two hairbrushes were unsourced, but even the defense agreed that the likely source was a dark wig once owned by Mildred Kassab.

That left the 3 blonde saran fibers found in a hairbrush in the dining room. One of the fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection and 1 of the 3 fibers differed in chemical composition. This indicated two separate sources for the three fibers. The defense has never argued that two home invaders wore cosmetic wigs, so they were forced to remain laser focused on the tenuous connection to Stoeckley.

Since 1989, the defense has attempted to prove that at the time of the murders, cosmetic saran wigs were manufactured in the United States. The best they could come up with was a dark saran wig used on exhibits in a museum in New Mexico. This type of evidence did not come close to passing muster with Judge Dupree and/or the 4th Circuit Court.

The most likely explanation for the three unsourced blonde fibers was Kimmie and/or Kristen brushing two separate dolls with their mother's hairbrush. In the 1990 People Magazine article, Freddy Kassab pointed out the fact that the MacDonald children owned over 20 dolls. He added that this prosaic explanation made far more sense than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the commission of a triple homicide.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...se_claims.html
Thanks much!
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant 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 December 2017, 06:55 PM   #3413
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Brian sounds like JTF to me. I suppose he could have been JTF's father but it's the same sort of writing style.

Snipped
A functioning adult would apologize to JTF for making the false assertion.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who's life seems to revolve around defending a scumbag that murdered his wife and kids wouldn't have the character to apologize to someone they've wronged.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 December 2017, 06:40 AM   #3414
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Question:

In this TV documentary, at the 17:40 mark, there's an image of Freddie and Mildred Kassab sitting on a bed holding a life-sized child's doll that appears to be about the size of a two or three year old child.

https://www.investigationdiscoverygo...d-the-accused/

That doll has blonde hair.

So,
1. Was this doll owned by the MacDonald family and was it in their home during or before the murders?
Yes

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
2. Could this doll have contributed the blonde fiber that elsewhere in the documentary Dr. Cyril Wecht claims came from a blonde wig?
The blonde fibers do not match this particular doll wig. However, as much as Dr. Wecht's claims allowed the defense to muddy the waters, he is technically correct that it came from a wig, a doll wig, but a wig nonetheless. I do not know if it is still common, but in the 1970s doll hair was called "the wig" and I had numerous dolls then and loved finding out about them.

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
3. Has any attempt by the defense or prosecution ever been made to track down an identical doll from the same manufacturer and determine if the fibers from the doll match the fiber retrieved from the MacDonald household?
Hank
There are numerous dolls that were available in the 1970s that had wigs made with Saran fibers. The Revlon Sweet Sue doll was one that had Saran fibers and was available in the 1960s.

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/sarannet/en/dollhair.html

nice info on saran doll hair

As for use in cosmetic wigs, I personally don't believe they used saran in 1960s/1970s for them because you could not make a tow fiber which was essential in the manufacture of cosmetic wigs in that era. the mannequin wig the defense found in Mexico was not cosmetic, was not meant to be washed and restyled and also as far as I am aware did not have a tow fiber. I doubt many would realize there is a distinct difference between mannequin wigs, costume wigs, doll wigs, and cosmetic wigs. From experience I can say they are NOT interchangeable....
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 December 2017, 09:43 AM   #3415
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Question:

3. Has any attempt by the defense or prosecution ever been made to track down an identical doll from the same manufacturer and determine if the fibers from the doll match the fiber retrieved from the MacDonald household?

Hank
That was forensic fraud by Malone of the FBI lab whose integrity has been questioned in the past in other murder cases. Malone said the mystery blonde synthetic hair-like fibers with no known source came from MacDonald dolls when in fact they came from Helena Stoeckley's wig. Similarly Malone said the black wool fibers with no known source on the wooden club murder weapon murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and on her biceps came from household debris. That's ridiculous. All this was illegally withheld from the defense and the jury at the 1979 trial by Murtagh.

It's possible wig hairs manufactured in America do not have similar qualities but those wigs worn by Helena now come from the Far East, or Mexico.

This is a quote from the internet about the matter:

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...ld-murder-case

Quote:
Earlier, evidence came to light that a FBI forensic examiner mislead the jury about synthetic hair evidence. MacDonald claimed the hairs were from the wig of one of the murders, but the forensic examiner incorrectly claimed they were from one of the children’s dolls.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th December 2017 at 09:49 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 12th December 2017, 03:51 PM   #3416
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
Same Old Song

The "forensic fraud" ploy is an old chestnut that the landlord has used for the past 13 years on multiple true crime forums. Considering that the ploy is fantasy driven, I'll stick to the errors contained in the landlord's weak rebuttal to several recent posts.

- The 4th Circuit Court concluded that defense claims regarding Malone's hair/fiber analysis IN THIS CASE lacked merit.

- Malone did NOT conclude that the 3 saran fibers were sourced to a doll(s) owned by the MacDonald family.

- This would have been an impossible task for all but 1 of the 20 plus dolls owned by the MacDonald family were discarded by inmate in 1970.

- Malone simply used side by side microscopic comparisons to PROVE that the 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

- The defense never challenged this microscopic comparison and attempted an end run around this DEFINITIVE conclusion by arguing that the fiber was too long to have come from a doll.

- It is not a "fact" that the source of the saran fibers was a wig owned by Stoeckley. The defense couldn't even prove that Stoeckley owned a wig as evidenced by the FACT that Stoeckley's description of the wig varied and that it was entirely possible that the wig in question was actually owned by Stoeckley roommate Kathy Smith.

- The landlord either doesn't understand or hates the word "sourced" for it undercuts ALL of his hair/fiber arguments. It is impossible to source a hair/fiber/fingerprint/fabric impression without an existing exemplar or a "known" to compare it to.

- The 4th Circuit Court ruled that the government did not knowingly withhold evidence in this case. This includes unsourced fiber evidence that the defense clings to for dear life. The government has pointed out in several briefs that the 1979 jury heard about a number of unsourced evidentiary items, yet still voted to convict inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 12th December 2017 at 03:59 PM.
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 13th December 2017, 04:25 AM   #3417
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Just because Malone of the FBI lab says those
unsourced blonde synthetic came from dolls is not evidence.
He needs to present that theory without facts evidence to a court and have it checked by a reputable forensic lab.

This is what Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree said about the matter with regard to the 1991/2 appeal and it's bullcrap:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal.../1342/1605241/

Quote:
Here, it is undisputed that MacDonald was given unfettered access to the physical evidence. Pursuant to a June 19, 1979 order of this court, all of the government's physical evidence was made available to Dr. John Thornton, a forensic expert retained by MacDonald. Thornton made no *1354 effort to examine the hair and fiber evidence currently at issue, choosing instead to concentrate on MacDonald's pajama top, the sheets from the master bedroom, floor boards containing a bloody footprint, and cuttings from the surgical rubber glove fragments. Affidavit of Murtagh at 25. MacDonald now argues that Thornton would have had no reason to look at the fiber evidence since its significance was hidden by the suppression of the lab notes and the fact that the box containing the blond synthetic fibers from the clear-handled hairbrush was labeled "black, black & grey [illegible] synthetic hairs." However, the fact remains that Thornton, for whatever reason, chose not to examine any of the fiber evidence, despite being given an opportunity to do so.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th December 2017 at 04:29 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 13th December 2017, 05:27 AM   #3418
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Your unevidenced assertion is irrelevant to the discussion.

And the quote you selected goes a long way to demonstrating that you have NOTHING but unevidenced assertions.
__________________
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 13th December 2017, 06:03 AM   #3419
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...Malone of the FBI lab ... said the mystery blonde synthetic hair-like fibers with no known source came from MacDonald dolls when in fact they came from Helena Stoeckley's wig.
So the FBI expert who testified in court said it came from doll's hair ('Malone of the FBI lab ... said the mystery blonde synthetic hair-like fibers ... came from MacDonald dolls...').

Your basis for saying otherwise (...'in fact they came from Helena Stoeckley's wig') is whose expert opinion?

Especially since you contradict yourself and say it had 'no known source'.

Or are you just making assertions with no basis in fact?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th December 2017 at 06:15 AM.
HSienzant 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 13th December 2017, 06:10 AM   #3420
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Just because Malone of the FBI lab says those unsourced blonde synthetic came from dolls is not evidence.
Actually it is.

All expert testimony is evidence. And in fact, experts are the only people allowed by law to express an opinion in a court case.

Eyewitnesses are restricted to testifying only about what they personally observed and are restricted from testifying about the conclusions they drew or what others said they saw (hearsay rule).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702

So Malone's testimony is evidence. Evidence you are ignoring.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th December 2017 at 06:16 AM.
HSienzant 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 13th December 2017, 06:10 AM   #3421
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Comparisons against the FBI Exemplar Collection does indeed prove that the synthetic "saran" fiber was from a doll. Perhaps the landlord doesn't understand what an exemplar collection is and/or how it is used. In this instance, every toy/doll maker in the US (and likely from many other countries) submits an example of doll wigs. So, when they created Chatty Kathy (for example) the make up of her wig was standardized and then a "swatch" or "sample" was made-up and attached to an identification card with the manufacturer, doll name, creation date, chemical make-up, color or colors it is made in, and I believe in some instances it might list whether it is single loop, double loop, removable or growing.....

and yes, Chatty Kathy was my first doll so I fondly remember her name.....
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 13th December 2017, 08:31 AM   #3422
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
Fantasy World

In the landlord's fantasy world, the forensic analysis of an expert witness is only viable if that witness agrees with his layman's interpretation of that evidence. In essence, he creates an alternate universe where opinion trumps fact and the documented record takes a backseat to unproven conspiracy theories.

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 13th December 2017, 08:37 AM   #3423
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
KISS

The late, great Peter Kearns was a proponent of the KISS philosophy. He applied it to every aspect of this case. In terms of the saran fiber issue, I will keep it simple stupid.

During the 1990 and 1992 appellate process, Jeffrey MacDonald's lawyers argued that three saran fibers found at the crime scene was evidence of a wig-wearing intruder. Intruder suspect Helena Stoeckley made several post-trial statements claiming that she wore her wig to 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. Stoeckley, however, testified under oath at the 1979 trial that she wasn't wearing her wig on the night of the murders.

The three saran fibers were 24, 22, and nine inches in length. All three fibers were found in a clear-handled hairbrush located in the dining room next to Colette's purse. In 1974, Paul Stombaugh analyzed these three fibers, and labeled them as FBI Exhibits Q46 and Q49. Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

In 1990, FBI Special Agent Robert Webb analyzed the fibers and concluded that the 24-inch and nine-inch saran fibers differed in chemical composition to the 22-inch saran fiber. This indicated that the three saran fibers came from two different source materials. In terms of dolls being the source material for the three saran fibers, Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection, and Kimberley had several dolls of her own.

In 1990, hair and fiber expert Michael Malone matched the 24-inch saran fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the saran fibers matched any wig exemplar in the FBI's reference collection. There were also two platinum-colored synthetic hairs found in hairbrushes at the crime scene and Malone matched these synthetic hairs to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald.

In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a post-argument letter to MacDonald's defense team. In regards to Malone's fiber analysis, the government stated that "Examiner Malone added that standard references that he had consulted do not reflect the use of saran fibers in human cosmetic wigs." The letter also addressed the claim that the 22-inch and the 24-inch saran fibers were too long to be doll hair. The government stated that "doll hair is doubled or looped when placed in the skull of a doll. A 22-inch fiber, therefore, is consistent with an 11-inch hair strand on a doll. Appellant has never attempted to rebut this explanation."

Unfortunately, there were no doll exemplars available for comparison purposes due to the fact that Kristen's and Kimberley's doll collections were discarded after the Article 32 hearings. In a 1990 People magazine article, Freddy Kassab addressed this issue and stated that Kimberley or Kristen brushing their dolls hair with the clear-handled hairbrush was a far more logical scenario than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the course of a home invasion.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...se_claims.html
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 13th December 2017, 09:25 AM   #3424
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Actually it is.

All expert testimony is evidence. And in fact, experts are the only people allowed by law to express an opinion in a court case.

Hank
I know that. The point is that neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were qualified to testify on fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald. You can't just take the word for it from Malone that those blonde synthetic hair like fibers came from dolls. He could have been making it up. It's not scientifically reliable. There needs to be supporting evidence.

This is some background information about Malone from the New York Post:

Quote:
Justice Department and FBI officials didn’t answer questions from The Post about how many background checks Malone performed or why he was re-hired.

Although he was never disciplined and got to retire with a pension, Malone’s criminal forensics work has come under heavy scrutiny by investigators – including his involvement in a case that sent former DC resident Donald Gates to prison for 28 years for a murder he didn’t commit.

“Malone’s faulty analysis and scientifically unsupportable testimony contributed to the conviction of an innocent defendant” and at least five other convictions that were later reversed, the IG wrote in its report, released last week.
Malone testified at trial that one of Gates’ hairs scientifically matched one found on the body of Georgetown University student Catherine Schilling, 21. DNA evidence later proved him to be wrong
.
His testimony before a judicial inquiry of Florida federal Judge Alcee Hastings was also found to be off base. Malone testified that he conducted a “tensile” test on a piece of evidence – a purse strap. It was later revealed he didn’t do the test.

Independent scientists found 96 percent of Malone’s caseload to be “problematic” for reasons such as making statements that “had no scientific basis.” Contrary to normal standards, Malone produced lab notes that were “in pencil and not dated.”

The prior IG investigation found Malone testified “outside his expertise and inaccurately” and cited him for misconduct.
Malone denied any wrongdoing.
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 13th December 2017, 11:59 AM   #3425
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I know that. The point is that neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were qualified to testify on fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald.
THE POINT IS henri that YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE IF SOMEONE WAS QUALIFIED. JUDGE DUPREE ACCEPTED STOMBAUGH AS AN EXPERT THUS HE WAS QUALIFIED. NOT TO MENTION THAT THE DEFENSE EXPERT Thorton AGREED WITH STOMBAUGH'S CONCLUSIONS IN LARGE PART. So, using YOUR reasoning Thorton was not qualified either.....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't just take the word for it from Malone that those blonde synthetic hair like fibers came from dolls. He could have been making it up. It's not scientifically reliable. There needs to be supporting evidence.
Actually, Malone's conclusion in re "the saran fibers" is scientifically reliable. Malone compared the fibers to the exemplars in the FBI collection. That means he MATCHED the fiber to fibers that were in/at the FBI Lab. It is obvious that you do not understand what an exemplar collection is and that you ignored my post explaining it. It is safe to say that you are not qualified to discuss this case because you routinely ignore the most basic factually information and substitute your fallible inane ridiculous unsupportable conclusions.
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 13th December 2017, 03:34 PM   #3426
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Just because Malone of the FBI lab says those unsourced blonde synthetic came from dolls is not evidence.
snipped
It's far better evidence than your "I read this on the internet" school of evidentiary presentation.

You just make up your "evidence" as you go along. At least Malone had actual training in the field
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 13th December 2017, 06:20 PM   #3427
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
Case Closed

At the time he was assigned to this case, Michael Malone was considered to be the best hair/fiber expert in the United States. He microscopically compared the longest of the saran fibers to doll hair in the FBI's massive exemplar collection. Photographs were taken of the comparisons and he determined that they matched. The defense has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER challenged Malone's conclusion.

Similar to the blood stain analysis (e.g., pajama top pocket) put forth by Terry Laber at the 1979 trial, the defense team's silence regarding Malone's microscopic fiber comparisons speaks volumes.

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

As I stated in a prior post, 16 years prior to Malone's microscopic analysis of the saran fibers, Paul Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc." In 1974, Stombaugh was considered to be the best hair/fiber expert in the United States and despite being aware of Stombaugh's conclusions, the defense DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT question his analysis of the unsourced saran fibers.

The FACT that the 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition to the 24 and nine inch saran fiber indicates the 22 inch fiber came from a separate source. The defense has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER claimed that there were two wig-wearing hippie home invaders.

In its totality, the evidence points to one conclusion and one conclusion only. Kimmie and/or Kristen used their mother's hairbrush to brush the hair of two dolls from their respective collections. This makes far more sense than two-wig wearing home invaders deciding to brush their wigs as the target of their home invasion is being attacked in the next room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th December 2017 at 06:44 PM.
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 14th December 2017, 12:38 AM   #3428
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I know that. The point is that neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were qualified to testify on fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald. <snip>:
Uh, I realize this might be above your pay grade, but evidence is simply presented - the jury does the conviction based upon the evidence. And the judge decides whether or not a person is qualified to testify, not you. You repeating your ill-informed opinion that people are not qualified is irrelevant to the nth degree.
desmirelle 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 14th December 2017, 03:31 AM   #3429
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
There is a bit about expert witnesses at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

Quote:
The expert has a great responsibility, and especially in penal trials, and perjury by an expert is a severely punished crime in most countries.

The use of expert witnesses is sometimes criticized in the United States because in civil trials, they are often used by both sides to advocate differing positions, and it is left up to a jury to decide which expert witness to believe.

Although experts are legally prohibited from expressing their opinion of submitted evidence until after they are hired, sometimes a party can surmise beforehand, because of reputation or prior cases, that the testimony will be favorable regardless of any basis in the submitted data; such experts are commonly disparaged as "hired guns."
Has any judge ever weighed or examined Malone's so-called evidence that the blonde synthetic hair like fibers came from dolls, or was Malone making it up as usual? Malone has been described in another murder case by a defense lawyer as a total liar.

Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree had no right to allow Stombaugh and Shirley Green to testify at the trial in a field which was outside their field of expertise. In sport if you break the rules of evidence and procedure you can be severely punished. In law a mistrial is declared, except by the goons in the 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th December 2017 at 03:36 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 14th December 2017, 05:12 AM   #3430
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Once again henri totally ignores the facts and tries to re-repeat the same nonsensical comments. Malone was an expert in fiber analysis, he examined the fibers and compared them to exemplars in the FBI collection and found a match. HOWEVER, as accurate as THAT FACT IS, the FACT REMAINS that the 3 fibers came from TWO SEPARATE SOURCES. Thus the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT Kimmie or Kristy brushed their dolls hair with their mother's hairbrush. Try and understand these simple facts henri:
1. 2 separate sources for the saran fibers
2. nobody has ever claimed there were 2 wig wearing intruders
3. it is beyond illogical to think that ANY wig wearing intruder would have stopped to brush their wig with a hairbrush found in the home

it really is the most simple thing.....unsourced equals useless forensically speaking and ALL THE SOURCED EVIDENCE POINTS TO INMATE AS THE SOLE PERP, 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 14th December 2017, 10:59 AM   #3431
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Similar to the blood stain analysis (e.g., pajama top pocket) put forth by Terry Laber at the 1979 trial, the defense team's silence regarding Malone's microscopic fiber comparisons speaks volumes.
It's simply not true to say that the pajama pocket and footprints, or even the blood evidence, have never been contested by MacDonald lawyers.
This was all mentioned in a legal document by MacDonald's then lawyers in about 2005 who I think was Tim Junkin.

There is a bit about the pajama pocket in Fred Bost's short study:

Quote:
The loose pocket could have been kicked around easily.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th December 2017 at 11:01 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 14th December 2017, 11:54 AM   #3432
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
The blood on the pj pocket was not contested AT TRIAL, which is when and where it would need to be contested to have any validity. what an idiot author who wrote a poorly researched and extremely boring defense supported piece of drek is NOT an authority. Since the pj pocket was found on an upturned corner of a throw rug in the master bedroom there is nothing to support the possibility of it "being kicked around easily"......you seem to miss the point over and over again henri...the footprint, blood analysis, in fact ANY evidence is discussed AT TRIAL. IF the defense doesn't question anyone about the conclusions they present it is usually because THEY CANNOT COUNTER THE FACTS AS PRESENTED. Terry Laber was not cross-examined so his conclusions and information was not challenged. It really is that simple.
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 14th December 2017, 05:58 PM   #3433
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 834
Uncontested

The landlord has studiously ignored and/or minimized the inculpatory nature of the following evidentiary items. None of these items were rebutted by the defense in a court of law.

1) The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette on top of the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom. 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. Bernie Segal decided not to cross-examine Laber at trial.

2) At trial, Segal also decided not to cross-examine Paul Stombaugh in regards to his fiber analysis. Stombaugh determined that the composition of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top is 65 percent polyester Dacron and 35 percent cotton. The yarns from the pajama top are a blend, while the sewing threads are composed of cotton. The color of the sewing threads is purple in most of the seams and blue-black in certain areas beneath the seam and in the piping on the sleeves. The sleeves of the pajama top are loose fitting and there are no buttons on the cuffs. The pajama top had been extensively laundered which weakened the sewing threads and removed a good portion of the dye from the threads.

The pajama top was ripped down the left front seam, left shoulder, and left sleeve down to the cuff. Stombaugh concluded that someone grabbed the pajama top in the V-neck section and pulled down as Jeffrey MacDonald spun to his right. Jeffrey MacDonald has consistently claimed that the pajama top was pulled over his head by intruders and that it ended up around his wrists.

The tear down the left front seam and left sleeve of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top resulted in a proliferation of pajama threads and yarns in the master bedroom. The tear was over 72 inches in length which led Stombaugh to conclude that "when a garment is torn as the pajama top is torn, the bulk of the broken yarns and threads will become dislodged and fall off in the immediate area [where] the damage occurs." MacDonald insisted that the immediate area where the damage to the pajama top occurred was in the living room, but no threads or yarns from the pajama top were found in the living room.

3) In terms of the 3 saran fibers found at the crime scene, the defense did not formulate a rebuttal to Michael Malone's conclusion that one of the fibers matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

4) In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a post-argument letter to MacDonald's defense team. In regards to Malone's fiber analysis, the government stated that "Examiner Malone added that standard references that he had consulted do not reflect the use of saran fibers in human cosmetic wigs." The letter also addressed the claim that the 22-inch and the 24-inch saran fibers were too long to be doll hair. The government stated that "doll hair is doubled or looped when placed in the skull of a doll. A 22-inch fiber, therefore, is consistent with an 11-inch hair strand on a doll. Appellant has never attempted to rebut this explanation."

5) At trial, the defense did not rebut the prosecution's assertion that the club came from inside 544 Castle Drive.

6) At trial, the defense did not rebut the prosecution's assertion that the ice pick/Old Hickory knife were wiped off on the bathmat found on Colette's abdomen.

7) At trial, the defense did not rebut the prosecution's assertion that 3 bloody fabric impressions were sourced to the pajama sleeves of both Jeffrey/Colette MacDonald.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th December 2017 at 06:01 PM.
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 Yesterday, 10:00 AM   #3434
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Part of the trouble with this forensics business is that lawyers and judges don't understand what is going on. It's not their field. It's true that Segal and Wade Smith didn't cross-examine Laber at the trial and that was a mistake by them. If Eisman had been there he would have asked pointed questions, like why did serologist Glisson of the Army CID lab disagree with Laber.

Segal certainly did cross-examine the co-called then inexperienced Army CID lab blood man Craig Chamberlain. The Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree then told Segal to tone it down because it became so heated. I still say that Stombaugh and Shirley Green were not qualified to give their so-called opinions about the fabric impressions and that's against the rules of evidence and procedure. They were making it up like Malone.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...case_of_dr.pdf

Quote:
The evidence

Much of the forensic evidence collected by the Army at the time of the incident is called into question, by sloppy laboratory procedures.

Questionable assumptions were made on blood and urine typing, all to the disadvantage of Dr. MacDonald. Certain vital evidence such as tissues samples found under Mrs. MacDonald's fingernails, and clothing worn by Dr. MacDonald on the night of the murder, mysteriously disappeared.

Only a partial analysis of fingerprints found on the scene was accomplished. Blood tests made by the Army were later disputed by the FBI, but evidence of the disagreement was not made available to the defense, although it would have materially affected the prosecution case.

Evidence has now been uncovered showing that fiber samples supposed to have come from MacDonald's own pajamas may actually have been of wool rather than silk, substantiating the presence of outsiders.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 10:06 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 Yesterday, 01:14 PM   #3435
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
henri you are so full of it....Bernie Segal was the lead attorney for inmate; NO OTHER LAWYER would have questioned anyone without his go-ahead. The OBVIOUS REASON that no cross was done with Terry Laber on the pocket is because reiterating his findings would have EMPHASIZED THE POINT THAT INMATE'S STORY WAS PURE BULL. Judges may not be forensic experts but they are EXPERTS IN THE LAW and they know how to determine if someone is an expert in their field. Segal's experts agreed with Government Expert Paul Stombaugh on large portions of his testimony. Also, Segal's cross examination of Stombaugh on the blood stains ended up emphasizing further that inmate's story was pure BULL. See the real problem is that you cannot disprove the evidence AND your man crush is guilty beyond all doubt. That is the real problem.
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 Today, 09:50 AM   #3436
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The landlord has studiously ignored and/or minimized the inculpatory nature of the following evidentiary items. None of these items were rebutted by the defense in a court of law.

1) The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette on top of the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom. 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. Bernie Segal decided not to cross-examine Laber at trial.

[/url]
Gisson at the army CID lab was in disagreement about when the pajama pocket was detached. The prosecution tried to maintain that the way the pajama pocket was detached indicated a violent argument. Colonel Rock rebutted that prosecution argument in 1970, even if Segal and Wade Smith never made it clear to the jury in 1979. If you scroll half way down on this website the text becomes legible:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...port-1970.html

Quote:
It is unknown when the pajama top was torn or when the pocket was ripped off the garment.
It seems more logical for this action to have occurred in the couch area of the living room. With the garment wrapped around the accused's arms, the fibers and pocket may have, in some manner, remained with the garment until it was dropped in the east bedroom or when it was opened up to be spread across the chest of Colette.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 09:57 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
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 09:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.