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 17th April 2019, 08:12 PM   #1241
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is what I have posted on this forum about this matter of MacDonald case juror opinions in 2013:
You didn't answer any of my questions to the extent required.

Here they are again:

Interesting. How many of the jurors did you speak to before reaching this conclusion?
-- no response to this. Is 'none' the correct answer?

Were those sworn statements, take under oath?
-- no response to this. Is 'no' the correct answer?

Are there published transcripts of the jury interviews you conducted that you can link to?
-- no response to this. Is 'no' the correct answer?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for the jurors and telling us what they were thinking.
-- It appears it is entirely second-hand, from an internet post by an unnamed McDonald accolyte. And far from being small-minded and convinced of his guilt, what's provided quotes some jurors who said they were convinced of his innocence.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?
-- So you do have nothing. You're just accepting something you read on the internet. And from that, you pretend to be able to read the minds of the jury.

I'm asking you to defend this claim:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that it was a mistake by Segal at the trial not to cross-examine Laber about the pajama pocket. That created a bad impression on the jury who assumed in their little minds that any mention of blood meant that MacDonald was obviously guilty.
The quotes you provided say they were NOT convinced he was obviously guilty.

Which of those claims is wrong?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th April 2019 at 08:27 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 18th April 2019, 02:35 AM   #1242
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The quotes you provided say they were NOT convinced he was obviously guilty.

Which of those claims is wrong?

Hank
I don't think any of these claims are wrong. There was another story that one of the female jurors burst in to tears afterwards about having to convict MacDonald because it was all so emotional. The foreman of the jury was overheard before the trial saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald. Personally, I think MacDonald would have done better to have had Lin Wood from the JonBenet Ramsey case rather than Segal. Lin Wood would not have been so easily conned by the lab technicians, and by Murtagh and Blackburn, and Lin Wood would have done a careful preparation and asked relevant questions with clever advocacy.

I wrote a bit about this matter on this forum in 2013:

Quote:
For JTF to say that the juror Fred Thornhill thinks Dr. MacDonald is guilty doesn't make it a fact. There was at least one MacDonald trial juror who publicly said after the trial that she thought the jury was not fully informed about "that woman" by which she meant Helena Stoeckley. There were other jurors who have publicly expressed doubts about the MacDonald case. Their quotes are on the internet somewhere. There are affidavits that the now deceased foreman of the jury spoke to three different people before the trial saying he was going to convict Dr. MacDonald whatever happened in court.
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 April 2019, 02:45 AM   #1243
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
I was watching an old American Medical Detectives TV show the other day in which the forensic scientist Skip Palenik was consulted by the Alaska police about some junk carpet fiber found at a crime scene which eventually convicted the murderer. The thought occurred to me that he could be consulted about those blonde synthetic hair -like fibers found at the MacDonald murders crime scene. I would be interested if he was in disagreement with Malone about the matter. This is a bit about his background:

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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th April 2019 at 02:53 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 18th April 2019, 05:29 AM   #1244
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't think any of these claims are wrong.
One of them must be. They contradict each other. You have all the jurors deciding to convict based on non-rebutted blood evidence, then you offer purported quotes from some of those jurors saying they weren't convinced McDonald was guilty.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was another story that one of the female jurors burst in to tears afterwards about having to convict MacDonald because it was all so emotional.
Interesting. A father murdering his wife, two daughters, and unborn son. That shouldn't bring up emotions of sadness? An autopsy photo of a dead infant isn't something anyone can ever unsee. You're presuming the woman rendered a verdict based solely on emotions, rather than viewing the evidence dispassionately, and voting to convict on the basis of the evidence, but being saddened by the case nonetheless.

Aren't you?

Same questions. This juror, did you speak to her, to confirm this 'story'?

Is there a sworn statement, take under oath?

Are there a published transcript of this juror's interview you conducted that you can link to?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for this juror and telling us what they were thinking.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The foreman of the jury was overheard before the trial saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald.
And now we're onto a third different version. In this new version, the juror wasn't convinced by the non-rebutted blood evidence as you originally claimed. They also weren't convinced MacDonald was innocent but voted to convict because 'reasons'. In this version, they came into the trial already convinced of his guilt.

So which two versions of the three you've posted are wrong? Or are three wrong? They all can be wrong, but they all can't be right.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think MacDonald would have done better to have had Lin Wood from the JonBenet Ramsey case rather than Segal. Lin Wood would not have been so easily conned by the lab technicians, and by Murtagh and Blackburn, and Lin Wood would have done a careful preparation and asked relevant questions with clever advocacy.
First off, nobody cares what you think. This isn't about your opinions. The choice of McDonald's attorneys rests with MacDonald, not with you. He chose Segal. He doesn't get a do-over because you think he should have chosen differently.

Secondly, Lin Wood was fresh out of law school when MacDonald went on trial. If Wood was his attorney, and the outcome of the trial was the same, you'd no doubt be complaining Wood's inexperience led to the conviction, and what was needed was an experienced trial lawyer, someone like a Bernie Segal.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th April 2019 at 06:04 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 18th April 2019, 05:37 AM   #1245
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I was watching an old American Medical Detectives TV show the other day in which the forensic scientist Skip Palenik was consulted by the Alaska police about some junk carpet fiber found at a crime scene which eventually convicted the murderer. The thought occurred to me that he could be consulted about those blonde synthetic hair -like fibers found at the MacDonald murders crime scene.
Go ahead. Consult with him. Or does your advocacy for MacDonald extend only to internet posting?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I would be interested if he was in disagreement with Malone about the matter. This is a bit about his background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_Palenik
So why exactly haven't you contacted him yet?

You however are presuming what you must prove. What if he were to examine the evidence and conclude MacDonald was guilty? What then? He's just another unqualified pseudo-expert that shouldn't have been allowed to testify, right?

We know all your moves already. Even before you do.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th April 2019 at 05:57 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 18th April 2019, 09:30 AM   #1246
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Is there a sworn statement, take under oath?

Are there a published transcript of this juror's interview you conducted that you can link to?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for this juror and telling us what they were thinking.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?
It looks as though Potter and Bost interviewed the MacDonald case jurors for their Fatal Justice book, unless you are accusing them of lying and perjury, like Blackburn and Stombaugh and Murtagh. I haven't personally interviewed them:

Quote:
All the quotes above are taken from "Fatal Justice," pp. 246-247.
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 April 2019, 10:01 AM   #1247
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks as though Potter and Bost interviewed the MacDonald case jurors for their Fatal Justice book, unless you are accusing them of lying and perjury, like Blackburn and Stombaugh and Murtagh. I haven't personally interviewed them:
Perjury, no. But only because it's not a sworn statement. Lying is always possible.

But if all those claims come from a book, then you're not out of the woods. You've just moved the contradictions to the authors. You still have to explain why you posted them here.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 18th April 2019, 01:30 PM   #1248
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,181
Nail In The Coffin

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks as though Potter and Bost interviewed the MacDonald case jurors for their Fatal Justice book, unless you are accusing them of lying and perjury, like Blackburn and Stombaugh and Murtagh. I haven't personally interviewed them:
Bost and Potter conveniently ignored several key aspects of this issue and their book presented the better without the bitter. The jury only deliberated for 6 1/2 hours which indicates that Bost/Potter concocted a mythical scenario involving juror unrest and uncertainty. I would argue that the following court document puts this issue to rest.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...t-polling.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 18th April 2019, 06:24 PM   #1249
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 7
Case closed

Henri, I'm sorry to say but you're flogging a dead horse with this case.

No amount of alternative facts or wild conspiracy theories will make a dent in the mountains of legitimate evidence that has been proven in 49 years of legal proceedings.

JMcD murdered his family, and even though he is still breathing, everyone should find some comfort that he is in a cage for the rest of his life.
GiSEQ 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 April 2019, 07:13 PM   #1250
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Bost and Potter conveniently ignored several key aspects of this issue and their book presented the better without the bitter. The jury only deliberated for 6 1/2 hours which indicates that Bost/Potter concocted a mythical scenario involving juror unrest and uncertainty. I would argue that the following court document puts this issue to rest.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...t-polling.html
Correct me if this is wrong, but the first count was for Mrs. MacDonald, the second count for the oldest daughter, Kimberly, and the third count for the infant, Kristen.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 18th April 2019, 10:02 PM   #1251
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,181
Correct

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Correct me if this is wrong, but the first count was for Mrs. MacDonald, the second count for the oldest daughter, Kimberly, and the third count for the infant, Kristen.

Hank
You are correct. IMO, the jury let inmate off easy when they found him guilty of murdering Colette and Kimberley in the 2nd degree. Juror Fred Thornhill has stated numerous times that their verdict was the result of the mass of inculpatory evidence, yet this same evidence should have resulted in 2 additional convictions of murder in the 1st degree. The autopsy report on Colette indicates that the fatal knife wounds to Colette's neck/chest were inflicted AFTER she was beaten with the club in BOTH the master bedroom and in Kristen's room.

The autopsy report on Kimberley indicates that the fatal knife wounds to her neck were inflicted AFTER she received the massive blunt trauma wound to her head in the master bedroom. The blood and fiber evidence proved beyond ALL doubt that Colette's fatal knife wounds were inflicted in the master bedroom and Kimberley's fatal knife wounds were inflicted in her bedroom.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th April 2019 at 10:07 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 19th April 2019, 02:24 AM   #1252
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Juror Fred Thornhill has stated numerous times that their verdict was the result of the mass of inculpatory evidence, yet this same evidence should have resulted in 2 additional convictions of murder in the 1st degree.
That's not quite correct. The blood and fiber evidence is highly controversial and the prosecution were shown to have been lying about it after the trial. As Murtagh said in a Bench Conference at the trial Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. That's unsafe and unsatisfactory and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence:

Quote:
"During a 1988 interview, Fred Thornhill confided that if the holdouts
had continued to resist, he, not totally convinced himself, might have
swung the other way..." He blamed his vote on a "lack of defense."
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 April 2019, 03:12 AM   #1253
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
Henri, I'm sorry to say but you're flogging a dead horse with this case.

No amount of alternative facts or wild conspiracy theories will make a dent in the mountains of legitimate evidence that has been proven in 49 years of legal proceedings.

JMcD murdered his family, and even though he is still breathing, everyone should find some comfort that he is in a cage for the rest of his life.
It was a gross miscarriage of justice.
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 April 2019, 03:49 AM   #1254
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 7
Must be why he’s still in prison 😀
GiSEQ 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 April 2019, 08:16 AM   #1255
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
Must be why he’s still in prison 😀
There is a bit about that matter in that book English Justice by an anonymous solicitor published in 1932:

Quote:
I am often reminded of a young solicitor who was doing some prison visiting. He asked a man what he was there for. On being told he said, "But they couldn't give you six months for that." "Yeah!" said the prisoner, "couldn't
they ? Then where the hell am I ?"
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 April 2019, 08:29 AM   #1256
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
I agree that DNA has been a great advance in forensic science and it has helped to solve murders as well as to exonerate the innocent. I still think there can be problems with DNA if corrupt lab technicians, as in the MacDonald case, deliberately plant DNA to incriminate somebody. That may have happened in the Hennis case, which I think is also in North Carolina. There is a bit about this matter at this website:

http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/polic...ror-and-fraud/

Quote:
The FBI acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th April 2019 at 08:32 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 19th April 2019, 08:41 AM   #1257
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,944
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
snipped
None of your references to different cases at different times and places precludes the evidence proving your mancrush murdered his family.

Still waiting for your explanation of how your mancrush confessing to his father-in-law that he had committed murder falls into your definition of a "little white lie."

Do the facts have you tongue-tied?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 19th April 2019, 09:03 AM   #1258
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post

Still waiting for your explanation of how your mancrush confessing to his father-in-law that he had committed murder falls into your definition of a "little white lie."

Do the facts have you tongue-tied?
There were never any suspicious deaths of the real culprits that can be attributed to MacDonald, or his mates, unlike the sudden deaths of Stoeckley and Mitchell after being interviewed by the State Bureau of Investigation.

This matter has been discussed by me on this forum before now:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...php?p=12162615

Quote:
KING: Your mistake was telling your father-in-law that you had the killers taken care of, right, to get him off your back? Is that correct?

MACDONALD: I did say that to him. What I was trying to do was give Mildred and Freddy a little closure. They had...

KING: No, I understand.

MACDONALD: ... shut up their house. They had turned off the lights, literally. They had a life-sized doll dressed in clothes from the kids. And I was trying to give them -- I said, Freddy, look, some of the Green Berets I know and I found this guy. We took care of it. And it was a really bad decision. I shouldn't have said that. But that is not what changed Alfred, Kassab.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th April 2019 at 09:05 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 19th April 2019, 09:52 AM   #1259
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,944
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were never any suspicious deaths of the real culprits that can be attributed to MacDonald, or his mates, unlike the sudden deaths of Stoeckley and Mitchell after being interviewed by the State Bureau of Investigation.

[/url]
Inmate told his father in law he and his "mates" murdered one of the culprits.

You've attempted to hand wave away the fact that your mancrush lied about committing a murder.

You can't even articulate why that matters in general sense and why it matters in capital letters wrt every statement that came out of his mouth after HE murdered his family.

You've married a loser that murdered his family and no amount of your nonsense is going to overcome the facts and evidence.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 19th April 2019, 04:57 PM   #1260
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,181
Laundry List Of Little White Lies

Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
None of your references to different cases at different times and places precludes the evidence proving your mancrush murdered his family.

Still waiting for your explanation of how your mancrush confessing to his father-in-law that he had committed murder falls into your definition of a "little white lie."

Do the facts have you tongue-tied?
The Landlord has no answers for ANY of the following little and big lies.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

In terms of inmate's most infamous fabrication, the Landlord conveniently ignores the FACT that inmate's rationale for lying to Freddy changed over time. At the 1974-1975 Grand Jury Hearings, inmate claimed he lied to get Freddy and Mildred off his back. He then doubled-down on his scumbaggery by calling Freddy an "alcoholic fanatic," and referring to Mildred as Colette's "so-called mother." In the late 90's, he told interviewers his lie was an attempt to bring Freddy and Mildred peace. Typical thought process of a psychopath.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th April 2019 at 05:00 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 20th April 2019, 02:58 AM   #1261
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Landlord has no answers for ANY of the following little and big lies.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html
Quote:
The urine stain on the master bedroom sheet was shown to be Kimberley's urine, not Kristen's.
That's one of the biggest loads of crap in the MacDonald case, perhaps only to be compared with the footprints and the "pajama -like" fibers as Kathy Bound so succinctly put it. How can you test the identity of a urine stain after ninety weeks? At least Murtagh and Judge Dupree never mentioned that at the trial, and Kearns was never called to testify about it, presumably because of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th April 2019 at 02:59 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 April 2019, 03:10 AM   #1262
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
I was watching one of those Medical Detective American TV shows the other day and the name of Tom Bevel came up as helping to convict in a difficult murder. I think he has written a book on bloodstain and blood spatter analysis The thought occurred to me that he is much better qualified than Stombaugh and Laber or Bunker ever were in the MacDonald prosecution, and he might be able to explain the matter to the 4th Circuit judges, who seem to be obsessed with tunnel vision in the case:

https://www.bevelgardner.com/experts

Quote:
Captain Bevel (Ret.) has served as a crime scene consultant in over 46 U.S. States and 9 foreign countries. He has been qualified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in both state and federal courts.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th April 2019 at 03:11 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 April 2019, 03:22 AM   #1263
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I was watching one of those Medical Detective American TV shows the other day and the name of Tom Bevel came up as helping to convict in a difficult murder. I think he has written a book on bloodstain and blood spatter analysis The thought occurred to me that he is much batter qualified than Stombaugh and Laber or Bunker ever were in the MacDonald prosecution, and he might be able to explain the matter to the 4th Circuit judges, who seem to be obsessed with tunnel vision in the case:

https://www.bevelgardner.com/experts
Why are you presuming he would reach conclusions any different than any of the other experts you named - Stombaugh, Laber, or Bunker?

Don't you have to determine what his conclusions would be before you invoke his name as a MacDonald defense expert? That seems like a minimum requirement. And before accusing the 4th Circuit judges of tunnel vision? What if Tom Bevel reached the same conclusions as the other experts? Would that change your mind any?

I doubt it. Instead you would just add Bevel's name to the list of those conspiring to keep MacDonald in jail, right?

You also don't seem to understand what matters the fourth circuit judges are empowered to decide at this point. They are not a trial court, but an appellate court, and my understanding is they won't be hearing from prosecution or defense expert witnesses in any case. The case doesn't get re-tried on appeal.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 20th April 2019 at 05:20 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 20th April 2019, 07:30 AM   #1264
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were never any suspicious deaths of the real culprits that can be attributed to MacDonald, or his mates, unlike the sudden deaths of Stoeckley and Mitchell after being interviewed by the State Bureau of Investigation.
Stoeckley died of pneumonia and cirrhosis....nothing the least bit suspicious about that given that she engaged in chronic drug/alcohol abuse. I suppose you think the SBI or some other nefarious conspirator against poor inmate also left her very young child there in her apartment alone for several days after her "suspicious" death? Mitchell's death was also due to his alcoholism. At least that's what it says on his death certificate.
AnimalFriendly 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 April 2019, 02:51 AM   #1265
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
I fully appreciate that alcoholic drug addicts can suffer an early death, but there is something suspicious about the death of Mitchell and Stoeckley. Mitchell made a statement shortly before his death saying that he was badly scared, and that he was trying to get out of the country, and that he had just been interviewed by agents of the South Carolina State Bureau of Investigation.

Shortly before her death Stoeckley had appeared on TV to say that she was going to "blow the lid off of Fort Bragg" and she had complained to Detective Beasley by phone that there were strange men around her apartment. Dr. MacDonald arranged for his colleague Dr. Shea, who is in charge of the MacDonald Defense Fund, to attend the Stockley autopsy, but it's still doubtful as to the real cause of her death. Murtagh and Judge Dupree wanted to silence them both because they both were not keeping a zippy on their lippy for the upcoming 1985 MacDonald appeal. The 4th Circuit judges should have put their foot down about all that.

I also don't think the 'suicide' of the former MacDonald lawyer Eisman in about 1992 was thoroughly or properly investigated either.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st April 2019 at 03:19 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 21st April 2019, 03:17 AM   #1266
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
There is a bit of background to Mitchell at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-battle-2.html

The Lanes have since changed their minds about Mitchell and she now posts on anti-MacDonald forums as 'One Who Cares'. There are plenty of other confessions about Mitchell:

Quote:
5. Mr. Lane advised that Mitchell made one other statement to him concerning the fact that he had done something terrible. This was about two or three weeks before Mitchell died. Lane was drinking one night at the Hule Bar in Charlotte and Mitchell was there. Mitchell told Lane that he had to talk with him. Mitchell called Lane the next day and said that he could not talk on the telephone because the "cheap sons-of-bitches have my phone tapped", or words to that effect. Mitchell came to Lane's house but Lane does not think that it was the same day. He thinks that it was the next day. When Mitchell arrived, he was "white as a ghost". Mitchell stated that he might have to leave the country because something happened in the service, and if the authorities found out about it that he would definitely have to leave. Mitchell did not say what this was, but stated that it was too horrible to talk about and at that time he had tears in his eyes. Lane thought that Mitchell must have been talking about something that happened in Vietnam. Mitchell borrowed $100 from Lane and when he left, Mr. Lane recalls telling his wife that he thought Mitchell wanted to tell him something.
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 April 2019, 03:46 AM   #1267
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 7
To think that JMcD is so special that witnesses are killed to continue the “conspiracy” is just plain delusional. This isn’t “who shot JFK” (that’s another topic).

When do we hear if he’s going to appeal to the Supreme Court?

Can’t wait for them to throw him under the bus as well.
GiSEQ 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 April 2019, 06:29 AM   #1268
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
there is something suspicious about the death of Mitchell and Stoeckley.
No there is nothing remotely suspicious or doubtful as to the cause of death of either one. As GiSEQ just pointed out, old news though it is to most of us, you are delusional.
AnimalFriendly 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 April 2019, 10:08 AM   #1269
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
If I'm delusional then there are plenty of other people who share the same delusion:

https://eddiesbloglist.rocks/categor...amber-justice/

Quote:
Killer Greg Mitchell (also deceased at a young age under suspicious circumstances) had loose lips and was tormented enough to confess to several friends. The FBI questioned Mitchell in 1982. Shortly after that, Mitchell requested money and help from friends to leave the country, because he had been involved in “serious crimes.” Mitchell mysteriously died shortly after. He confessed involvement in the MacDonald killings both at a drug detoxification center in 1971-72 and also to friends 10 years later after being interviewed by the FBI.

In addition, Gunderson had Stoeckley polygraphed and examined by a forensic psychologist at UCLA, Dr. Rex Julian Beaber, who found her totally capable of recall, memory and accurate testimony.

Incredibly, Stoeckley was polygraphed by the U.S. Army’s lead polygrapher, Robert Brisentine, in 1971. Brisentine felt the results corroborated Stoeckley’s involvement, that she was present at the crime scene and that she knew the identity of the co-assailants. Brisentine was ordered by the prosecutor not to discuss his results with the defense, but he did so over their objections. His testimony was not heard by the jury due to Judge Dupree’s ruling at the trial.

Beasley had extensive intelligence files on all of the above close associates of Stoeckley’s, but this information disappeared from the Fayetteville Police files. Beasley learned these files disappeared in August 1979 as the MacDonald trial commenced.

The initial prosecutor in the case was James Proctor, son-in-law of Judge Dupree, who handled the MacDonald trial- an incredible conflict of interest.

Gunderson began FOIA requests on the records in late 1979 and early 1980. He was stonewalled and rebuffed until 1983, at which point increasing congressional pressure finally opened the FOIA “gates” and long-suppressed documents began to be released. To date, perhaps 10,000 pages of an admitted 90,000 have been released, but they’re heavily redacted. Why would there be any reason whatsoever to censor a word? Where have we seen this before?

When he finally availed himself to the documents, Gunderson found the following:
The loss of a piece of skin from under Colette’s fingernail. This loss was hidden for 13 years.

The intentional discarding of seven fingerprints of unknown persons at the crime scene, the reason being that “they kept getting mixed up with the known prints.”

The loss of a bloody, half-filled syringe from the crime scene, important because it corroborated an assailant confession.

Cathy Perry gave a confession to the FBI in 1984, prior to an upcoming movie on the case (in contrast to prosecutor statements that the confession was made after the movie). In her confession she said she participated in the murders in North Carolina in 1970. Perry’s confession contained astonishing facts related to the crime scene, including trying to “inject” victims and that one of the children hid in a closet (hair torn out by the root was found in that location).

The fact that a witness in the case was given bloody clothing and boots from Stoeckley shortly after the crimes and told to hide them from the police. These were turned over to the Army CID and later returned to the witness.

5. Blood evidence from the exact spot where MacDonald struggled with assailants — hidden by prosecution (not recorded on crime scene chart at time of trial). Fibers, crucial evidence from the exact spot where MacDonald struggled with assailants — never collected.

The crime scene was completely tainted by a criminally negligent crew of unknown individuals. The CID early on developed a bogus “staged scene” theory. But much of the forensic confusion was directly a result of crime scene changes made by on-the-scene personnel, such as military police, ambulance attendants and who knows who.

Dr. MacDonald has been eligible for parole since 1990, but he has not been released because he refuses to concede guilt for the murder of his family, People magazine reported in 2017.

His next parole hearing is in 2020.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st April 2019 at 10:33 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 21st April 2019, 11:46 AM   #1270
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If I'm delusional then there are plenty of other people who share the same delusion:
The one person who wrote the swill to which you linked is not "plenty of other people". According to him "The reason the doctor survived and his family was slain was satanic messaging to inflict lifelong discord and torment." Do tell.

Someone should explain to him that being eligible to apply for parole and actually being granted parole aren't one and the same.
AnimalFriendly 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 April 2019, 12:55 PM   #1271
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,391
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
To think that JMcD is so special that witnesses are killed to continue the “conspiracy” is just plain delusional. This isn’t “who shot JFK” (that’s another topic).

When do we hear if he’s going to appeal to the Supreme Court?

Can’t wait for them to throw him under the bus as well.
I said pages ago this thread belongs in conspiracy theories now.
Whip 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 April 2019, 01:39 PM   #1272
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,181
The Heart Of The Matter

The following appellate decisions have basically forced inmate's advocates to argue for the reliability of Stoeckley's ever-changing claims and to accuse the Army/FBI/DOJ of engaging in a conspiracy to railroad inmate.

August 23, 2016

Since the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox has denied MacDonald relief not once, but twice. His first denial was put forth on 7/24/14, and Judge Fox ruled that "MacDonald has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the murder of his wife and two daughters. Alternatively, the court finds that MacDonald has failed to adequately establish the merits of any of his claims." The defense filed an appeal based on a DOJ report that concluded that on three separate occasions, government experts used language that was scientifically invalid. All three incidents focused on the experts use of the word "sourced" when comparing hairs under a microscope. Two of the incidents were found in singular lab reports and the third incident involved six lines of testimony at trial. Microscopic hair comparisons cannot source a hair to a specific person, so the best case scenario is that the hair exhibit is "similar" to an exemplar obtained from the accused or the victim.

The government argued that the three mistakes did not alter the inculpatory nature of the evidence that convicted MacDonald at trial. In addition, DNA testing on the hairs in question did not result in a single exculpatory result. The DNA test result (e.g., Kimberley's DNA profile) of a bloody head hair confirmed the conclusion drawn by one of the government experts, the DNA test result (e.g., unsourced hair) of a pubic hair found under Colette's body contradicted the experts conclusion that its source was Jeffrey MacDonald, and the AFIP was unable to extract a DNA profile from a bloody hair that was microscopically sourced to Colette MacDonald.

On 5/18/15, Judge Fox ruled that he would not alter or amend his 7/24/14 decision. He concluded that the three inappropriate statements had no bearing on the mountain of evidence linking MacDonald to this horrific crime. In essence, using the word "sourced" instead of "similar" does not change the fact that Colette's blood was on her husband's pajama top in 10 locations before the garment was torn or that fibers from MacDonald's pajama top were found under Colette's body or that fibers from his pajama top were found under his children's bedcovers or that bloody impressions sourced to his pajama cuffs were found on bedding used to transport Colette and Kimberley to their bedrooms or that the Pajama Top Theory proved to a jury of his peers that MacDonald placed his pajama top on his dead wife's chest and stabbed her through the garment 21 times with the ice pick.

December 21, 2018

The 4th Circuit ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. By a vote of 3-0, the 4th Circuit concluded that,

Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters.

For all intents and purposes, this decision has brought a legal and emotional finality to this case. MacDonald's lone legal option is to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but it is highly unlikely that they would even hear the case. MacDonald is eligible for parole in 2020, and he could finally admit his guilt and express remorse for his crimes. Similar to the Supreme Court hearing this case, this scenario is also a long shot. In terms of an emotional finality, the 4th Circuit's decision brings peace to Colette's brother (e.g, Bob Stevenson) and vindication to Brian Murtagh and dozens of CID/FBI/DOJ staff members who helped to bring a mass murderer to justice.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st April 2019 at 01:53 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, 02:28 AM   #1273
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
December 21, 2018

The 4th Circuit ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense.
That's a load of legal-mumbo-jumbo. The judges are in bed with the prosecution in the MacDonald case. There is some background to all this at this website:

http://banned-in-america.net/america...ng-judges.html

Quote:
America's FBI and Department of Justice collect files on judicial corruption like they collect files on everything else, but they hold back from acting, even in cases where they have clear enough evidence to bring an indictment in minutes. The law enforcement agencies in America blow with the political winds, and in the absence of media attention, they will cover up for judges, whose help they require when they need to win convictions on flimsy evidence. The judges who take bribes are gladly eager to help law enforcement railroad and convict innocent people. The mutual back-scratching of cops and judges is routine.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 02:31 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, 03:11 AM   #1274
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 7
Doesn’t mention JMcD at all.

Is there actual evidence admissible in a court of law to support this fantasy, or is this just the ranting of a cyber stalker with an axe to grind who has been taken down by the legal system previously?
GiSEQ 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, 06:50 AM   #1275
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's one of the biggest loads of crap in the MacDonald case, perhaps only to be compared with the footprints and the "pajama -like" fibers as Kathy Bound so succinctly put it.
nope not a big lie at all....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
How can you test the identity of a urine stain after ninety weeks?
You do it the same way you would test it at 1 day, 1 month, 3 years....

AGE of the stain would not preclude discovering whose urine it was that was found on the bed in the master bedroom. you have been TOLD THE FACTS MULTIPLE TIMES. The testing did not find any antibodies which was likely due to the age HOWEVER they did find antigen A. Thus ONLY COLETTE OR KIMBERLEY COULD HAVE MADE THAT STAIN PERIOD. Only ABO Type A and Type AB have antigen A. Kristen had TYPE O Blood which contains antigen H and anti-A and anti-B antibodies. Kimberley had Type AB which contains no antibodies and antigen A and antigen B.

So medically only Colette (Type A) or Kimberley (Type AB) could possibly have made that stain. There was ZERO ZILCH evidence to suggest that Colette had wet herself HOWEVER there was ample evidence that Kimberley had wet herself including urine stains on her panties and nightgown.

It is long past time you got over your ignorance (crossing into stupidity) on this issue. YOUR MAN CRUSH LIED ABOUT WHICH DAUGHTER HAD WET THE BED. PERIOD. It is scientifically impossible for it to have been Kristen - even an old stain could not become Antigen A if it was made by someone with antigen H......
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 Yesterday, 11:30 AM   #1276
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,181
Validation

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a load of legal-mumbo-jumbo. The judges are in bed with the prosecution in the MacDonald case. There is some background to all this at this website:

http://banned-in-america.net/america...ng-judges.html
I appreciate your validation of the opening statement in my prior post.

"The following appellate decisions have basically forced inmate's advocates to argue for the reliability of Stoeckley's ever-changing claims and to accuse the Army/FBI/DOJ of engaging in a conspiracy to railroad inmate."

It's unfortunate that the 4th Circuit Court's simplistic legal language causes you frustration and confusion.

"Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

Again, I'm challenging you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 11:36 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 Yesterday, 11:55 AM   #1277
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,944
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If I'm delusional then there are plenty of other people who share the same delusion:
Yes, and they are too.

The issue has been settled. The only people that are working your side of the street are folks that look at a telegenic person and can't fathom how they could commit murder
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 Today, 12:24 AM   #1278
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,181
Two Camps

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If I'm delusional then there are plenty of other people who share the same delusion:

https://eddiesbloglist.rocks/categor...amber-justice/
There are two camps on this cognitive island. There is the delusional camp and the professional advocates camp. The combined population of the two camps has greatly dwindled in the past 6 years. This weeding of the herd began when the government presented their case at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. They pointed out that Jimmy Britt presented 27 falsehoods in his 5 affidavits, that the DNA evidence further strengthened their case, and that the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony to combat the mountain of physical evidence linking MacDonald to this crime. Brian Murtagh also provided a thorough presentation of the 1979 trial evidence.

Once the government focused on facts rather than speculation, the media began to filter out of North Carolina. After his testimony, Joe McGinniss commented to a reporter that he was surprised at the dearth of news vehicles on the streets. For the most part, inmate's professional advocates did not publicly comment on the government's legal butt-kicking, and the news continued to get worse for inmate's fact-challenged defense team. Judge Fox twice denied inmate relief and the 4th Circuit Court did the same late last year.

I realize that the delusional camp will continue to put forth conspiracy theories and debunked evidentiary arguments, but it's the other camp that has the means to alter inmate's legal fate. The problem for this camp is that they have already had eight chances to alter inmate's legal fate and their current batting average is zero. In the end, ALL of the sourced evidence in this case points to one perp, and one perp only. Jeffrey MacDonald is not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilty beyond ALL doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Today at 12:28 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 Today, 01:10 AM   #1279
GiSEQ
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 7
JTF,

And so say all of us!
GiSEQ 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 08:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.