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 November 2020, 04:30 PM   #2001
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From what I can gather ... [change of subject deleted] "
So you ignored, as expected, all my arguments once more. Thanks for being so predictable.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...That was what I hated about McGinniss’ book, actually; he "analyzes" the blood evidence in minute detail, repeatedly, and I couldn’t make head nor tail out of what he was talking about it. It was total gibberish to me...
This explains a lot about your arguments. You simply don't understand the evidence, and why so many people find MacDonald guilty from the evidence, including the blood evidence. Thanks for that admission.

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 November 2020 at 04:34 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 17th November 2020, 04:46 PM   #2002
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,110
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Morris’ questions Joe McGinniss’ integrity, suggesting repeatedly that McGinniss’ wrote Fatal Vision the way he did because he (McGinniss) saw that as a more marketable story than the story told from MacDonald’s perspective. McGinniss’ integrity is inherently suspect. "
The idea that it was more marketable to write a book saying MacDonald was guilty than one in which he was innocent has got to be one of the funniest things Morris has said about the case. It is rather obvious, to me at least, that the story of an innocent man railroaded by inept Prosecutors and malicious Police investigators is much more marketable. We all like a story of the underdog defeating the system. Morris' comment is so inane it deserves nothing but derision.

But this is the same person who claimed that MacDonald's story wasn't believed because no one at the time wanted to believe in homicidal Hippie killers. Remember this was after the Manson murders. And Morris "forgets" about how so many Americans then thought of Hippies has deranged lunatics.

For all Morris' chants about the Prosecutors et al crafting a false "narrative", it is pretty obvious to me Morris crafted a false "narrative" himself.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 04:56 PM   #2003
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,110
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...That was what I hated about McGinniss’ book, actually; he "analyzes" the blood evidence in minute detail, repeatedly, and I couldn’t make head nor tail out of what he was talking about it. It was total gibberish to me...
This explains a lot about your arguments. You simply don't understand the evidence, and why so many people find MacDonald guilty from the evidence, including the blood evidence. Thanks for that admission.

Hank
Well in fairness to Henri I have read this in other places / blogs on the internet. Including some which conclude MacDonald did it. But they want to show why they are not fully convinced by the evidence so they dismiss it has incomprehensible and yes sometimes whine about McGinniss going on about it.

Frankly I found the blood evidence easy to understand and how it contradicted MacDonald's story. It looks to me that these people are willfully, at least some of them, trying to not understand the blood evidence.

Sometimes it seems to me that these people are trying to justify their doubts of MacDonald's guilt by dismissing an important part of the evidence with the argument, "I don't understand it. Therefore it doesn't count!!!". Others are people who think now that MacDonald did it but are trying to excuse their earlier follies.

Sadly Henri is simply not alone in this variation of the argument from ignorance.

Last edited by Pacal; 17th November 2020 at 04:57 PM.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 05:19 PM   #2004
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Sometimes it seems to me that these people are trying to justify their doubts of MacDonald's guilt by dismissing an important part of the evidence with the argument, "I don't understand it. Therefore it doesn't count!!!".
Now that you mention it, it sure sounds a lot like the logical fallacy of an argument from personal incredulity -- "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/cr...al-incredulity

It's simply amazing to me how many logical fallacies Henri packs into his posts.

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 November 2020 at 05:24 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 17th November 2020, 06:50 PM   #2005
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Now that you mention it, it sure sounds a lot like the logical fallacy of an argument from personal incredulity -- "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."

http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/cr...al-incredulity

It's simply amazing to me how many logical fallacies Henri packs into his posts.

Hank
For the past 17 years, Henri has repeated these same logical fallacies on a weekly basis, but that is a big part of his carefully constructed persona. Morris' reliance on hearsay testimony and his purposeful omission of inculpatory evidence fits right into Henri's wheelhouse. In regards to the blood evidence and how that relates to inmate's consciousness of guilt.

Jeffrey MacDonald (Type B blood)

•Front and right side of the sink in the hallway bathroom
•Stepladder in the hallway bathroom
•Wicker material moved from the stool in the hallway bathroom
•Five drops of blood, each the size of a dime, found on the kitchen floor in the front of the sink
•Blood stain near the left elbow on Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top
•Blood found on the hallway closet door
•Blood found on the bottom south edge of west door jamb in east bedroom

Colette MacDonald (Type A blood)

•Massive blood stains on the master bedroom carpet
•Blood spatter on the top sheet of the master bed
•Massive blood stains on the blue bedsheet and multi-colored bedspread found rumpled together in the master bedroom
•Blood spatter found inside the closet in the master bedroom
•Bloody streaks found on the master bedroom ceiling
•Two direct bleeding stains found on top of Kristen's bed
•Blood spatter found on Kristen's wall next to her bed
•Formation of the word "PIG" on the headboard in the master bedroom
•Formation of Jeffrey MacDonald's left footprint found exiting Kristen's room
•Bloody streaks found on the Hilton Hotel bathmat
•Massive blood stains on Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top
•Bloody smudges found on the dining room floor
•Blood stain found on the bathroom wall to the left of the sink
•Cast-off blood spatter found on the north wall in Kimberley's room

Kimberley MacDonald (Type AB blood)

•Six-inch circle of blood found just inside the entrance to the master bedroom
•Trail of blood beginning at the entrance to the master bedroom and ending near the entrance to Kimberley's room
•Blood spatter found on the ceiling in Kimberley's room
•Blood spatter found on the wall in Kimberley's room
•Transfer stain found on a bedspread in Kristen's room
•Direct bleeding stains found on the blue bedsheet
•Blood stain found on the lower left panel of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top
•Bloody streaks found on the Hilton Hotel bathmat
•Bloody smudges found on the dining room floor

Kristen MacDonald (Type O blood)

•Direct bleeding stains on Kristen's pillow and bed
•Blood on the side of Kristen's mattress and boxspring
•Pool of blood on the floor next to Kristen's bed
•Blood spot on the outer lens of Jeffrey MacDonald's glasses

Consciousness of guilt refers to when a person who is accused of a crime does something which an innocent person would not do. Such evidence may include actions the defendant took to "cover up" his alleged crime. Despite inmate's claim that he was not wearing his torn, bloody pajama top when he discovered his wife and two daughters dead in their bedrooms, the blood evidence clearly demonstrates that a person wearing his pajama top and eye glasses left the following forensic clues.

Bloody cuff impressions from the pajama top

•Two bloody fabric impression sourced to the right pajama cuff were found on the bedsheet used to transport Colette back to the master bedroom.
•A bloody fabric impression sourced to the left pajama cuff was found on the bedsheet used to transport Colette back to the master bedroom.

Colette's blood found on the pajama top

•Six Type A smearing stains were found on the face of the pajama top pocket indicating Colette bled on the pocket before it was torn from the garment.
•Four Type A blood stains were located on the left shoulder, left front seam, left sleeve, and left cuff of the garment.
•The four Type A blood stains were bisected or torn through indicating that Colette bled on the garment in these locations before the garment was torn.

Bloody bedding

•Three bloody fabric impressions found on the bedsheet were sourced to the cuffs from MacDonald's pajamas.

Blood on eye glasses

•A speck of Kristen's blood was found on one of the lenses.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th November 2020 at 06:55 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 18th November 2020, 01:09 AM   #2006
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Master Of End Runs

Inmate has always been the master of end runs. Prime examples include...

1) Despite being eligible for parole in 1991, inmate didn't apply for parole until 2005, yet he attempted an end run by seeking a pardon instead of parole. He refused to accept responsibility for his brutal acts, so his position was that he was a model prisoner and factually innocent. Brian Murtagh made sure that his end run didn't work and the parole board decided that inmate couldn't apply again for parole until 2020.

2) From 1970-1997, inmate and his defense team did not dispute the government's position that the source of each blood exhibit (e.g., Type A Colette, Type B Jeffrey, Type AB Kimmie, and Type O Kristen) was aligned with their respective blood types. Inmate then attempted an end run by producing a new claim that he likely injured 1 or more of the mythical hippie home invaders. His defense team then put in a request for DNA testing of blood exhibits, but in 2016, the 4th Circuit Court denied this request.

3) Inmate is now seeking his freedom via Compassionate Release, but this end run around applying for parole doesn't appear to have fooled anyone. His initial request for Compassionate Release has been denied, but there are several steps that need to be taken before this issue is fully resolved.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th November 2020 at 01:27 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 18th November 2020, 08:03 AM   #2007
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I

2) From 1970-1997, inmate and his defense team did not dispute the government's position that the source of each blood exhibit (e.g., Type A Colette, Type B Jeffrey, Type AB Kimmie, and Type O Kristen) was aligned with their respective blood types. Inmate then attempted an end run by producing a new claim that he likely injured 1 or more of the mythical hippie home invaders. His defense team then put in a request for DNA testing of blood exhibits, but in 2016, the 4th Circuit Court denied this request.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's not quite correct. Segal had heated arguments with the Army CID blood man Craig Chamberlain about whether mistakes were made in regard to the blood evidence. MacDonald forensic expert Dr. Thornton has at least one affidavit from after the trial where he regrets he was never able to test and examine the blood evidence.

The thing about the blood evidence is that there was blood at the crime scene which is hardly surprising. But you convict according to the evidence not according to horror or emotion. My personal opinion is that I agree with MacDonald lawyer Eisman when he said any unexplained blood could have been caused by contamination, perhaps from the wooden club murder weapon dripping with blood as it was carried around the apartment. It may not necessarily have been caused by MacDonald. The MacMurderer crowd then reply by saying that this is not scientifically possible, which I find difficult to believe.

The fraudster prosecutor Blackburn said in his 1979 trial closing argument that if you disregard evidence like things like the blood evidence then the conclusive evidence is the pajama-like fibers around the murder weapon. Those fibers later turned out to be black wool fibers with no known source, and not pajama fibers at all, but the MacDonald defense lawyers were not told that forensically significant fact until after the trial.

This is a sensible opinion from another forum about the MacDonald case from a few years back with which I entirely agree:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.true.../c/yWXMUY8k-Nk

"MacDonald did not invent anyone or anything. Those people were in his house
that night. You say there is no evidence linking anyone to the crimes? You
obviously know nothing about the case.

There is eyewitness accounts from
people in MacDonalds neighborhood. There is eyewitness accounts from several
people in and around Fort Bragg. There is 3 (almost 4) confessions from the
Stoeckley crowd. There was black wool in Colette's mouth, shoulder , and
murder club. There was a bloody palmprint on the footboard of the bed in the
masterbedroom that didn't match anyone.

There was blond wig hair in a brush
in the kitchen that didn't come from the home. There was brown hairs with
there roots intact underneath both of the girls fingernails that weren't
Jeffs. There was a hair in Colette's hand that wasn't hers or Jeffs. There
was a fingerprint on glass in the living room that didn't match anybody.
There was fresh candle wax in several different places that didn't match the
MacDonalds candles. There was bloody gloves in the kitchen that didn't come
from the home. There was a burnt match in Kristens room.

There was a blue
acrylic fiber in Colette's hand and on the hallway steps that couldn't be
matched to anything. There was a bloody syringe in the hallway closet that
was destroyed. There was a piece of skin under Colette's fingernail that was
destroyed. There were multiple unidentified hairs in Kimberly and Kristens
bed sheets. All of the weapons except for the club didn't come from the
MacDonald home. There is the eyewitness account of Dr. MacDonald who saw that
assailants and was beaten and stabbed unconscious.

What else do you need Mirse?

Now Mirse its your turn. Give me evidence that MacDonald murdered his
family. The only evidence against him is that fact that he lived there and
did not die.

Logan"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2020 at 08:24 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 November 2020, 08:20 AM   #2008
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

•Two bloody fabric impression sourced to the right pajama cuff were found on the bedsheet used to transport Colette back to the master bedroom.
•A bloody fabric impression sourced to the left pajama cuff was found on the bedsheet used to transport Colette back to the master bedroom.


•Three bloody fabric impressions found on the bedsheet were sourced to the cuffs from MacDonald's pajamas.

B
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to testify in court about fabric impressions. He was a former insurance salesman. This was explained to Judge Dupree in court but he never had right judgement. The 4th Circuit Court should have acted drastically about that. It was a mistrial. I have posted this information over and over again but JTF usually then replies that they are all in the Hall of Fame instead of the Hall of Infamy. It's like talking to a deaf man or woman who doesn't listen.
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 November 2020, 08:51 AM   #2009
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to testify in court about fabric impressions. He was a former insurance salesman. This was explained to Judge Dupree in court but he never had right judgement. The 4th Circuit Court should have acted drastically about that. It was a mistrial. I have posted this information over and over again but JTF usually then replies that they are all in the Hall of Fame instead of the Hall of Infamy. It's like talking to a deaf man or woman who doesn't listen.
You're the deaf man or woman who doesn't listen.

Here's the link to where he is judged to be an expert in his field at the MacDonald trial:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...stombaugh.html

I'm not going to quote from it, but by 1979 his expertise was very well established. He had testified in 48 different states as an expert witness.

While it's true Stombaugh did have a sales job before he joined the FBI, that is of little consequence.

Here's Stombaugh's background and expertise as of 1964, when he testified to the Warren Commission:
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you state your full name and your position?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Paul M., for Morgan, Stombaugh. I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the hair and fiber unit of the FBI laboratory as a hair and fiber examiner.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Furman University, Greenville, S.C., and I received a 1-year period of specialized training in the hair and fiber field in the laboratory under the supervision of the other experts.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been in the hair and fiber field?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Since 1960.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of examinations you have made in this field?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have made several thousand hair examinations and about twice as many fiber examinations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I have testified in approximately 28 States, both federal and local courts, as an expert.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to examine the witness as an expert in this area.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
This information was provided to you in the past.

The first time in May of 2016, to be precise, in what I believe was my first post on this subject. It has been provided several times since then.

Here is the link: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1591

Here's what I wrote then:
== QUOTE ==
I realize this is nearly four years too late, but I can't let this go unrebutted.

Stombaugh had a degree in biology from Furman. Stombaugh He trained in hair & fiber analysis for a year, and was assigned to the hair & fiber unit of the FBI Lab since 1960, according to his testimony before the Warren Commission, which was charged with investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. By the time of his testimony in 1964 before the Warren Commission, he had already testified as a expert in multiple court cases. By the time of his involvement in the MacDonald case, he would have been involved in hair & fiber analysis for nearly 20 years. That hardly makes him "an insurance salesman who somehow ended up in the FBI lab". Perhaps he took a job as an insurance salesman for a few months out of college while he was searching for a position in his field of expertise?

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/tes.../stombaugh.htm

Quote:
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, could you state your full name and your position?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Paul M., for Morgan, Stombaugh. I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the hair and fiber unit of the FBI laboratory as a hair and fiber examiner.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from Furman University, Greenville, S.C., and I received a 1-year period of specialized training in the hair and fiber field in the laboratory under the supervision of the other experts.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long have you been in the hair and fiber field?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Since 1960.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of examinations you have made in this field?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I have made several thousand hair examinations and about twice as many fiber examinations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I have testified in approximately 28 States, both federal and local courts, as an expert.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to examine the witness as an expert in this area.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
The fact that you have to dismiss the qualifications of one of the experts who testified in the MacDonald court case on such specious grounds tells me all I need to know.

== UNQUOTE ==
You ignored it then. You ignore it still. You will ignore it to eternity, apparently. That's not my problem. It remains yours.

The expert opinion of Stombaugh, conceded to be an expert witness in his field by the Warren Commission, and admitted to testify in multiple court cases during his service in the FBI, including the McDonald case, is not overuled by your obviously biased judgment that he was not so qualified.

He was so qualified. The Warren Commission thought so. Judge Dupree thought so. The Fourth Circuit court thought so. So did all the judges in all the cases in the 48 states he testified in during his career in the FBI.

So stop ignoring the facts and start explaining them.

The fact is Paul Stombaugh was qualified to give the testimony he gave as an expert witness. Your attempts to exclude his testimony from consideration going back to at least December of 2012 here on this forum have been established to be without basis. Now, put the evidence together for us in a way that takes Stombaugh's testimony into consideration and still exonerates MacDonald. Go ahead. We'll wait.

Hank

PS: I have posted this information over and over again but you typically ignore it. It's like talking to a deaf man or woman who doesn't listen.
__________________
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 November 2020 at 09:41 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 November 2020, 09:08 AM   #2010
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,062
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
SNIPPED

But you convict according to the evidence not according to horror or emotion.
Your mancrush was convicted on the evidence.

You want to exonerate him on your emotions.

The irony meter is once again pegged.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"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 18th November 2020, 09:45 AM   #2011
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

The expert opinion of Stombaugh, conceded to be an expert witness in his field by the Warren Commission, and admitted to testify in multiple court cases during his service in the FBI, including the McDonald case, is not overuled by your obviously biased judgment that he was not so qualified.

He was so qualified. The Warren Commission thought so. Judge Dupree thought so. The Fourth Circuit court thought so. So did all the judges in all the cases he testified in during his career in the FBI.

So stop ignoring the facts and start explaining them.

The fact is Paul Stombaugh was qualified to give the testimony he gave as an expert witness. Your attempts to exclude his testimony from consideration going back to at least December of 2012 here on this forum have been established to be without basis. Now, put the evidence together for us in a way that takes Stombaugh's testimony into consideration and still exonerates MacDonald. Go ahead. We'll wait.

Hank

PS: I have posted this information over and over again but you typically ignore it. It's like talking to a deaf man or woman who doesn't listen.
The fact is that Stombaugh was never qualified to testify as an expert witness on fabric impressions. The FBI fiber and hair department does not have a good reputation. I accept that there are probably some people in the FBI who are experts in fabric impressions but they were never used in the MacDonald case. The point is it was Stombaugh's false fabric impression evidence that put MacDonald in prison for the rest of his life. That could only happen because judges don't know the first thing about fabric impressions and they can easily be conned by the likes of Stombaugh and Malone of the FBI:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...stombaugh.html

"BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you recall how many cases, if any, that you were found qualified as an expert by a court somewhere on the matter of fabric impressions as distinguished from fabric damage?
A No, sir; I was qualified as an expert in many courts and in many cases throughout this country in that field.
Q What I asked was can you tell us how many cases were you qualified as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Here again, sir, you are asking for a number which I cannot give you. I don't keep records like that.
Q All right, could you tell me, please, the name of one case and what court that was that you were qualified, as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Sir, I couldn't even tell you the cases that I have just testified in Greenville recently. It's just something you don't remember. I don't.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A I'm finished.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you are unable to name any specific case or any specific court in which you were found to be a qualified expert in fabric impressions?
A That is correct, sir. I would have to go back to Washington, D.C., and go through all kinds of records just to try to find the cases I testified in.
Q On fabric impression. I am only asking you about one subject now.
A I know.
Q Well, how about -- you say you have been in Greenville since 1976, up to now. How many cases have you testified in Greenville as an expert on fabric impressions?
A I can't recall having one down there, sir. Most of these cases are in hairs and fibers.
Q Now, you told us as part of your direct examination that you have testified as a witness for the Warren Commission. In what subject did you testify or about what matter did you testify for the Warren Commission?
A In that case I testified to hairs, fibers, and if I recall correctly, there was a blanket involved in that one. which was used to cover the gun.
Q Would that be the matters you testified, then, about?
A To the best of my recollection; yes, sir.
Q I know I have used the word "testify" because I heard the Government attorney say that. Did you actually appear before the Commission and testify or did you just submit a written report which was given to the Commission?
A No, sir. I appeared before the Commission.
Q What year was that that you testified before the Warren Commission? 1965, would that be?
A It could be then, sir. I don't recall."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2020 at 10:37 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 November 2020, 10:14 AM   #2012
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

2) From 1970-1997, inmate and his defense team did not dispute the government's position that the source of each blood exhibit (e.g., Type A Colette, Type B Jeffrey, Type AB Kimmie, and Type O Kristen) was aligned with their respective blood types. Inmate then attempted an end run by producing a new claim that he likely injured 1 or more of the mythical hippie home invaders. His defense team then put in a request for DNA testing of blood exhibits, but in 2016, the 4th Circuit Court denied this request.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Gunderson discovered doubts about the blood evidence in the MacDonald case when he was alive. It looks to me as though Stombaugh was pretending to be a serology expert as well as a fabric impression expert:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...port-1988.html

"On 7/20/88 Dr. Walter Rowe, Dept. of Forensic Services, George Washington University, Washington, D. C., 20052 advised that he has never told anyone that serology tests conducted by the FBI on the MacDonald case were in conflict with CID findings and therefore, the matter "covered up". He stated it is absolutely not true that some of his students noted blood discrepancies between FBI and CID tests.

He initially heard that the FBI conducted serology tests from one Marden Dixon who at the time was associated with the Armed Forces Institute in Washington D. C. He believes Marden is now an attorney but he doesn't know where. Dr. Rowe attempted to locate Mr. Marden recently without success.

He is not aware of the results of the FBI serology tests and has never heard or told anyone that the FBI and CID tests were in conflict. He denied that he ever contacted Mr. Thornton and told him about discrepancies in FBI blood tests or followed up by asking Thornton if he furnished names during the first conversation.

Dr. Rowe stated that on the morning of 2/17/70 he testified as an expert witness in a drug hearing at Fort Bragg. He was assigned at the time to another base. The CID at Fort Bragg notified him after he testified that they needed him to help gather evidence at the MacDonald crime scene. He stayed over at Fort Bragg and worked on the case until the following Saturday at which time he flew overseas.

From Wednesday afternoon 2/17/70 until 2/20/70 he worked as a team with CID Agent William F. Ivory. CID Agent Craig Chamberlain and Bob Shaw also worked as a team. Both teams devoted all their time to gathering, recording, and charting the evidence at the crime scene. On Saturday 2/20/70 he briefed all the individuals working on the case. He stated this was his total commitment to the case. He was later trained as a serology expert and since then has worked with the FBI on occasion but not for the FBI. He recalls he talked to Brian Murtagh on at least one occasion. This conversation related only to Dr. Rowe's gathering of the evidence at the crime scene. Dr. Rowe never examined the MacDonald evidence.

Doctor Rowe was asked if he had ever heard that the MacDonald case involved a drug cover up. He stated it is unlikely but possible. He is aware of some discrepancies from reading Joe McGinniss's book Fatal Vision. He stated he cannot vouch for the veracity of Shaw or Ivory as his total contact with them was less then one week. He recalled that there were some problems involving incompetency by the CID at Fort Hood but not at Fort Bragg.

He stated Glenn McWright, a former FBI Laboratory technician may be able to help with this matter."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2020 at 10:16 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 November 2020, 10:22 AM   #2013
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
This is an interesting quote from that Gunderson serology report. It proves to me that the famous Kearns of the Army CID testing of the urine stain after ninety weeks theory is a load of fabricated nonsense which Stombaugh swallowed completely:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...port-1988.html

"Mr. Semmes advised the FBI report contains a request from the Army to analyze the urine. It is important to note that urine stains cannot be typed. If the Army claims they can, they are in direct conflict with a known scientific fact. He emphasized that this is important."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2020 at 10:30 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 November 2020, 11:52 AM   #2014
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that Stombaugh was never qualified to testify as an expert witness on fabric impressions.
That's clearly false. He was qualified to do so in the MacDonald case, as he was determined to be a qualified expert in that field by the judge.

As Judge Dupree noted at the time, the defense was certainly able to call their own expert witness or expert witnesses in contradiction to the prosecution's witness, Paul Stombaugh. Remind us again who the experts were the defense called that contradicted Stombaugh's findings regarding the fabric impressions.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The FBI fiber and hair department does not have a good reputation.
Stated but not proven.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I accept that there are probably some people in the FBI who are experts in fabric impressions but they were never used in the MacDonald case.
Stated but not proven.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is it was Stombaugh's false fabric impression evidence that put MacDonald in prison for the rest of his life. That could only happen because judges don't know the first thing about fabric impressions
Sigh. I remind you the judge is there to ensure the rights of the defendant are respected and to ensure the trial is according to the law. He doesn't need to know doodley-squat about any expert testimony. He only rules on whether the person before him has sufficient expertise in the stated field to testify as an expert.

The jury hears the testimony (of witnesses and experts) and determines what the facts of the case are. They listen to all the testimony (of witnesses and experts) and they decide whether the guilt of the defendant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The MacDonald jury found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge had nothing to do with that.

Furthermore, there are appeals courts that hear appeals based on errors of law the trial judge might have made to further safeguard the rights of the defendant. Numerous appeals by MacDonald, sometimes reaching as high as the United States Supreme Court, have all been rejected.

Your complaining about the jury's verdict 41 years after the fact is meaningless. MacDonald couldn't get the verdict overturned in 41 years of trying. You're not going to do it here.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
... and they can easily be conned by the likes of Stombaugh and Malone of the FBI:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...stombaugh.html

"BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you recall how many cases, if any, that you were found qualified as an expert by a court somewhere on the matter of fabric impressions as distinguished from fabric damage?
A No, sir; I was qualified as an expert in many courts and in many cases throughout this country in that field.
Q What I asked was can you tell us how many cases were you qualified as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Here again, sir, you are asking for a number which I cannot give you. I don't keep records like that.
Q All right, could you tell me, please, the name of one case and what court that was that you were qualified, as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Sir, I couldn't even tell you the cases that I have just testified in Greenville recently. It's just something you don't remember. I don't.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A I'm finished.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you are unable to name any specific case or any specific court in which you were found to be a qualified expert in fabric impressions?
A That is correct, sir. I would have to go back to Washington, D.C., and go through all kinds of records just to try to find the cases I testified in.
Q On fabric impression. I am only asking you about one subject now.
A I know.
Q Well, how about -- you say you have been in Greenville since 1976, up to now. How many cases have you testified in Greenville as an expert on fabric impressions?
A I can't recall having one down there, sir. Most of these cases are in hairs and fibers.
Q Now, you told us as part of your direct examination that you have testified as a witness for the Warren Commission. In what subject did you testify or about what matter did you testify for the Warren Commission?
A In that case I testified to hairs, fibers, and if I recall correctly, there was a blanket involved in that one. which was used to cover the gun.
Q Would that be the matters you testified, then, about?
A To the best of my recollection; yes, sir.
Q I know I have used the word "testify" because I heard the Government attorney say that. Did you actually appear before the Commission and testify or did you just submit a written report which was given to the Commission?
A No, sir. I appeared before the Commission.
Q What year was that that you testified before the Warren Commission? 1965, would that be?
A It could be then, sir. I don't recall."
It was actually 1964 that Stombaugh testified to the Warren Commission, not that it matters all that much. Friday, April 3rd of that year, to be precise.
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol4_0032b.htm

I don't know what you think you established from the above quote from the trial record. But what you haven't done, and what Bernard Segal never did, was establish that Stombaugh wasn't qualified to testify as an expert on fabric impressions.

Nor have you citted any testimony from the defense's experts on fabric impressions. Tell us why you concentrate on questioning Stombaugh's expertise and fail to mention the expertise and testimony of the counter-experts called by the defense. Go ahead, we'll wait.

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 November 2020 at 11:57 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 November 2020, 02:58 PM   #2015
OneWhoCares
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 18
I could be wrong but " Compassionate Release is (1) a kidney disorder that could lead to dialysis in the future and removal of multiple moles that could later become cancerous" BUT I do not believe that releases are obtained based upon medical issues you may have in the future.
OneWhoCares 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 November 2020, 03:18 PM   #2016
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I don't know what you think you established from the above quote from the trial record. But what you haven't done, and what Bernard Segal never did, was establish that Stombaugh wasn't qualified to testify as an expert on fabric impressions.

Nor have you cited any testimony from the defense's experts on fabric impressions. Tell us why you concentrate on questioning Stombaugh's expertise and fail to mention the expertise and testimony of the counter-experts called by the defense. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hank
The point is that if the prosecution presents an expert witness in a court case, and particularly in a murder case, then that expert witness really must be an expert. It's no good Murtagh and Judge Dupree saying somebody is an expert in fabric impressions when they are not an expert. That defies common sense. It's true that Segal reluctantly agreed to accept Stombaugh as a qualified expert in hairs and fibers but as I have said before the FBI hair and fiber department has come under the most severe criticism in the past few years.

There is some background to this matter of expert witnesses from a court case in the UK:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...-a4154481.html

"Andrew Ager, who has been used in a string of court cases, was found to have no academic qualifications and could not remember if he had passed his A-levels, defence lawyers said.

Called to give evidence in a trial centred on carbon credits, he admitted he had never read a book on the subject - but had once watched a documentary about the permits.

The situation came to light after defence lawyers for Steven Sulley, one of eight men acquitted of fraud at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday, questioned Mr Ager about his background.

He said he kept sensitive material given to him by police in a cupboard under the stairs, and some was lost during a leak. Thereafter it was kept in a locked box on his balcony.

Mr Sulley's defence team, led by barrister Narita Bahra QC, said Mr Ager had been used in more than 20 fraud prosecutions as an expert witness."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2020 at 03:53 PM.
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 November 2020, 03:41 PM   #2017
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I don't know what you think you established from the above quote from the trial record. But what you haven't done, and what Bernard Segal never did, was establish that Stombaugh wasn't qualified to testify as an expert on fabric impressions.

Nor have you cited any testimony from the defense's experts on fabric impressions. Tell us why you concentrate on questioning Stombaugh's expertise and fail to mention the expertise and testimony of the counter-experts called by the defense. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hank
Dr.Thornton was never a jumped up insurance salesman like Stombaugh of the FBI.

Over the years I have spent hours quoting what Thornton thought about Stombaugh's fabric impression and blood evidence opinions and they make more sense to me than the Stombaugh spiel.

As I have said before I don't entirely agree with Thornton that the holes in the pajama top could have been made when the pajama top was not stationary. My personal opinion is that Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry stabbed MacDonald with an ice pick when he was lying unconscious on the hallway floor and those women could then have then gone to the kitchen tap where MacDonald bloodstains seem to have been found, unless those stains were typed incorrectly. That could be why the holes are round.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html

"D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 12:38 p.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Dr. Thornton, what is your professional occupation, please?
A I am employed as an Associate Professor of Forensic Science at the University of California at Berkeley and occasionally as a consultant in matters of physical evidence.
Q In one paragraph, can you tell us what forensic science is?
A "Forensic" comes from the Latin word meaning "of the forum," and the forum in Rome was a place where debates were held. It was also a courthouse, so forensic science is science that is exercised on behalf of the court, on behalf of law, and is intended to assist in the reconciliation of various matters -- both criminal and civil.
Q What is your education, Dr. Thornton, in regard to the area of forensic science?
A I have a Bachelor of Science in Criminalistics from the University of California at Berkeley, a Master of Criminology also in Forensic Science -- Criminalistics -- from the University of California, and a Doctor of Criminology degree but in Forensic Science from the University of California.
Q And your current position at the University of California is teaching in what area?
A In forensic science.
Q And what courses do you teach currently?
A Currently, I teach both graduate and undergraduate courses dealing with a wide range of physical evidence; the analysis of such things as hairs and fibers and blood stains, bullets, soil, glass, safe insulation, paint. I think I mentioned hair. I teach a class in the microscope -- how to use a microscope, which is both for the benefit of the forensic science students and also for students in other disciplines such as zoology, botany, even forestry on some occasions.
Q Have you taught other courses in the past different from the ones you have described in the area of forensic sciences?
A Yes, I taught criminal investigation at the University of California. This was when there was a criminology department. That has been terminated; the forensic science program has been continued, but the general criminology program at Berkeley does not exist anymore and I don't teach criminal investigation at this time.
Q Now, do you have any practical experience in the field of criminalistics and forensic science work?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what that is, please?
A I worked in a crime laboratory for a period of nine years to the day, as a criminalist, as a supervising criminalist and as a laboratory director. This was in the crime laboratory of the county sheriff's department of Contra Costa County, California.
Q And the Contra Costa County is a large suburban county near San Francisco, is that correct?
A That is correct. At the time that I worked there it had a population of about 600,000.
Q And as you are working in various positions in that crime laboratory, including the director, were you involved in the processing of evidence that related to homicidal cases?
A Yes.
Q In how many homicidal cases did you deal with the physical evidence?
A I could just estimate. I would say probably about -- between 150 and 200 cases. Not all of those involved crime scene processing. I think I probably participated in the scene processing of about 100 homicide cases.
Q And I assume that you did in many other cases besides homicide cases you just enumerated for us?
A Yes."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2020 at 04:00 PM.
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 November 2020, 04:34 PM   #2018
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Expert Testimony

From 1964-1976, Paul Stombaugh was considered THE most qualified hair and fiber expert in the United States. At the 1979 trial, Segal did not dispute the FACT that prior to his retirement in 1976, Stombaugh was the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory. Segal also did not dispute Stombaugh's qualifications as a hair and fiber expert. By the time of his trial testimony, Stombaugh had testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. Segal's objections about Stombaugh's qualifications as an expert in fabric impressions were quickly dispelled after defense expert John Thornton, agreed with several aspects of Stombaugh's analysis of blood patterns/formations found on the blue bedsheet.

In 1974, Paul Stombaugh was asked by government lawyers to analyze the unusual blood patterns and formations on the blue bedsheet. Stombaugh analyzed the patterns for over a week and came to the conclusion that many of them were fabric and non-fabric impressions. Stombaugh labeled each impression found on the blue bedsheet with a letter designation. The following are the impressions that Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial.

•Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area C Bloody left hand impression
•Area D Bloody right hand impression
•Area E Bare left shoulder impression
•Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

John Thornton's conclusions are as follows:

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

https://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 18th November 2020, 04:55 PM   #2019
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr.Thornton was never a jumped up insurance salesman like Stombaugh of the FBI.
You don't know that. Thornton wasn't asked what other jobs he held and he didn't go into that whatsoever.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Over the years I have spent hours quoting what Thornton thought about Stombaugh's fabric impression and blood evidence opinions and they make more sense to me than the Stombaugh spiel.
Sigh. You don't get the deciding vote here In fact, your opinion is meaningless. The jury gets to decide based on all the evidence they heard - not what you care to discuss - and they heard the full testimony of Stombaugh and Thornton (along with many others) and they decided that MacDonald's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As I have said before I don't entirely agree with Thornton that the holes in the pajama top could have been made when the pajama top was not stationary.
Thornton didn't say that. In fact, Thornton described the pajama top replica that was used in a in-court demonstration where Blackburn flailed away with the ice pick at Murtagh with a replica of the pajama top around Murtaugh's wrists. The result wasn't pretty. Blackburn did in fact draw blood on Murtaugh, and the condition of the replica pajama top was best described by the defense's expert witness
BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Dr. Thornton, I am going to hand you what I would now mark as Government Exhibit 1081.

MR. SEGAL: What is the number of that?

MR. MURTAGH: 1081.

(Government Exhibit No. 1081 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q I would ask you whether that pajama top is a reasonable facsimile of the pajama tops that you used in any of your experiments?
A Reasonable, yes.
Q Dr. Thornton, if I could, I am going to stand in front of you, placing great trust in Mr. Blackburn. I am going to ask him to flail away at me with an ice pick.

(Experiment is performed.)

MR. MURTAGH: That was a certain amount of realism. That wasn't part of the act, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay, anybody got a Band-Aid?

MR. MURTAGH: That's okay.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Dr. Thornton, I'll ask you to take a look at this pajama top and tell us what you see?
A I see a number of tears, and they do appear to be, in fact, tears.
Q Yes, sir. Are they straight puncture-type holes?
A One of them appears to be fairly -- well, yes, several of them are, but not all of them. I can count -- you understand this is an approximation.
Q Yes, sir.
A This is not an atmosphere conducive to good work; but there are three areas here that are circular in their appearance. There is one here that's slightly elongated, and the remainder appear to be tears.
Q Okay, thank you.
Now, tell us, how many puncture tears were found in MacDonald's pajama top? How many cuts did MacDonald have when he was admitted to the hospital after the murders?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My personal opinion is that Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry stabbed MacDonald with an ice pick when he was lying unconscious on the hallway floor and those women could then have then gone to the kitchen tap where MacDonald bloodstains seem to have been found, unless those stains were typed incorrectly. That could be why the holes are round.
That makes no sense, because there are a number of holes in the back of the pajama top that were determined to have been made with the ice pick, but MacDonald suffered no such injuries to his back. So we can rule out the puncture holes being made while MacDonald was wearing the shirt. Moreover, MacDonald suffered only one puncture wound - not the several dozen in the pajama top - and that one wound was most likely self-administered.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html

"D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 12:38 p.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Dr. Thornton, what is your professional occupation, please?
A I am employed as an Associate Professor of Forensic Science at the University of California at Berkeley and occasionally as a consultant in matters of physical evidence.
Q In one paragraph, can you tell us what forensic science is?
A "Forensic" comes from the Latin word meaning "of the forum," and the forum in Rome was a place where debates were held. It was also a courthouse, so forensic science is science that is exercised on behalf of the court, on behalf of law, and is intended to assist in the reconciliation of various matters -- both criminal and civil.
Q What is your education, Dr. Thornton, in regard to the area of forensic science?
A I have a Bachelor of Science in Criminalistics from the University of California at Berkeley, a Master of Criminology also in Forensic Science -- Criminalistics -- from the University of California, and a Doctor of Criminology degree but in Forensic Science from the University of California.
Q And your current position at the University of California is teaching in what area?
A In forensic science.
Q And what courses do you teach currently?
A Currently, I teach both graduate and undergraduate courses dealing with a wide range of physical evidence; the analysis of such things as hairs and fibers and blood stains, bullets, soil, glass, safe insulation, paint. I think I mentioned hair. I teach a class in the microscope -- how to use a microscope, which is both for the benefit of the forensic science students and also for students in other disciplines such as zoology, botany, even forestry on some occasions.
Q Have you taught other courses in the past different from the ones you have described in the area of forensic sciences?
A Yes, I taught criminal investigation at the University of California. This was when there was a criminology department. That has been terminated; the forensic science program has been continued, but the general criminology program at Berkeley does not exist anymore and I don't teach criminal investigation at this time.
Q Now, do you have any practical experience in the field of criminalistics and forensic science work?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what that is, please?
A I worked in a crime laboratory for a period of nine years to the day, as a criminalist, as a supervising criminalist and as a laboratory director. This was in the crime laboratory of the county sheriff's department of Contra Costa County, California.
Q And the Contra Costa County is a large suburban county near San Francisco, is that correct?
A That is correct. At the time that I worked there it had a population of about 600,000.
Q And as you are working in various positions in that crime laboratory, including the director, were you involved in the processing of evidence that related to homicidal cases?
A Yes.
Q In how many homicidal cases did you deal with the physical evidence?
A I could just estimate. I would say probably about -- between 150 and 200 cases. Not all of those involved crime scene processing. I think I probably participated in the scene processing of about 100 homicide cases.
Q And I assume that you did in many other cases besides homicide cases you just enumerated for us?
A Yes."
There is nothing above I disagree with. But Thornton's qualifications don't establish MacDonald's innocence.

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 November 2020 at 05:04 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 19th November 2020, 01:08 AM   #2020
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Why Bunker?

It's important to note that Segal asked Judith Bunker, not John Thornton, to provide a rebuttal to the conclusions drawn by Stombaugh and Terry Laber that 10 Type A blood stains on inmate's pajama top were placed on the garment BEFORE it was torn. Bunker analyzed the stains and told Segal that she concurred with their analysis, so Segal made the tactical decision to focus on discrediting Stombaugh's analysis. Laber concluded that 6 Type A blood stains found on the face of inmate's detached pajama top pocket were placed on the pocket before it was torn from the garment. Stombaugh concluded that 4 BISECTED Type A blood stains found on the left seam/shoulder/sleeve/cuff of inmate's pajama top were placed on the garment before it was torn.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th November 2020 at 01:20 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 19th November 2020, 03:29 AM   #2021
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
It's important to note that Segal asked Judith Bunker, not John Thornton, to provide a rebuttal to the conclusions drawn by Stombaugh and Terry Laber that 10 Type A blood stains on inmate's pajama top were placed on the garment BEFORE it was torn. Bunker analyzed the stains and told Segal that she concurred with their analysis, so Segal made the tactical decision to focus on discrediting Stombaugh's analysis. Laber concluded that 6 Type A blood stains found on the face of inmate's detached pajama top pocket were placed on the pocket before it was torn from the garment. Stombaugh concluded that 4 BISECTED Type A blood stains found on the left seam/shoulder/sleeve/cuff of inmate's pajama top were placed on the garment before it was torn.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The experienced and qualified serologist in the MacDonald case was Glisson at the Army CID lab. She is on record as being in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI about whether there was blood on the pajama top before or after it was torn. The pajama pocket is similarly controversial. It's really the fault of the bad judges in the MacDonald case with their bad courts. They should have seized the situation like a man.

Judith Bunker was another pseudo expert like Stombaugh in bed with the prosecution. This is a bit about her background from the internet and it does not inspire confidence:

Quote:
"For example, testimony reveals that Investigator Dupius testified as to blood spatter. Interestingly, Investigator Dupius was exclusively trained by the now discredited Judith Bunker. Ms. Bunker was revealed to have converted herself into an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis from a brief four hour workshop conducted by Mr. Herbert MacDonnell in Birmingham, Alabama. With only this minimal experience Ms. Bunker launched a career instructing law enforcement upon the complex science of blood-stain pattern analysis. Investigator Dupius testified that he observed a reddish stain on Mr. Johnston's right sock and that the stain projected. This claim was raised and rejected as to Ms. Bunker's lack of credentials in Johnston v. State, 708 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1998)."
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 November 2020, 03:40 AM   #2022
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I Laber concluded that 6 Type A blood stains found on the face of inmate's detached pajama top pocket were placed on the pocket before it was torn from the garment. Stombaugh concluded that 4 BISECTED Type A blood stains found on the left seam/shoulder/sleeve/cuff of inmate's pajama top were placed on the garment before it was torn.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
MacDonald was asked about the pajama pocket at the Grand Jury somewhere in about 1974 and he just seemed to say that he didn't really know and it probably just fell off which seems reasonable to me. Fred Bost mentions the pajama pocket in his short study. What he thinks about it seems sensible to me. I don't think Glisson was ever asked about the pajama pocket or to investigate it:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html

CLAIM 7 -- THE TORN PAJAMA POCKET

In conjunction with the "tear through the stain" theory, the government argued to the jury that the pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top had been stained with a spot of Colette's blood and torn loose during an initial bedroom fight between her and her husband. His pajama top then became stained at the place where the pocket was missing, while the pocket itself, with no further stains, lay forgotten on the floor.

There is only one physically certain fact concerning the displacement or movement of the pajama pocket -- it was found on top of the thrown back corner of the little throw rug in the master bedroom (review lower left portion of SHORT #5). Photographs show that the corner of the throw rug was turned up by the foot of Colette MacDonald (SHORT #25). This means the pajama pocket could have settled on the thrown back portion of the rug only after that particular movement of her body was completed. She and the room were already bloodied, so the pocket could have become bloodstained as it was moved to the thrown back section of the little rug. Thoughtless movement did occur within that room among a large number of persons (SHORT #26 & 27). As with the pajama pocket, bloody fibers were found on top of the thrown back corner of the little rug ( SHORT #28). The knife on the floor, seen pointing in one direction by a witness, was later photographed pointing in another direction (SHORT #29 & #30). People crowded into the cramped 12-by-16-foot space of the furniture filled room and changed positions frequently. The loose pocket could have been kicked around easily."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th November 2020 at 03:45 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 November 2020, 04:00 AM   #2023
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

In 1974, Paul Stombaugh was asked by government lawyers to analyze the unusual blood patterns and formations on the blue bedsheet. Stombaugh analyzed the patterns for over a week and came to the conclusion that many of them were fabric and non-fabric impressions. Stombaugh labeled each impression found on the blue bedsheet with a letter designation. The following are the impressions that Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial.

•Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area C Bloody left hand impression
•Area D Bloody right hand impression
•Area E Bare left shoulder impression
•Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

John Thornton's conclusions are as follows:

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
It's true that Thornton seemed to agree with Stombaugh that areas A and B of the bedspread may have come into contact with the pajama top, but it's very weak evidence to convict somebody of murder considering the chaos at that crime scene and the way the sheet and pajama top were manhandled. Thornton definitely disagreed with Stombaugh's belief that there was a bare left shoulder impression on the sheet:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ornton-tt.html

F U R T H E R D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 10:42 a.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Yesterday I asked you about an area of the blue bedspread [sic] here which Mr. Stombaugh had marked as to various areas, and one of these areas, you had indicated that you agreed with him as to the fact that it appeared to contain what could be an impression of the cuff of the blue pajama top in this case?
A Actually, there were two areas.
Q And what were those two areas?
A "A" and "B."
Q And what was your conclusion as to what could have made those impressions?
A I believe Areas "A" and "B" are consistent as having been made by the blue pajama top.
Q Did you make any effort to ascertain how much pressure was being applied to the sheet at the time an item such as the blue pajama top made that impression?
A Yes.
Q Will you tell us what you did and what your conclusions were?
A It is my opinion that the impressions could have been made by a rather gentle contact between the pajama top and the sheet. There is nothing that would suggest to me that there was a great deal of force involved, or that there was any significant weight between -- any significant weight applied to the pajama top with the arms of the pajama top in between. In other words, a rather casual contact with the sheet could have resulted in an impression of that nature.
Q When you say "significant weight," I am going to ask you if you could give us any kind of example of how that would have happened, so that perhaps we can better understand your meaning of that term?
A I think a force of less than two pounds could result in impressions of that sort, particularly the impression "B," I believe, if I may refer to my notes?
Q Yes, certainly; would you do that, please?
A Yes; "B" might have resulted from a force of just a few ounces, something consistent with brushing --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) I'm sorry?

THE WITNESS: Something consistent with even brushing the sheet aside, something of that nature."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th November 2020 at 04:02 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 November 2020, 11:10 AM   #2024
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

Sigh. You don't get the deciding vote here In fact, your opinion is meaningless. The jury gets to decide based on all the evidence they heard - not what you care to discuss - and they heard the full testimony of Stombaugh and Thornton (along with many others) and they decided that MacDonald's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hank
A witness must speak only as to facts in a murder case and not to opinions unless he is an expert. It has been proved that Stombaugh was not an expert in fabric impressions yet his opinions about them were wrongly accepted by the jury and judge as evidence. That's a mistrial.

As I have said before my own personal opinion is that either Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry stabbed MacDonald and his pajama top, perhaps separately, with an ice pick when he was unconscious on the hallway floor. That would explain a lot of the controversy about round holes and MacDonald bloodstains in the kitchen and knife slashing demonstrations in court by Blackburn.

I accept that is not evidence and only speculation but it's as good as the "old Stombaugh only said it could be" speculation in the case.

Ken Adachi wrote some interesting letters about the MacDonald case in 2007 with which I entirely agree, though I think his World Trade Center theories are not proven:

http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educ...A27may07.shtml

"The Army and Justice Dept people involved in framing MacDonald are CORRUPT to the core. The Army CID and the FBI have (and HAD) control of all of the"evidence" (that they haven't conveniently "lost" or destroyed). How difficult would it be for them to submit a sample that they KNEW belonged to Jeff MacDonald? Or they could substitute or mix anything they wanted to and claim this or that. How can you possibly depend on the integrity or honesty of the people submitting the "evidence" when they are the people responsible for framing MacDonald in the first place?

The Army CID took samples of his skin, hair, etc in 1970 during the first Army hearing, so they ALREADY have his DNA fingerprint.

Any intelligent person who reads the full account of what happened to Jeff MacDonald can plainly see that he was framed. The Army, the FBI, the Justice department, the North Carolina prosecutor, James Blackburn, etc, have done NOTHING BUT LIE repeatedly about every facet of this case. The CID crime lab and the FBI crime lab both engaged in obstruction of justice to conceal, cover-up, and/or destroy evidence that clearly pointed to others as being involved in the crime.

You have the CONFESSIONS from THREE of the cult members involved in the murders ADMITTING their guilt and providing details of the crime scene that only a participant would know. Yet, their information is ignored completely or not allowed as testimony at trail under threat of prosecution (Helena Stoeckley was threatened by James Blackburn with a murder conviction if she told of her involvement in the MacDonald murders).

No, MacDonald is innocent. He's the most victimized person in the history of the United States.

Someday, the true story will be known, long after Jeff MacDonald's life comes to an end in prison and all of those black hearted scoundrels who participated in his railroading have been laid to rest in more familiar circumstances.

The truth will eventually come out. Of that, I'm sure.

Regards, Ken"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th November 2020 at 11:15 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 November 2020, 12:02 PM   #2025
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
No Controversy

There was no controversy regarding Terry Laber's analysis of inmate's pajama top pocket. 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. The significance of Laber's analysis can be seen in the fact that Laber was one of the few government witnesses that Bernie Segal did not cross-examine.

In regards to the Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, Brian Murtagh and James Blackburn presented the following analysis during their closing arguments at the 1979 trial:

Murtagh: From the photograph, you can see that the rug is turned up and that we appear to have the pocket upside down. I also ask you to recall, you have seen this rug and that there is no blood found on this piece of rug. Now, you may recall the testimony of Mr. Laber, the chemist from the CID lab in 1970, as to the testimony concerning the pocket from the pajama top. Mr. Laber, I believe, testified to not only the blood type of the 6 stains which was Type A, the same type as Colette, and I would ask you to find that it is Colette's blood on the pocket, but also that the stains were of two types —that there was smear on Area Two which is white beading and that the larger stains were contact or soaking stains. From that, I would ask you to find that Colette's blood was on the pocket before it was torn because as you recall, the stains do not penetrate the double layers of the fabric by the seams.

Blackburn: We know that the pocket was on the floor. I asked him about that and he said that he could think of a number of ways that it could be kicked over there and torn off when the pajama top was torn. Well, okay, but it is upside down and it has got Type A blood coming from the outside in and it is not spatter —it is contact. How did that happen? You recall Terry Laber's saying that in his opinion, that Type A blood got on there prior to the pocket being torn off and yet it didn't bleed from the inside out, but it bled from the outside in.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 04:28 PM   #2026
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Laber concluded that the totality of the evidence indicated that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood before the pocket was torn from the jacket. The significance of Laber's analysis can be seen in the fact that Laber was one of the few government witnesses that Bernie Segal did not cross-examine.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I do find it a bit odd that if the experienced serologist at the Army CID lab. Glisson, thought the blood on the pajama top happened after the pajama top was torn that suddenly Laber thinks there was blood on the pajama pocket before it became detached. There needed to be a second opinion about all that since the pajama pocket now seems to be the primary so-called proof by Murtagh and McGinniss of MacDonald guilt to keep him in prison.

I do remember reading the Laber cross-examination of the trial in 1979 and it seemed farcical to me at the time. Laber was very inexperienced and as JTF says Segal never bothered to cross-examine him. Segal needed his former colleague Eisman there who understood the MacDonald case forensics. Wade Smith was not much help in that regard. The jury were left with the impression that any blood somehow proves guilt.

Half way through Judge Dupree butted in to talk about car parking arrangements for journalists and that some other judge was coming along the next day to observe court proceedings.

I disagree with JTF when he says that MacDonald was not suffering from shock. This was mentioned in the fair and just Article 32 conclusion by Colonel Rock:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...970-10-13.html

"(Evidence and/or unanswered questions leading to the possible conclusion that assailants were present as described by the accused is as follows: Numerous unidentified fingerprints on the premises; wax from an unknown candle apparently not from the MacDonald household; unidentified blond hair in the right hand of Colette; red brown stains on the interior of a jewelry box in the east bedroom together with an unidentified finger and palm print; and, no evidence that the two knives and the ice pick, apparently used in the murders, came from the apartment.)

F. Rationale for Recommendation Number Two

The rationale for recommendation number two is based on testimony presented at the hearing by a civilian witness Posey which had never previously been presented to civilian police and/ or military investigative authorities. There was a remarkable similarity of part of his testimony to testimony by the accused and other evidence.

As a result of this information the Investigating Officer requested that the government attempt to get a civilian female Stockley [sic] whom Posey had seen during the early morning hours of 17 February, to appear as a witness at this hearing. CID Agent Ivory testified that he subsequently interviewed her twice, that she had no alibi for that morning because she had been on marihuana, and that she declined to testify.

It seems appropriate to pursue this line of inquiry further and to provide the testimony of Posey and Ivory to appropriate local civilian authorities with a request that they determine if Stockley [sic] and/or her companions of that evening can be placed at the scene of the crime.

V

SUMMARIZED TESTIMONY

A. GOVERNMENT

1LT Joseph L. Paulk, MP Duty Officer on 17 February 1970, testified that on the night in question, his desk sergeant received a telephone call. Paulk was summoned by him and in response to his statement that there was trouble at 544 Castle Drive, he and his partner proceeded there.

Upon checking the front door, he discovered it was locked so he sent MPs around back to check the rear entrance. As Paulk started towards his vehicle, one of the MPs shouted, they are around here." (p 27)

Paulk then entered the east bedroom and discovered, in addition to MPs Mica and Tevere, Colette MacDonald lying on her back on the floor, apparently dead, and the accused, lying beside his wife. Mica was assisting the accused. Paulk observed that the accused had some of the symptoms of shock and his speech was rather incoherent."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th November 2020 at 04:36 PM.
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 November 2020, 10:31 PM   #2027
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Straight Forward

For whatever reason, Glisson took an interest in the 4 bisected Type A blood stains on inmate's torn pajama top, but she had no interest in examining the 6 Type A blood stains on the face of inmate's detached pajama top pocket. This type of selective analysis happened on both sides of the fence. For example, John Thornton analyzed most of the blood spatter/stain evidence in this case, but for whatever reason, Segal had Charles Morton analyze a few of the bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions. The following are the bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions that Paul Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial.

•Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
•Area C Bloody left hand impression
•Area D Bloody right hand impression
•Area E Bare left shoulder impression
•Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff
•Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

John Thornton and Charles Morton both looked at specific impressions on the blue bedsheet. Their conclusions were as follows:

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.
•Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.
•Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th November 2020 at 10:35 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 November 2020, 01:30 AM   #2028
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
For whatever reason, Glisson took an interest in the 4 bisected Type A blood stains on inmate's torn pajama top, but she had no interest in examining the 6 Type A blood stains on the face of inmate's detached pajama top pocket.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Segal seemed to bring Charles Morton into the trial in 1979 because he was a qualified and experienced serologist unlike Thornton who was more of a general forensic expert. Far be it from me to suggest that Laber said what he did about the pajama pocket at the 1979 trial after he had been coached to say it by Murtagh, but it does make me wonder. I think Segal was taken by surprise by that at the time.

The fact is that there had been a kind of second opinion about the pajama pocket back in about 1971 when the Army CID presented their MacDonald case forensic evidence to the AFIP lab for analysis. No mention was then made about an inculpatory bloodstain on the pajama pocket then:

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

BY MR. EISMAN:
Q Colonel Ferrari, were you present at the AFIP in 1971?
A I was present in active duty for training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology between the dates of 15 March of '71 to 2 April '71, inclusive.
Q During that tour of duty, did you perform any work with regard to this case?
A No. I don't remember, frankly, whether or not at that time I had any involvement. I believe they were still talking about it and there were comments made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation.
Again, the entire investigation seemed to be very poorly planned, very poorly presented to the Institute. The Institute could only work with what it had.
Q From your experience as a police officer, did you believe that the investigation had been done in a professional manner for a case of this import?
A Based on my professional experience of 25 years plus in various capacities in civilian law enforcement, I would have to say that the nature of the investigation, the method in which the investigation was conducted, the procedures that were followed left quite a bit to be desired.
Q Were there any pieces of forensic evidence that you reviewed with Dr. Mathews that in any way showed or could be argued that it linked Dr. MacDonald to these killings?
A No. I don't remember -- oh, I am certain there was no such physical evidence that was presented to us for examination.
Q And in the final exit meeting where Dr. Froede spoke in summarizing the findings of the AFIP, was there any statement made that there was certain evidence which links Dr. MacDonald to these killings or which showed that he was involved in these killings?
A No. On the contrary, Dr. Froede, if anything, helped all of us to believe on the basis of what was presented, there was no way they could implicate or connect Dr. MacDonald with the homicides that occurred at Fort Bragg. In fact, Dr. Froede was or appeared to be assured on the basis of what he really had at his disposal to reach a conclusion.
He would not commit himself, but he did say this, on the basis of what he had, there were no way that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would return a report indicating that, any implication of Dr. MacDonald."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th November 2020 at 01:33 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 20th November 2020, 07:58 AM   #2029
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A witness must speak only as to facts in a murder case and not to opinions unless he is an expert.
No kidding. Where did I say anything different?



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It has been proved alleged by conspiracists that Stombaugh was not an expert in fabric impressions yet his opinions about them were wrongly correctly accepted by the jury and judge as evidence. That's a mistrial justice.
Fixed that for you.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As I have said before my own personal opinion is that either Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry stabbed MacDonald and his pajama top, perhaps separately, with an ice pick when he was unconscious on the hallway floor. That would explain a lot of the controversy about round holes and MacDonald bloodstains in the kitchen and knife slashing demonstrations in court by Blackburn.
Nope, that argument makes no sense as it's contradicted by the evidence. As I pointed out above, and you ignored:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That makes no sense, because there are a number of holes in the back of the pajama top that were determined to have been made with the ice pick, but MacDonald suffered no such injuries to his back. So we can rule out the puncture holes being made while MacDonald was wearing the shirt. Moreover, MacDonald suffered only one puncture wound - not the several dozen in the pajama top - and that one wound was most likely self-administered.
Based on the damage to the pajama top being inflicted while it was stationary - as you admit - the damage must have been inflicted while it was resting on something else. Since it was found on Colette MacDonald, and the damage is consistent with her wounds, it stands to reason it could only have been inflicted on the pajama top after MacDonald took it off and placed it on Colette. And as you must know, MacDonald in his April 6th, 1970 CID interview said his pajama top was pulled forward somehow and wound up around his arms (and was not still on his back) during his initial struggle and was still around his arms when he awoke after losing consciousness on the steps. MacDonald's one testimony eliminates the damage to the pajama top being inflicted while he wore it on his back.

I haven't even gone into the bizarre argument you're making for two women being in the house. MacDonald never said that.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I accept that is not evidence and only speculation but it's as good as the "old Stombaugh only said it could be" speculation in the case.
The differences here are two-fold:
1. Stombaugh has been accepted as an expert in court cases in 48 states.
2. Remember, "A witness must speak only as to facts in a murder case and not to opinions unless he is an expert". You are neither a witness nor an expert.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Ken Adachi wrote ... "The Army and Justice Dept people involved in framing MacDonald are CORRUPT to the core. The Army CID and the FBI have (and HAD) control of all of the"evidence" (that they haven't conveniently "lost" or destroyed). How difficult would it be for them to submit a sample that they KNEW belonged to Jeff MacDonald? Or they could substitute or mix anything they wanted to and claim this or that. How can you possibly depend on the integrity or honesty of the people submitting the "evidence" when they are the people responsible for framing MacDonald in the first place?"
That's of course the logical fallacies of circular reasoning and begging the question. One would think you could recognize these by now without help.

Circular Reasoning: He's using the potential swapping of evidence to establish the frame-up and he finishes up by using the frame-up to establish the swapping of evidence. Didn't you even notice?

No, of course not.

Begged Questions: And of course, both the supposed "frame-up" and the supposed "swapping of evidence" are begged questions. Neither is proven by Ken Adachi nor you.

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 November 2020 at 08:20 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 November 2020, 10:33 AM   #2030
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I haven't even gone into the bizarre argument you're making for two women being in the house. MacDonald never said that.

Hank
That's not correct. Mrs Garcia thought Cathy Perry, now deceased, was mixed up in it and MacDonald mentioned once that Cathy Perry had been reported as killing a cat or a dog. She was a suspicious character.

MacDonald should have had a lawyer with him when he was interrogated at that April 1970 interview. Grebner, Shaw and Ivory just had a 'feel' MacDonald did it which is not good enough. Do you think this is fair and just questioning?:

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

MacDonald: What--what--no one ever had as good a life as I had. What the hell would I try to wreck it for? Christ, I was a doctor.
Jesus, I had a beautiful wife who loved me and two kids who were great. We were just over all the hard things. It just doesn't--it just doesn't make any sense. (Crying.)
(Pause)
Well, what do we do now?

BY MR. IVORY:
Investigator: Another thing, one of those knives has been identified by people who had been in the house as having coming from your house. The problem here is that--

MacDonald: Well, why don't you show me the damn knife? You show me a photograph.

BY MR. GREBNER:
Investigator: At least two of the knives that were used, apparently used, came from the house. You've got four plus people come into your house--

MacDonald: Who identified these weapons? Who identified these weapons?

Investigator: The lab identified the club; but the same people, the same people you knew.

MacDonald: All right, that's possible. I agree with that. I had wood all around. I had wood in the shed; I had wood in that little hole next to the house. That's all possible. Who identified the knife?

Investigator: We have people who has been in the house before and positively identified the knife.

MacDonald: Well, either they are wrong, or that's not a good photograph, one of two. Or it was a new knife that my wife had gotten and I haven't seen yet. But I don't know who identified that, and I'd have seen it before anyone else would.
It seems to me there's a lot of paring knives in the world, and I never told anyone I had an ice pick. That's lie, or they misunderstood me. I never--I never had a--I know we--well, like I said, maybe my wife had one that she had just purchased. But anything that had been there for a while, I probably would have seen it. I don't know of any ice pick.
That God damn Colonel Kriwanek is unbelievable. He says to the press, "One of the mysteries is where the weapons came from." Why the hell didn't he show me the weapons and ask me?"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th November 2020 at 10:40 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 November 2020, 02:31 PM   #2031
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Bizarre Argument Part Infinity

MacDonald made no mention of a 2nd female being present inside his residence, but he did mention that he was attacked by 2 black males and 1 white male in the living room. Whoops. In regards to Cathy Perry...

Perry was an acquaintance of Stoeckley's, but Stoeckley did not implicate her in the murders until the early 1980's. In 1971, CID investigators Mike Pickering and Jack Bennett interviewed Perry in Florida and she denied any involvement in the murders. The CID also obtained head hair and fingerprint exemplars from Perry, and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1971, Perry was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and she had a history of severe drug use. In 1984, Perry called the FBI and stated that she wanted to confess to being involved in the MacDonald murders.

Perry's confession was a bizarre tale with no connection to the facts of this case. Perry claimed that she was picked up off the streets by a group of unknown individuals who recruited her into partaking in a home invasion. Perry states that the group entered through the front door of the MacDonald residence, that she went upstairs to kill one of the two MacDonald boys, and that Jeffrey MacDonald was subdued in the living room with narcotics. Perry added that one of the white male intruders was dark-skinned and that she killed Colette by stabbing her in the legs and stomach. Perry recanted this confession later that same year.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 01:51 AM   #2032
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
MacDonald made no mention of a 2nd female being present inside his residence, but he did mention that he was attacked by 2 black males and 1 white male in the living room. Whoops. In regards to Cathy Perry...

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I have never found an exact reference when MacDonald ever said in his own words that there were two negroes, or men of color, at the crime scene. I have seen plenty of references where he says there was one negro. It seems to have come come from gossip and hearsay by hospital workers Newman and Gillespie who were probably lying, or being bribed and coached to say that in court by Murtagh. The military policeman Paulk is on record as saying MacDonald was in shock and incoherent at the time which might explain the matter.

Dr.Beaber explains quite a lot about Cathy Perry in an affidavit he has on the internet. She was as mad as a hatter and friends with Helena Stoeckley and a suspicious character and she should never have been disregarded by Judge Dupree. She was told by her parents to categorically deny everything.:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...aber-1984.html

5." It is my opinion that, notwithstanding the internal inconsistencies in Helena Stoeckley's various statements regarding the MacDonald murders, she has been relatively constant in her contention that she was present during the offense and that the offense was carried out by persons other than the defendant, Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald.

6. It is my opinion that the internal inconsistencies of the various Stoeckley statements and the factual inconsistencies between the Stoeckley confession and Cathy Perry's confession may be explained by the factors enumerated below, acting jointly or severally.

The passage of time from the date of the crime and the attempted recollection, due to the effect of the passage of time on memory.
The passage of time that elapsed between attempted recollections due to the effect of the passage of time on memory.
The imperfections of eye-witness memory, even under optimal circumstances.
The effects of the stress attendant to the participation or witnessing the crime and the ability to store and recall information.
The effects of the stress at the time of attempted recollections on memory accuracy.
The potential effects of poor lighting and nighttime viewing on the original perceptions of the crime.
The effects of possible intoxication at the time of the viewing of the original event.
The effects of possible drug use during the time that elapsed between the crime and any attempt at recollection.
The effects any belief or fear on the part of either Stoeckley or Perry at the time of an attempted recollection of the dangerous implications of the publication of such recollections.
The possible effects of either Stoeckley or Perry's psychiatric condition on their ability to clearly recollect.
The possibility that Cathy Perry suffered from a reactive psychotic episode as a result of Ms. Perry's participation in the crime and that that psychosis and its treatment (especially the use of therapeutic drugs) interfered with her forming a completely accurate memory of the event in question.
7. It is my opinion that the factors enumerated above could account for inaccuracies in recollection, with regard to various details of the actus reus, without necessarily interfering with a competent memory of the most fundamental alleged fact; that is, that Ms. Stoeckley or Ms. Perry did participate in the murders in question. It is possible, and consistent with psychological-scientific thinking, that this profound event and its memory could remain intact, while the factors enumerated above would blur the accuracy of various details and event sequences.

8. It is my opinion that the likelihood that both Ms. Stoeckley and Ms. Perry would (a) know each other, (b) both suffer from the same delusion about having participated in this murder, and (c) both falsely confess to such participation, is astronomically unlikely. This conclusion is based on the rareness of this alleged delusion (it is extremely uncommon; indeed, a psychologist could practice a lifetime without seeing one case), and the statistical principle that the joint likelihood of two rare events (the delusion would be equally surprising in either Ms. Perry or Ms. Stoeckley) is the product of their individual likelihood. The assumption that these confessions are a product of some mental illness is statistically weak.

9. Within any of the documents I have reviewed I have found no information which would cause me to conclude that Stoeckley or Perry's utterances were the product of some psychological need for braggadocio."


(signed)
REX J. BEABER, Ph.D.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st November 2020 at 02:10 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 November 2020, 03:21 AM   #2033
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Yawn Part Infinity

There was no evidence of Cathy Perry ever stepping foot inside 544 Castle Drive. No fingerprints, no head hairs, and inmate's own defense team had no confidence that she was involved in this horrific crime. Their lack of confidence was exemplified by the FACT that they didn't request her DNA profile be compared to any of the 29 DNA exhibits tested by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. To make matters worse, her bizarre 1984 confession didn't match any of the known facts in this case and she recanted this confession later that same year. Speaking of a lack of confidence, the defense also didn't request that DNA exemplars from Don Harris, Bruce Fowler, Allen Mazzerolle, and Dwight Smith be obtained by the FBI for comparison purposes. Once it was determined that the DNA profiles of Stoeckley and Mitchell did not match any of the 29 DNA exhibits, the defense was left with no viable intruder suspects.

Despite these DNA test results and the fact that the defense team's burden of proof was "extraordinarily high," they went with triple hearsay testimony and unsourced hair evidence at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. Brian Murtagh and John Stuart Bruce pounded those flimsy arguments into dust. Judge Fox denied inmate a new trial, inmate appealed that decision, and the 4th Circuit Court 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 Court concluded that...

Our comprehensive review of the trial and post-conviction 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.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st November 2020 at 03:47 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 21st November 2020, 09:59 AM   #2034
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

Despite these DNA test results and the fact that the defense team's burden of proof was "extraordinarily high," they went with triple hearsay testimony and unsourced hair evidence at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. Brian Murtagh and John Stuart Bruce pounded those flimsy arguments into dust. Judge Fox denied inmate a new trial, inmate appealed that decision, and the 4th Circuit Court 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 Court concluded that...


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The problem MacDonald has is that in some of these murders there is no physical evidence at all and no forensics like fingerprints or even DNA. This may come as a shock to some people, and to some judges, but some murderers sometimes wear gloves to avoid detection. Like the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff who Judge Dupree was careful not to present to the jury in 1979 I'm "fairly certain" MacDonald didn't do it. I also think there was forensic fraud with the previous DNA testing and I'm a reasonable factfinder.

I agree with the person on this website who writes about this matter:

https://jbrwdi.forumotion.com/t2030-...-supreme-court

"this crime happened in 1970, long before DNA testing

obviously DNA testing can help determine what happened to MacDonald's family, but the skin recovered from underneath Colette’s fingernail and Jeff’s pajama bottoms was LOST.

now, DNA testing could show it is MacDonald, which is pretty damning.

OTOH DNA testing could be matched to a known felon in CODIS.

the prosecution lost this and lots of other critical evidence.

additional DNA testing shows


MacDonald's latest appeal was based on three hairs found at the crime scene that did not match the family's DNA and a statement from a deputy U.S. marshal who accused the prosecution of intimidating a witness. A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit agreed with the lower court judge that the new evidence does not warrant a new trial.

"Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence ... 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," Judge Robert King wrote for the panel in the unanimous ruling.

I think Judge King and the unanimous ruling is wrong, Judge King is trained in law, not in crime scene and forensic science

this new DNA evidence in combination with evidence that was LOST could show MacDonald version is correct but we will never know since the prosecution LOST that evidence.

since critical evidence that could prove Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent was LOST, i hope the SC sets MacDonald free,

and orders an investigation as to the source of what DNA evidence they could have, either through CODIS or through genealogical DNA

coming from a science background,

if the DNA testing on that skin which has gone missing, showed it matches MacDonald, then its clear he is the culprit,

but it matches in CODIS to a known felon with a long history of murders, that certainly is exculpatory

or if genealogical DNA identifies a suspect who admits he was there

again MacDonald is innocent

but the prosecution LOST that evidence, so I consider MacDonald's incarceration to be unjust. I hope he appeals to the Supreme Court and wins.

I think MacDonald should be set free until the source of the DNA in the hairs that they did find, one underneath his daughter's fingernail is sourced."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st November 2020 at 10:02 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 November 2020, 07:35 PM   #2035
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
All Over The Map

HENRI: Bouncing around from topic to topic and regurgitating debunked evidentiary claims has been your "thing" for close to two decades. Let me help to provide some much needed clarity to your disjointed narrative.

1) I agreed that some murderers wear gloves to avoid detection, but you're unwittingly adding inmate to this list of unnamed killers. As evidenced by...

… the word PIG written in Colette's blood on the master bed headboard, the lack of inmate's fingerprints in locations where claimed he touched a particular item with his bare hands, and the 3 sections of a surgeon's glove found in the master bedroom, it is clear that inmate put on a pair of surgeon's gloves shortly before he transported Colette to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet.
2) There was no definitive proof that the item lost at the Fort Gordon lab was a piece of skin. It would have been a piece of surgeon's glove or a piece of household debris. One could argue that inmate was lucky that this evidentiary item was lost for Paul Connelly observed scratch marks on inmate's chest and Bernie Segal asked Jeffrey MacDonald about injuries to his chest during the Article 32 hearing in 1970. MacDonald admitted to having, "some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest with some, again the same type of puncture wounds, two or three." Captain Clifford Somers asked MacDonald about his injuries during cross-examination. MacDonald described, "several, what appeared to me to be small, small puncture wounds on the left side of the chest and some scratches."

A similar exchange occurred in 1971 between Jeffrey MacDonald and Colonel Jack Pruett during the CID reinvestigation:

Pruett: Then your description of them is in conflict with what is in the medical record a bit?

MacDonald: In the number of wounds, right.

Pruett: The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?

MacDonald: Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple.

3) At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Brian Murtagh argued that no hairs were found under Kristen's fingernails. There is no record of a hair under Kristen's fingernail being observed at the autopsy. Kristen's hands were not bagged prior to her body being removed from the crime scene, she was active on February 16th, and she was not bathed prior to going to bed. In 2006, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology released DNA test results on 29 exhibits, and this 5mm hair fragment was one of three unsourced hairs found at the crime scene. The totality of the documented record indicates that the presence of this hair fragment was the result of contamination at the Fort Gordon Lab. The government surmised that a hair from a laboratory technician adhered to the slip of paper used to label Kristen's fingernail scrapings. The FBI determined that this hair was naturally shed (e.g., not bloody, club root), so logic dictates that this hair is an extraneous artifact as opposed to the result of a violent struggle.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st November 2020 at 07:40 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 22nd November 2020, 01:54 AM   #2036
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Question

Originally Posted by JTF View Post

… the word PIG written in Colette's blood on the master bed headboard, the lack of inmate's fingerprints in locations where claimed he touched a particular item with his bare hands, and the 3 sections of a surgeon's glove found in the master bedroom, it is clear that inmate put on a pair of surgeon's gloves shortly before he transported Colette to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I entirely disagree. It is not clear that inmate put on a pair of surgeon's gloves shortly before he transported Colette to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet as JTF says.. That's just a lot of "Stombaugh only said it could be" stuff. There is no evidence at all of a bare left shoulder fabric impression on the sheet as Stombaugh insisted at the trial and I don't think MacDonald transported Colette anywhere. That was manufactured evidence.

My own personal opinion is do you think it's likely that MacDonald wrote PIG written in Colette's blood on the master headboard? That's the sort of thing a couple of women like Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry would have done. There were no violent arguments in the MacDonald family.

With regard to the surgical glove fragments Helena Stoeckley worked at a hospital at the time and she could have easily stolen surgical gloves for the MacDonald murders, which then became confused with MacDonald gloves. The Army CID should have checked the surgical glove fragments with Helena's hospital surgical gloves.

The fingerprint expert Osterburg said at the trial that he was totally mystified by the fingerprint collection at the crime scene. I think it was the military policeman Tevere who said at the Article 32 that he wiped the telephone clean of fingerprints after using it at the crime scene. That was not MacDonald's fault and it's unfair to blame MacDonald for that.

Segal had a bit to say about the surgical glove fragments during his turgid and lengthy closing speech at the 1979 trial:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html

"Let me talk about the latex gloves first. You have a clear cut contradiction and a choice to make in this case between the testimony of Mr. Michael Hoffman and the testimony of Dr. Vincent Guinn. Now, this is not an argument about titles and credentials. It is not a question that you should believe Dr. Guinn simply because he has a Doctorate and Mr. Hoffman does not. What is clear is the comparison as to the way the evidence was approached in this case by the two sides.

Dr. Guinn, unchallenged by the Government because they know it to be true, is the world's leading authority on the use of neutron activation analysis in forensic matters -- legally related matters. There is no question about his credentials in that regard nor about his contribution to scientific criminal investigation.

Dr. Guinn made two separate statements. First of all, he says, "I have looked at Michael Hoffman's data where Hoffman takes a piece of the rubber latex gloves found in the MacDonald home and several samples of the unused latex gloves that were also found in the home, and I have compared them." Dr. Guinn said, using Hoffman's figures of the percentages of the elements that were present, that absolutely in his mind, they show it is unlikely that the samples that were found in the MacDonald house -- the actual package of gloves -- were made from the same batch as the fragment of the latex glove found in the bedroom. Secondly, he said -- the first one is highly unlikely -- but the second, because of the differences in numbers and the amount of disparity in them, that it is not likely that the same manufacturer ever made the packages of gloves that were found in the MacDonald house and the piece of latex glove that was found in the bedroom.

Then, he said, "However, I did my own work and not only did I find that there was this disparity, I found ten elements. The Government did not find ten elements. Out of my own data, I conclude that it is highly unlikely that the samples in the MacDonald home were made from the same batch as the piece of latex in the master bedroom; and secondly, that it is unlikely that the same manufacturer made them."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd November 2020 at 02:12 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 22nd November 2020, 09:31 AM   #2037
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
There was an interesting comment by Segal about the blood evidence in the MacDonald case, which seems to weigh so heavily with some people, along with the autopsy photos, during his closing speech at the 1979 trial. Segal always did have some unseemly wrangles with Craig Chamberlain. It was the same at the Article 32 in 1970:

"First of all, I think the Government's findings are suspect, and you have a right to suspect and may be suspicious of those findings also as to what blood there was in the living room. Now, I don't think there was a great deal of blood because the nature of the injuries -- the puncture injuries with the ice pick were the least likely to produce profuse bleeding. We have learned that from all of the pathological evidence here. There were, in fact, three areas along the sofa wall that Craig Chamberlain went and examined because he believed that they might be blood. Now, this led us to a little scientific, you know, side jaunts about how does one detect blood.

Chamberlain said that he used benzidine to see whether they gave reaction. He was asked a simple question that if he knew anything about blood typing, it seems to me, he would have known the answer.

He was asked if benzidine was specific for blood -- that is, it reacts to blood and that is it. If you get a reaction, you have blood, and if you don't, you don't have blood. He said, "Yes."

What was his training and knowledge in the area of blood? When Chamberlain did this, he was fresh out of college. He had a Bachelor's degree, he had eight semester credits in a graduate school in chemistry, he was drafted in the Army, he did eight weeks of basic, and had just finished his six-month course at a CID Laboratory and was on his first crime scene processing.

Dr. John Thornton, a Professor of Criminology at the University of California, testified here that with his experience in processing homicide crime scenes as well as other kind of crime scenes and that with his background and knowledge in the fields of criminalistics and forensic science, that benzidine is not specific for blood -- it reacts to other things. Now, it is clear -- I don't want to mislead you -- benzidine and blood -- it is highly sensitive to blood -- but Dr. Thornton pointed out that there is one more factor that you have to consider before you say that there was no blood there. That is, in fact, that if the quantity to be typed is too small, you may inadvertently conclude that it was not blood when, in fact, it may have been.

Now, the Government's theory that there was no blood in that room is premised on the assumption that Chamberlain was a fully-qualified expert to do blood testing on the crime scene. That is one of the interesting things -- what nine and a half years does to a case. Nine and a half years ago when I saw Craig Chamberlain, he was fresh out of college and fresh out of CID, you know, the six months training, the drug testing, and all the other things they do there, processing his first crime scene ever. And he is, I suggest to you, members of the jury, absolutely flat out wrong with the scientific facts about benzidine. His knowledge cannot be compared to that of John Thornton's.
Now, Chamberlain now has a Ph.D. He just got it last year. He works in a responsible position but nothing to do with forensic sciences. "
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:01 PM   #2038
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Pesky Logic

HENRI: Time and time again, the appellate courts have shouted from the rooftops that sourced physical evidence tops hearsay testimony. Knowing that you vehemently disagree with this thought process, I would like you to switch gears and answer the following questions.

1) Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top before attending to his wife, so how did 79 pajama fibers end up on top the master bed, behind the master bed headboard, and under Colette's body?

2) Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top before entering Kimberley's room, so how did 19 pajama fibers end up under Kimberley's bedcovers and on top/under her pillows?

3) Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top before entering Kristen's room, so why was 1 pajama fiber embedded under Kristen's fingernail and 2 pajama fibers found under her bedcovers?

4) Inmate claims he never saw nor came in contact with the bloody club found in the backyard, so how did 2 pajama fibers end up attached to the club in Colette's Type A blood?

5) Please provide the name of the individual who put on inmate's torn, bloody pajama top and carried Colette's bloody body from Kristen's room to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet?

6) Please provide the name of the individual who put on inmate's torn, bloody pajama top and carried Kimberley's bloody body from the master bedroom to her own bed?

7) Why were inmate's bare bloody footprints only exiting Kristen's room?

8) Why is a speck of Kristen's blood found on the outer lens of inmate's glasses?

9) Why is there not a drop of inmate's blood or a single fiber from his torn pajama top found in the living room?

10) Why was no DNA, hairs, fibers, or fingerprints sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven or New York Four found at the crime scene?

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd November 2020 at 07:11 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 23rd November 2020, 01:31 AM   #2039
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
1) Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top before attending to his wife, so how did 79 pajama fibers end up on top the master bed, behind the master bed headboard, and under Colette's body?

2) Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top before entering Kimberley's room, so how did 19 pajama fibers end up under Kimberley's bedcovers and on top/under her pillows?

3) Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top before entering Kristen's room, so why was 1 pajama fiber embedded under Kristen's fingernail and 2 pajama fibers found under her bedcovers?

4) Inmate claims he never saw nor came in contact with the bloody club found in the backyard, so how did 2 pajama fibers end up attached to the club in Colette's Type A blood?

5) Please provide the name of the individual who put on inmate's torn, bloody pajama top and carried Colette's bloody body from Kristen's room to the master bedroom in the blue bedsheet?

6) Please provide the name of the individual who put on inmate's torn, bloody pajama top and carried Kimberley's bloody body from the master bedroom to her own bed?

7) Why were inmate's bare bloody footprints only exiting Kristen's room?

8) Why is a speck of Kristen's blood found on the outer lens of inmate's glasses?

9) Why is there not a drop of inmate's blood or a single fiber from his torn pajama top found in the living room?

10) Why was no DNA, hairs, fibers, or fingerprints sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven or New York Four found at the crime scene?

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
From the start I have always thought the pajama fibers were weak evidence. The Army CID and FBI seemed to have pajama fibers on the brain. That pajama top was knocked about at the crime scene and there is no guarantee that there were no pajama fibers there before the murders. The pajama bottom was lost. Pajama fibers could have come from the pajama bottom. Pajama fibers may have been found on Kristen because MacDonald carried Kristen from the master bedroom to her own bedroom before the murders and not Kim.

Don't get me talking about the speck of blood on the glasses, or the footprints or MacDonald supposedly carrying Colette's bloody body from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. It never happened. It's false evidence. Old Stombaugh only said it could be backed up by the drunken Irishman McGinniss.

Logan had some sensible words to say about all this back in 1999:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.true...m/Z1jFwy6stycJ

"Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps,
and on the murder club found out back.
In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact Black wool fibers that were similar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
withheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-reexamined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debris" and were not
forensically significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps the fibers are simply household
debris.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it.

Any comment Mirse? Anybody?

Logan

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd November 2020 at 01:38 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 23rd November 2020, 01:46 AM   #2040
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Some Things Never Change

HENRI: I'll give you this, you've religiously stayed the course in refusing to answer any/all of the questions/evidentiary challenges put forth to you on this, and other MacDonald case discussion threads/forums. You certainly have the right to do so, but I also have the right to remind you that this same evidence has led to inmate spending 39 of the past 41 years in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd November 2020 at 01:47 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
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 04:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.