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

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


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

Reply
Old 7th February 2019, 09:52 AM   #921
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I cannot confirm or deny what Dr. Thorton knew or did not know. HOWEVER, IT IS FACT THAT THE PRESENCE OF DARK WOOL FIBERS WAS IN THE DOCUMENTATION, LAB NOTES, ETC. THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE UNDER THE DISCOVERY PROCESS.

It was therefore Bernie Segal's responsibility to read ALL that information and cull from it what he thought could be used to defend inmate. The FACT that he did not is not the fault or responsibility of the government.
That's not accurate and you don't know it and neither do the 4th Circuit judges. MacDonald will never get out of prison with a bunch of very bad judges on the case. This is what actually happened from a Bernie Segal affidavit about the matter:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...990-10-13.html

Quote:
52. Prior to entering into this stipulation concerning Mr. Frier's testimony, I was never informed by Mr. Murtagh or any other government prosecutor that Mr. Frier had discovered the presence of black and green wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon. Further, I was also not informed by Mr. Murtagh or any other government prosecutor that Mr. Frier or other FBI laboratory personnel had conducted reexaminations of the debris taken from Colette MacDonald's body and the wooden club murder weapon in which the FBI discovered the presence of additional black, green and white wool fibers.

53. If I had been aware of the extent to which the FBI had reexamined various pieces of evidence taken from the crime scene or that Mr. Frier's laboratory notes revealed the presence of black, green and white wool fibers on the body of Colette MacDonald and on the wooden club murder weapon, I would not have agreed to the stipulation. I would have demanded that copies of Mr. Frier's handwritten notes be turned over to the defense and that he appear as a witness so that I could cross-examine him on his findings.

54. Had I been informed that Janice Glisson had discovered and documented in her handwritten laboratory notes the presence of blond synthetic hair-like fibers, some 22 inches in length, on the clear-handled hair brush taken from the MacDonald home, I would have demanded that Glisson's handwritten notes be turned over to the defense so that I could cross-examine her on her findings.

55. In both instances involving Frier and Glisson's findings, I was either directly or indirectly misled by the government by virtue of its representations to me -- and often to the Court as well -- and its failure to turn over these exculpatory documents that would have allowed me to follow the course of action described above.


Sworn to before me this 13 day of October, 1990.

James C. Talley, Notary public

My commission expires May 25, 1993.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 7th February 2019 at 09:55 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 7th February 2019, 10:51 AM   #922
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Context

The only significant fiber evidence in this case involved sourced fibers and most of the significant fibers were sourced to inmate's torn pajama top. They included fibers found in the following locations.

Master bedroom

- 22 pajama fibers found on the top sheet of the master bed
- 6 pajama fibers found on top of the pillow
- 24 pajama fibers found under Colette's body
- 3 fibers found near the left corner of the footboard
- 1 fiber found near the headboard
- 23 fibers found on the floor near Colette's body

Kimberley's bedroom

- 14 threads found under Kimberley's bedcovers
- 20.5 inch yarn found on top of Kimberley's pillow
- 1 yarn found under Kimberley's pillow
- 3 yarns found on top of Kimberley's bed

Kristen's bedroom

- 1 thread found under Kristen's bedcovers
- 1 yarn found under Kristen's bedcovers

Additional pajama fibers were found in the following locations.

- 2 pajama seam threads found on the club
- 1 bloody pajama seam thread found twisted with a bloody head hair from Colette was found in the multi-colored bedspread
- Several pajama fibers were found on the blue bedsheet
- A pajama fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail
- A pajama fiber was found on Colette's body
- Several pajama fibers were found on Jeffrey MacDonald's robe

What is the most logical explanation for the presence of 3 unsourced dark woolen fibers on Colette's body and 2 unsourced dark woolen fibers on the club? When Colette's bloody body and the bloody club were placed on the shag carpet in the master bedroom, fibers from the carpet adhered to Colette's body and the club. The big problem for the defense was that it was impossible to determine when those fibers were deposited on the carpet. In addition, the defense could not rule out the distinct possibility that the source of the fibers were clothing items from the MacDonald household.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 7th February 2019 at 11:03 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 7th February 2019, 01:18 PM   #923
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not accurate
Yes it is accurate!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and you don't know it
of course I don't know that it is inaccurate because IT IS ACCURATE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and neither do the 4th Circuit judges.
The 4th Circuit Court Judges don't need to know about the dark wool fibers. Once again:

1. UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS
2. The existence of the fibers was in the discovery material
3. The fact that the fibers were NOT brought up at trial is on the defense.
4. the government has no responsibility to point out specific evidentiary items.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald will never get out of prison
Of course he is not going to get out of prison because he is guilty as CONVICTED. He has had more chances then any other murderer in US jurisprudence. His last "hope" if you can call it that will be if they appeal to the US Supreme Court to have the latest appeal reviewed. However, since the onus is on the defense to prove his claims and they didn't even come close it is VERY unlikely to happen.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
with a bunch of very bad judges on the case.
There have not been bad judges in this case, in fact the 4th Circuit Court has bent over backwards to give inmate chances to which he was not truly entitled.

As for Bernie's affidavit - it is trash! Bernie certainly wasn't going to put out an affidavit admitting he had ignored huge amounts of evidence before trial.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 04:55 PM   #924
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!

Originally Posted by Whip View Post
<Snip>when are you going to come to this country and free your boy with all your faux knowledge? why are you letting him rot in prison since you have all the answers? that's more criminal than if he had been falsely convicted.
Come on, Henri, answer the damn questions.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 03:24 AM   #925
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Additional pajama fibers were found in the following locations.

- 2 pajama seam threads found on the club
- 1 bloody pajama seam thread found twisted with a bloody head hair from Colette was found in the multi-colored bedspread
-
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Fred Bost believed there were never any pajama fibers found on the wooden club murder weapon and that was supposed to be the conclusive evidence to sway the jury. I agree with him. Stombaugh only said it could be, and the same with the hairs and threads. That should be explained to the 4th Circuit judges before they all start nodding off because of advanced age. This is what Fred Bost thought about the bloody head hair entwined and again I agree with him about this:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html

Quote:
CLAIM 4 -- THE HAIR AND FIBER ENTWINED

Long after the murders the government added a "new evidence" claim. A bloody hair matching Colette's was allegedly found entwined with a long sewing thread supposedly from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. This was viewed as damning evidence of a vicious fight. An FBI lab technician first introduced this claim at the 1974 grand jury investigation, saying this find was delivered to him that year in a vial -- part of the debris collected by the CID from the bloody bedspread found on the floor. The original laboratory note seems to suggest the entangled items were already mounted on a slide and delivered in a pillbox (SHORT #14). A general note written later indicates otherwise.

In any event, although it would be a common forensic requirement, the FBI lab technician caused no photo to be taken of the hair and thread before separating them (SHORT #15). The technician then washed away the alleged blood on the hair in order to make a microscopic examination (also SHORT #15). Thus, the only "proof" that a bloody hair was found entwined with a fiber is the word of the FBI technician.

There is something drastically wrong with his claim, however. Numerous examinations of the debris in the bedspread were made and recorded by the Army CID Laboratory during preceding years. CID lab notes show that a bloody hair was indeed found among that debris, but the hair matched Kimberly's hair, not Colette's (SHORT #16)In a deposition given prior to the Army hearing in 1970, the CID technician who controlled this evidence told how he washed hairs taken from the bedspread in preparation for making microscopic analyses (SHORT #17). The FBI found only one hair matching Colette in the debris given them from the bedspread. As shown, the CID had already found, examined, and cataloged that hair. How then did entwinement develop? If Colette's hair was the bloody hair, why was it identified by the CID as Kimberly's? And if the bloody hair was washed by the CID, how did it remain bloody for the FBI?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th February 2019 at 03:26 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 07:11 PM   #926
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Writing Checks That Your Specious Claims Can't Cash

Responding for the 500th time to the Landlord's specious evidentiary claims...

In 1995, MacDonald's advocates implied that something nefarious occurred with a specific evidentiary item. In preparation for the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings, the FBI did a forensic re-analysis of all the evidentiary items with the exception of blood typing. In 1974, Brian Murtagh hand-carried the evidence to Paul Stombaugh and when Stombaugh found a head hair twisted with a pajama seam thread, the MacDonald defense team began to ask specific questions.

For example, the defense team knew that in 1970, the CID did not list a head hair twisted with a pajama seam thread. Once they discovered that Murtagh delivered the vial that contained this evidentiary item, they began to wonder whether Murtagh had manufactured this trace evidence. The documented record, however, provides a more prosaic explanation. In 1970, the CID listed two pieces of blood-soaked thread being found in the multi-colored bedspread, and designated this evidentiary item as CID Exhibit D-229. In 1974, Paul Stombaugh noted two long pieces of blood-soaked thread with one of those threads having a head hair twisted with it. Stombaugh added that the head hair had traces of blood along its shaft.

Stombaugh labeled the debris as FBI Exhibit Q96, the seam thread was soaked in water to remove the hair, and the hair was then placed on a slide. Stombaugh stated in his notes that "the hair had no root, but was probably broken due to blow to head." Stombaugh then compared the hair to head hair exemplars from the MacDonald family and the hair microscopically matched the hair of Colette MacDonald. In order for the defense theory to work, Brian Murtagh would have had to have found an extraneous broken, bloody head hair from Colette, and twisted it around an extraneous bloody seam thread from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas.

In terms of the fibers found on the club, Fred Bost never definitively stated that fibers from inmate's torn pajama top were not found on the club. What he did claim was that there was a distinct possibility that the CID and FBI misidentified these fibers. In 1970, CID chemist Dillard Browning labeled the debris found on the club as CID Exhibit E-205. Browning noted that two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood and he subsequently placed the two fibers in a vial.

In 1974, FBI physical science technician Shirley Green labeled the debris from the club as FBI Exhibit Q89. Green placed the pajama fibers in a pillbox, and Paul Stombaugh later matched the fibers to the seam threads from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. In 1989, the FBI took two color photographs of the seam threads in the pillbox and the photographs were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. The documented record clearly indicates that both pajama fibers and dark woolen fibers were found on the club.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th February 2019 at 07:13 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 10th February 2019, 03:37 AM   #927
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In terms of the fibers found on the club, Fred Bost never definitively stated that fibers from inmate's torn pajama top were not found on the club. What he did claim was that there was a distinct possibility that the CID and FBI misidentified these fibers. In 1970, CID chemist Dillard Browning labeled the debris found on the club as CID Exhibit E-205. Browning noted that two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood and he subsequently placed the two fibers in a vial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Fred Bost did say once that he believed there were never any pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon, but I now can't find the reference. There is an interesting letter from MacDonald himself about all this sort of thing on the internet:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ac-rigbsy.html

Quote:
Try to find out if Stombaugh received the exhibits from Brian Murtagh himself for Paul Stombaugh's investigation in 1974-75 (Grand Jury).
Try to find out if he was aware that Janet Glisson tried the pajama top experiment years before he (Stombaugh) did and she failed, because of the directionality of the thrusts through the pajama top as documented by Stombaugh himself under the microscope. The point is, Glisson could not do it because of Stombaugh's findings, then Stombaugh could do it only by doing his own findings. My question is: "Was he aware of Glisson's prior work"?
When did Stombaugh become aware of black wool fibers on the murder weapon and Colette's mouth, that he failed to testify to in 1979?
When, if ever, did Stombaugh become aware of bloody hairs from the hands of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen, to which he failed to testify, under oath, in 1979?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th February 2019 at 03:41 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 10th February 2019, 09:57 AM   #928
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Murtagh and Stombaugh were telling lies as a matter of course and Fred Bost understood this. This is part of what MacDonald thinks about it all and it's true:

https://medium.com/@lajp/dr-jeffrey-...s-6f09003ac918

Quote:
He continued his litany of horrors. “While the army CID is under fire
for screwing up the investigation and covering up Stoeckley, guess what
happens? That’s right! An army lawyer, mind you, working for the CID
who screwed me in 1970, this weird little guy named Murtagh, takes this
box of jimmied evidence to the Justice Department. Now, guess what?
There’s a head hair from Colette, wrapped around a what? A pajama fiber!
It’s brand new, wasn’t there when the CID looked at it time and time
again. How creative! And the foreign hair they found in Colette’s hand,
the one thing that clobbered them in the army hearing, has now become
nothing. Somebody had cut it till it’s too small to test. Who did that?
Somebody did it, but who? The CID had even written notes on how
different it looked from other hairs they checked. But now, surprise,
surprise, not only is it too little to lab-test anymore, they hide the fact
that this was the hair they tested against me so Segal can’t challenge them
at trial! Say, bye bye to still another piece of evidence. Wonder who set
that up? Wonder who carried the evidence up to Stombaugh? You got it, Murtagh himself.
“But you can’t prove Murtagh changed the evidence.”
“Can’t prove anything until you can get your hands on it, and get him
on the stand in an evidentiary hearing, which they aren’t going to let me
have.
“So,” MacDonald says, his eyes tearful, “now they get a grand jury
hearing, then an indictment, then a trial in which we can’t lab-test the
evidence, can’t even see the ‘damned lab notes. And Dupree won’t allow
the Rock report, or psychiatric evidence, or the seven Stoeckley confession
witnesses. I’m convicted because the jurors, who still don’t believe I did
it, ask to see the blood chart, and, what did Murtagh arrange? The chart
he gives the jurors shows no blood in the hallway. Hey, MacDonald must
be lying, these twelve people say. Murtagh couldn’t be lying; he’s the God
damn government.” MacDonald’s voice cracks, and I realize there really is
no fun in this for him.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th February 2019 at 10:00 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 10th February 2019, 01:07 PM   #929
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
The Musings Of A Psychopath

In regards to the collection and analysis of the physical evidence in this case, the opinions and/or musings of a psychopath are worthless.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 06:52 PM   #930
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Tainted Legacy

It has been 20 years since I communicated with Fred Bost via letters/phone calls, and the following were his opinions regarding Judge Fox and trace evidence in this case.

JUDGE FOX: Bost attended the 1999 DNA protocol hearings and was impressed with Judge Fox's grasp of the evidence. He stated that the hairs were the most important pieces of trace evidence in this case and that Judge Fox has "finally taken the time to read the entire record." Despite the presentation of hairs allegedly found under the girls' fingernails, Judge Fox had denied MacDonald an evidentiary hearing in 1997. Bost felt that Judge Fox had since taken a hard look at the evidence and concluded that the government has gone beyond mere foot dragging in terms of complying with DNA testing. Bost stated, "Phil, the judge has finally come around."

TRACE EVIDENCE: Bost stated that the unsourced hairs were the most important pieces of trace evidence in this case and that Judge Fox has "finally taken the time to read the entire record." At that time, Bost did not feel that the unsourced fibers were significant enough to garner inmate a new trial.

Bost's thought process is at odds with the Landlord's slanderous claims regarding the ethics and competence of Judge Fox. This same thought process is also at odds with the Landlord's religious devotion to household debris found at 544 Castle Drive.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 10th February 2019 at 07:00 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 03:45 AM   #931
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
That's not true. The prosecution presented false evidence and carelessly gathered evidence to the court. Fred Bost was most severe in his criticism of Stombaugh in that Hennis /Eastburn case for his inaccurate testimony. MacDonald seems to think that Congress might be able to help him if the judges and public and media and lawyers are not capable of doing it. It's just that Congress seem to be obsessed with another Berlin wall at the moment.There is a bit about all this at this website:

http://whale.to/b/dowbenko.html

Quote:
Gunderson has written his own summary of the facts in The Doctor Jeffrey R. MacDonald Investigation (contact Gunderson International, PO Box 18000-259, Las Vegas, NV 89114, USA). Evidence, such as fingerprints, was intentionally destroyed by Army CID (Criminal Investigation Division). Other evidence, like a bloody syringe, bloody clothing and boots, was lost. More crucial evidence was never collected. Then allegations of FBI Crime Lab corruption surfaced through FBI whistleblower Frederick Whitehurst.

Michael P. Malone, an FBI forensic specialist who testified in the MacDonald case, was exposed by the Inspector-General's report. "Mr Malone has indeed testified falsely and outside his expertise," reported the Wall Street Journal of April 16, 1997. "In 1987 and 1988, Florida appellate courts overturned guilty verdicts - citing insufficient evidence - in cases in which Mr Malone had testified for the prosecution," the article continues.

In addition, an internal FBI memo written in 1989 alleged that Mr Malone had given 27 instances of false or misleading testimony in the 1985 proceedings that led to the impeachment and ouster of former US District Judge Alcee L. Hastings.

Was it just sloppy work or outright fraud? The evidence shows that FBI Crime Lab work cannot be trusted. In MacDonald's case, Malone's testimony alone should have been grounds for a mistrial.

In Psychic Dictatorship in the USA (Feral House, 1995), author Alex Constantine also weighs in on the MacDonald case. "Fatal Vision is a political hit piece," he writes. "The paperback indictment of MacDonald has reinforced the public perception of MacDonald's guilt, and kept dormant one of the most unconscionable scandals in American military history.

"Three suspects in the murders have confessed. MacDonald's version of events has been confirmed by some 40 witnesses... Fatal Vision is myopic in its exclusion of any evidence that might clear MacDonald. McGinniss's claim to impartiality eroded completely in his flat refusal in 1980 to even look at the 1200-page report compiled by MacDonald's defense attorneys. The report, taken together with the sworn depositions of witnesses, press accounts and interviews with investigators, combines in a case sharply at odds with the government's.

"MacDonald passed a polygraph," writes Constantine. "He submitted to five independent forensic examinations. The government's own lab specimens link Fort Bragg's body-bag [drug-smuggling] ring to the crime scene, including a long, synthetic blonde strand corroborating MacDonald's contention that Stoeckley wore a blonde wig the night of the murders. A bloody syringe found in his home was 'lost' by the prosecution."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th February 2019 at 03:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 09:15 AM   #932
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
There seems to be a book about the Jeffrey MacDonald case by Fred Bost, who I think died in 2013, called Railroaded. This is one review of it:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rai...ost/1111743883

Quote:
After college, I returned home to visit my parents one weekend. As I walked in the living room my parents were watching a show called Crimes of the Century or something to that effect. Jeffrey MacDonald's murder trial was one of the subjects of the show.

I sat on the couch and there on the TV was a picture of my dad from 1970 in his military fatigues being interviewed. From that point on, I took up quite an interest in Jefferey MacDonald and this case.

My parents were both in the army and stationed at Fort Bragg during the time of the murders. They were close friends with Jeffrey and Colette and they both have maintained that Jeffrey is innocent.

I've read several books, articles and studied what evidence I could find on the Internet that would help support my belief that Jeffery is innocent.

Railroaded is a relatively short read compared to some of the other books on this subject such as Fatal Justice or A Wilderness of Error, but the information is presented succinctly. I'm convinced even more in Jeffrey's innocence and greatly appalled to learn more about the despicable behaviors of the prosecution team such as Brian Murtagh.

Many of you who have followed this case or briefly read about it have already decided MacDonald is guilty and your opinion may be hard to change. Hopefully Railroaded might help to loosen your confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance so you my see this case with fresh eyes.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th February 2019 at 09:19 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:40 PM   #933
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not true.
Yes it is true.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The prosecution presented false evidence and carelessly gathered evidence to the court.
No, the prosecution presented carefully gathered evidence and IF someone felt the evidence was "false" the time to have brought that forth was AT TRIAL. Since the defense did not ever make such a claim it is more than a little ridiculous that you now try to do so....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Fred Bost was most severe in his criticism of Stombaugh in that Hennis /Eastburn case for his inaccurate testimony.
So what? that is irrelevant to the case under discussion.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald seems to think that Congress might be able to help him if the judges and public and media and lawyers are not capable of doing it.
Really? Congress cannot even create a budget to operate the federal government, what exactly to you imagine he thinks they can do?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's just that Congress seem to be obsessed with another Berlin wall at the moment.
What do you imagine Congress would be able to do for inmate?
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 06:41 AM   #934
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Zeszotarski filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on behalf of MacDonald on 2/4/2019. He is essentially unhappy with the way the 4th Circuit marshaled the evidence in rendering their opinion and is throwing a tantrum and insisting that MacDonald's evidence destroyed the prosecution's entire case. roflmao!

The petition was filed exactly 45 days to the day when the decision was released.

Local Rule 40(c). Time Limits for Filing Petitions.
The Court strictly enforces the time limits for filing petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. The Clerk's Office will deny as untimely any petition received in the Clerk's Office later than 45 days after entry of judgment in any civil case where the United States, or an agency or officer thereof is a party, or 14 days after the entry of judgment in any other case. The only grounds for an extension of time to file a petition, or to accept an untimely petition, are as follows:
i. the death or serious illness of counsel, or of a member of counsel's immediate family (or in the case of a party proceeding without counsel, the death or serious illness of the party or a member of the party's immediate family); or
ii. an extraordinary circumstance wholly beyond the control of counsel or of a party proceeding without counsel.
Petitions for rehearing and petitions for en banc rehearing from incarcerated persons proceeding without the assistance of counsel are deemed filed when they are delivered to prison or jail officials. All other such petitions are deemed filed only when received in the Clerk's Office.


Some of us have been talking off-line and wonder if the Clerk is going to accept this filing since this is not a Civil action the time limit should be 14 days (at least that is what I read).
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:44 PM   #935
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Zeszotarski filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on behalf of MacDonald on 2/4/2019. He is essentially unhappy with the way the 4th Circuit marshaled the evidence in rendering their opinion and is throwing a tantrum and insisting that MacDonald's evidence destroyed the prosecution's entire case. roflmao!

The petition was filed exactly 45 days to the day when the decision was released.

Local Rule 40(c). Time Limits for Filing Petitions.
The Court strictly enforces the time limits for filing petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. The Clerk's Office will deny as untimely any petition received in the Clerk's Office later than 45 days after entry of judgment in any civil case where the United States, or an agency or officer thereof is a party, or 14 days after the entry of judgment in any other case. The only grounds for an extension of time to file a petition, or to accept an untimely petition, are as follows:
i. the death or serious illness of counsel, or of a member of counsel's immediate family (or in the case of a party proceeding without counsel, the death or serious illness of the party or a member of the party's immediate family); or
ii. an extraordinary circumstance wholly beyond the control of counsel or of a party proceeding without counsel.
Petitions for rehearing and petitions for en banc rehearing from incarcerated persons proceeding without the assistance of counsel are deemed filed when they are delivered to prison or jail officials. All other such petitions are deemed filed only when received in the Clerk's Office.


Some of us have been talking off-line and wonder if the Clerk is going to accept this filing since this is not a Civil action the time limit should be 14 days (at least that is what I read).
Do you have a link to the petition?

Thank you in advance.
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 13th February 2019, 04:02 AM   #936
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
The 4th Circuit Court Judges don't need to know about the dark wool fibers. Once again:

1. UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS
2. The existence of the fibers was in the discovery material
3. The fact that the fibers were NOT brought up at trial is on the defense.
4. the government has no responsibility to point out specific evidentiary items.
To put it politely that's not true. You are lying. The police and Army CID, and even the FBI are apt to jump to conclusions. Murtagh illegally withheld the exculpatory evidence until the defense found out about it after the trial and Stombaugh and Malone made up the evidence.

There is a reasonable analysis of the way Bernie Segal and Dr. Thornton thought about the information they were given about the forensics in the case at this website by the FBI agent Madden:

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


Thornton admitted that both of them, Segal and Thornton, rather complacently thought MacDonald would be acquitted and that it would have taken about six months to properly examine and test all the forensics. They were also taken by surprise when a trial date was announced, after a decision by the misguided Supreme Court.

Thornton was only granted some rather inadequate lab facilities in Raleigh and no access to the lab notes of Stombaugh and Frier and Glisson or Kathy Bond, or Browning, were granted to him by Murtagh and Dupree. He was only able to concentrate on the pajama top and the bloodstains on the bedsheet which was the priority. The pajama fibers, and hairs, which later became crucial for the jury were largely ignored by Thornton.

The problem with that Madden analysis is that it was not profound enough. The corrupt bias by the judges, or the lack of extremely competent judges, or the proven contempt of court and bias by the foreman of the jury, was never addressed. It was a mistrial and kangaroo court and gross miscarriage of justice.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th February 2019 at 04:07 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 06:04 AM   #937
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
To put it politely that's not true.
Yes it is TRUE

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You are lying.
No, I am not.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The police and Army CID, and even the FBI are apt to jump to conclusions.
Maybe they are but that is irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh illegally withheld the exculpatory evidence
No, he did not. The courts found that nothing was withheld. The information was in the documentation provided to the defense. The FACT that the defense did not bother to completely review all of the documentation is not the fault or responsibility of the prosecution.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
until the defense found out about it after the trial
That is a lie. The evidence was in the discovery information received by the defense. they failed to appreciate its importance and/or failed to review what was in the documentation. Too bad for them. It is not the prosecution's responsibility to point out evidentiary items to the defense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Stombaugh and Malone made up the evidence.
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Thornton admitted that both of them, Segal and Thornton, rather complacently thought MacDonald would be acquitted
Complacently - good word for it - but the details are that Segal and his team did not bother to review ALL of the evidence and his ego is partly to blame. He believed that there was not much evidence so he played games and attempted to get the evidence shipped cross country knowing full well that no Judge would approve that happening. Bernie didn't review the evidence that doesn't mean it was withheld it means he didn't do his job very well.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and that it would have taken about six months to properly examine and test all the forensics.
Which goes to how strong the evidence was AND points out again how idiotic Bernie was for his machinations that he KNEW would result in him having to send his forensic experts to Raleigh anyway. He should have done that at the beginning rather than play games. Still, doesn't make the evidence withheld it makes the defense BAD. Maybe inmate should have tried an appeal on insufficient counsel....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They were also taken by surprise when a trial date was announced, after a decision by the misguided Supreme Court.
No, they were not the defense was involved in the hearings to set dates etc.

Funny how in your world everyone but the mass murderer has some failing. The US Supreme Court was not misguided.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Thornton was only granted some rather inadequate lab facilities in Raleigh
LIE! He was granted access to very good and extensive lab facilities.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and no access to the lab notes of Stombaugh and Frier and Glisson or Kathy Bond, or Browning, were granted to him by Murtagh and Dupree.
It was not Murtagh's responsibility to provide DEFENSE experts with documentation. That was Bernie's job.

Judge's don't have anything to do with the evidence physically. They make the legal calls others DO the actions. Bernie had the material, that he didn't share it with his experts is on him. PERIOD. You need to put the blame where it belongs - on inmate for slaughtering his family and on Bernie for having so much ego that he thought he'd be able to beat the government AFTER all the evidence was analyzed like he had in the Article 32 where less than half of the evidence was analyzed.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He was only able to concentrate on the pajama top and the bloodstains on the bedsheet which was the priority.
Bernie's fault....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The pajama fibers, and hairs, which later became crucial for the jury were largely ignored by Thornton.
Again, Bernie's fault

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The corrupt bias by the judges,
Only in your world are the Judges anything less than skilled and intelligent jurists, and there was no bias, inmate was PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your doubts are not reasonable....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or the lack of extremely competent judges,
No lack of competent Judges in this case. they were/are all very competent and were not taken in by the lies of inmate or the egotistical condescension of Bernie Segal.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or the proven contempt of court and bias by the foreman of the jury, was never addressed.
Can not have it both ways henri - either something is proven or it was never addressed. Since the Jury Foreman was not in contempt of court nor biased this is just another one of your ridiculous "unreasonable" claims....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was a mistrial and kangaroo court and gross miscarriage of justice.
It was an excellent trial and no mistrial. Justice was done for the victims of this case which you apparently have never figured out do not include inmate. The VICTIMS were Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy. Why do you hate them?
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 06:07 AM   #938
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Pacal - no I do not have a link to the petition at this time....IF it becomes available to me I will share it.....

we are all now waiting to see if the Clerk of the Court accepts the petition because it was submitted 31 days beyond the deadline to file (but would not be the first time that inmate filed late and the courts accepted it anyway). I will let you all know when/if I hear anything
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 12:02 PM   #939
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Sore Loser

PACAL: Here ya go.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...136-doc057.pdf
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 01:56 PM   #940
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 73
Rather nicely written -- much better than some earlier inmate-related filings -- but based almost completely on hearsay. He relies on people to whom Stoeckley said assorted things as "proof"/"verification" that inmate is telling the truth. I don't see how hearsay can carry that kind of weight.
ScottPletcher is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th February 2019, 04:15 PM   #941
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Rinse And Repeat

SCOTT: The defense attempted this tactic at the 2012 evidentiary hearing and neither Judge Fox nor the 4th Circuit Court bought any of it. In essence, inmate's rotating band of lawyers have argued that 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay evidence should outweigh the mass of physical evidence that led to inmate's conviction.

Although it is nicely written, this petition ignores several prior claims put forth by the defense, and the tone is akin to a child throwing a fit.

1) Since 2009, the defense has gone back and forth on whether the 5mm hair fragment found in Kristen's fingernail scrapings was bloody. Despite the fact that Zeszotarski admitted (e.g., 2017 oral arguments) to the 4th Circuit Court that the hair fragment was not bloody, he now argues that the hair was bloody. A case of poor short-term memory or is Zeszotarski simply grasping at straws?

2) Zeszotarski's obsession with Judge Dupree's letter ignores the fact that he denied inmate a new trial not once, but twice. These denials occurred several years after he constructed that letter.

3) Zeszotarski's grandiosity is in full display when he states that inmate challenged the entirety of the government's case. For the past 40 years, the defense has carefully picked their evidentiary battles, and remained silent on several inculpatory evidentiary items and/or issues. Examples include the bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet, the pajama fibers found under bodies/bedcovers/under Kristen's fingernail, and the lack of definitive evidence (e.g., sourced DNA, hairs, fibers, prints) of hippie home invaders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th February 2019 at 04:18 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 15th February 2019, 03:12 AM   #942
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

It was not Murtagh's responsibility to provide DEFENSE experts with documentation. That was Bernie's job.

Judge's don't have anything to do with the evidence physically. They make the legal calls others DO the actions. Bernie had the material, that he didn't share it with his experts is on him. PERIOD. You need to put the blame where it belongs - on inmate for slaughtering his family and on Bernie for having so much ego that he thought he'd be able to beat the government AFTER all the evidence was analyzed like he had in the Article 32 where less than half of the evidence was analyzed.
The point is which you don't seem to be able to get into your head is that as MacDonald has said "we were never allowed to do our own testing" in the case. MacDonald accuses Murtagh of obstruction of justice and perjury and that's right judgment. The 4th Circuit judges and Byn need to wake up to this fact:

http://wildernessoferror-data.s3.ama...nse%20Team.pdf
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 15th February 2019, 04:02 AM   #943
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
This makes sense to me from that MacDonald defense legal document:

Quote:
As explained in
his Opening Brief, the Government theory adopted by the panel relies
on highly illogical coincidences:
To accept the Government’s theory of guilt, one must accept that MacDonald created a story about a woman with a floppy hat being with intruders who killed his family, and that by coincidence such a woman did exist in the community on that very night, and that by coincidence that woman would then falsely confess repeatedly (both before, during, and after the 1979 trial) to being present during the murders with the murderers in a way that was entirely consistent with the story that MacDonald supposedly made up from whole cloth. In addition, one would have to accept that one of the men identified by Stoeckley as one of the killers in her many confessions, Greg Mitchell, would by coincidence himself falsely confess repeatedly to taking part in the killings, in a way that is entirely consistent with the story supposedly created by MacDonald. What are the chances of this occurring?

(Opening Brief at 35). The panel opinion does not address this point in...…
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 15th February 2019, 08:17 AM   #944
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is which you don't seem to be able to get into your head is that as MacDonald has said "we were never allowed to do our own testing" in the case. MacDonald accuses Murtagh of obstruction of justice and perjury and that's right judgment. The 4th Circuit judges and Byn need to wake up to this fact:
The point you don't get is Jeffrey Macdonald slaughtered his wife and children on 17 February 1970 and no amount of name-calling and mud-slinging from him, you and any other poor soul taken in by the Inmate's lies is going to change that fact.

PS: Byn is more awake on the facts in REM sleep than you will ever be.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 09:23 AM   #945
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is which you don't seem to be able to get into your head is that as MacDonald has said "we were never allowed to do our own testing" in the case.
THE POINT (that you cannot seem to get into your head) IS THAT INMATE WAS ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO TESTING, THAT BERNIE SEGAL SQUANDERED THE OPPORTUNITY IS NOT ACTIONABLE BY INMATE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald accuses Murtagh of obstruction of justice and perjury and that's right judgment.
Murtagh did not obstruct justice nor did he perjure himself. UNLIKE INMATE WHO HAS PERJURED HIMSELF AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The 4th Circuit judges and Byn need to wake up to this fact:
The 4th Circuit Court has no need to be "aware" of the machinations and missteps of the defense. The time to bring forth arguments about what was or was not allowed pre-trial would have been in the initial appeal and inmate would have needed (I believe) to claim ineffective counsel. (might have had a point there) but again, the fact that Bernie Segal CHOSE to attempt requests for evidence transfer across country rather than sending in his experts right away IS NOT ACTIONABLE. Also, it is NOT the responsibility of the prosecution. The materials and evidence were made available, as was sufficient lab space, and the DEFENSE FAILED TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

btw BYN is very well aware of the FACTS and she DOES NOT RELY on the misrepresentation, cut and paste, revisionist history crap as put forth in FJ or WOE. BYN reads and relies on the documented, certified, TRUTHFUL case documents.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 09:50 AM   #946
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
THE POINT (that you cannot seem to get into your head) IS THAT INMATE WAS ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO TESTING, THAT BERNIE SEGAL SQUANDERED THE OPPORTUNITY IS NOT ACTIONABLE BY INMATE.
That's a lie and you and the 4th Circuit judges need to read the hard documentary evidence with regard to the matter. Trying to get Murtagh and Dupree to disclose the exculpatory evidence was like dealing with a brick wall for Segal and Thornton, and this has been explained in various affidavits since the trial. If you are accused of having your pajama fibers on a murder weapon and this is used to sway a jury at a trial, then your defense lawyers should be told in advance of your trial what exactly you are being accused of, and the evidence to back it up, and if it is made up. That never happened thanks to Murtagh and Dupree.

The writer of this blog had the right idea about the MacDonald case, though it may lack comprehensive vision:

http://bret1111.blogspot.com/2010/12...macdonald.html

Quote:
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

During the trial, the defense attorneys requested to review laboratory notes, but the prosecution insisted that nothing found at the crime scene supported MacDonald's story. The judge refused to order the prosecution to turn over the notes.

Over the years since the trial, MacDonald's attorneys have used the Freedom of Information Act to discover evidence that was withheld by the prosecution prior to and during the trial. Fibers and fingerprints found in the apartment were never matched to anyone known to have been in the apartment prior to or after the murders.

For example, a bloody adult palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed, near Collette's body. The print did not match MacDonald or anyone known to have been present at the crime scene.

For example, black wool fibers were found on Colette's shoulder and mouth, which would potentially point to an intruder, but this evidence was deliberately withheld from the defense. These black fibers did not match any items in the MacDonald household.

For example, A 2-inch pubic hair was found between Colette's legs. It did not match MacDonald or any other known source.

For example, a blue acrylic fiber was found in Collette's right hand. This material could not be matched to any items in the MacDonald household.

For example, a blue acrylic fiber was found where MacDonald had been rendered unconscious. This material could not be matched to any items in the MacDonald household.

For example, two identical 22-inch blonde synthetic wig hairs were found in a hairbrush on a table in the living room where MacDonald had been attacked but that evidence was never disclosed to the defense.

For example, A brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberly's bloody fingernail. This hair did not match MacDonald.

For example, a bloody hair, with root intact, was found under the fingernail of Kristen's fingernail. Source unknown.

In the aftermath of the trial, all of MacDonald's claims of suppression of evidence were rejected by the courts. The rulings cited that even if the suppressed evidence would have been introduced it would not have been enough to have changed the verdict of the jury.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th February 2019 at 09:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 10:09 AM   #947
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,743
The only person on the planet lonelier than HM:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


At least the Maytag repairman doesn't lobby for a murderer.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 10:14 AM   #948
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
The time to bring forth arguments about what was or was not allowed pre-trial would have been in the initial appeal and inmate would have needed (I believe) to claim ineffective counsel. (might have had a point there)
MacDonald did try once to claim ineffective counsel, but Judge Dupree just replied in a legal document that he thought Segal was an astute lawyer, even though both Dupree and Murtagh had out-tricked Segal.

Personally, I think Gary Bostwick was MacDonald's best lawyer in the Joe McGinniss case. He was more of an aggressive criminal attorney, even though he is basically a civil lawyer, and he would have kicked up more of a fuss about the withheld forensic evidence. It would still probably have led nowhere.

MacDonald lawyer, the late Eisman, had a thorough grasp of the MacDonald case forensics, unlike Wade Smith, but unfortunately Eisman and Segal were no longer partners after the Article 32 in 1970.
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 15th February 2019, 02:54 PM   #949
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Yawn

PACAL: Here ya go.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...136-doc057.pdf

In addition to the fact that ALL of inmate's evidentiary claims have prosaic explanations, his advocates don't seem to have the ability to keep up with current information on this case. Prime example from one of the Landlord's regurgitated lists.

"For example, A brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberly's bloody fingernail. This hair did not match MacDonald."

COMMENTS: This evidentiary item was a 7mm hair fragment that was found in Kimberley's fingernail scrapings. The only hairs that can be compared under a microscope are head and pubic hairs, so it was impossible to exclude inmate as the source of that hair fragment. In late 1999, FBI hair and fiber expert Robert Fram analyzed the hair fragment and determined that it was animal hair. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 06:38 PM   #950
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Examples Part Deux

The following claim by Zeszotarski is yet another example of his penchant for constructing fantasy narratives.

"In the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, his pregnant wife and two daughters were murdered in their home on base, and MacDonald was severely injured."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 16th February 2019 at 06:42 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 17th February 2019, 03:25 AM   #951
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Murtagh's withholding of the exculpatory evidence and making up of the evidence is against the law and something needs to be done about it. Personally, I think it's perverting the course of justice. To suddenly spring on the defense and jury that there were supposed to be pajama fibers on the murder weapon as a surprise, without previously informing the defense about is just plain legal trickery. The matter is discussed at this website:

http://breakdown.myajc.com/law-schoo...olds-evidence/

Quote:
Brady’s lawyer discovered that Boblit’s statement had been withheld by the prosecution – but only after Brady had been convicted and lost his appeal.

Brady’s motion for a new trial was appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
‘Society wins when criminal trials are fair’

The 7-2 ruling, handed down May 13, 1963, said a prosecution team’s failure to turn over information violates due process when the evidence that’s withheld is material either to a defendant’s guilt or punishment. The court said this holds true irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution – meaning it doesn’t matter whether the information is withheld intentionally or not.

“Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly,” Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the court’s majority.

Atlanta criminal defense attorney Don Samuel said he has long found it hard to believe it wasn’t until 1963 when the Brady precedent became a bedrock principle of law.

“It is the one rule of discovery that assures a lack of surprise at trial,” Samuel said. “More important, its purpose is to assure that innocent people are not prosecuted and convicted.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th February 2019 at 03:28 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 17th February 2019, 03:56 AM   #952
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The following claim by Zeszotarski is yet another example of his penchant for constructing fantasy narratives.

"In the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, his pregnant wife and two daughters were murdered in their home on base, and MacDonald was severely injured."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I agree with the poster on this MacDonald forum about MacDonald's injuries:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...=158957&page=3

Quote:
A few scratches? It's always particularly revealing when someone makes a rank ignorant comment then applies a smilie to it. It's almost like you are determined to do what you accuse MacDonald of, slash yourself. Here, I think Cyril Wecht has a slightly more informed opinion than yours: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...14/lkl.01.html

"Jeffrey MacDonald had multiple stab wounds, a couple in the abdomen, the forearm, one into the chest that did produce a pneumothorax. He was in the hospital for seven days. To say that because he was a doctor, he can calculate exactly the depth of the penetrating wound and be sure that he will survive that, that is absurd. No doctor, including a thoracic surgeon, is going to undertake that kind of a situation."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th February 2019 at 03:58 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2019, 10:56 PM   #953
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Media Whore

It's important to note that Wecht is notorious for playing to the conspiracy crowd. To be candid, his opinions on certain high profile murder cases (e.g., MacDonald, JFK) are laughed at by those who have looked at these cases with a critical eye. In 2005, Wecht appeared on Larry King Live and his commentary on the MacDonald Case was embarrassing.

Retired CID agent Peter Kearns also appeared on LKL and he told Wecht that many of his statements about this case were incorrect. In addition, he reminded Wecht that most of his case knowledge was provided to him by his brother. Kearns reminded Wecht about a phone conversation they had where Wecht admitted that his brother did a majority of the case research. Wecht responded with his usual stammer and stutter routine, and King bailed him out by going to a station break.

In essence, Wecht did little in terms of case research and last time I checked, he didn't examine inmate at Womack nor did he conduct the autopsies of Colette, Kimberley, or Kristen. The facts are that...

- Upon arrival at Womack Hospital, inmate's vital signs were normal. This was in stark contrast to the scene at 544 Castle Drive where a photographer became physically sick at the gruesome nature of these murders.

- Womack ED Physician and personal friend of inmate (e.g., Dr. Bronstein) testified at the Grand Jury hearings that his biggest concern was not inmate's physical health, but his mental state. Bronstein added that he checked inmate's scalp and the back of his head, and he found no bumps, lumps, or contusions.

The number and listing of wounds on Jeffrey MacDonald's body was not consistent, so I will only list the wounds that were catalogued by a majority of the physicians who examined him at Womack Hospital.

MacDonald sustained bruising over the left eye beneath the hairline, a superficial stab wound of the upper left arm, and a superficial stab wound of the left bicep. He also received a superficial laceration of the left index finger and a superficial stab wound to the left abdomen in the form of an upside down "V." Several small puncture-type wounds were present on the upper left chest. None of the wounds required suturing. A neat and clean stab wound, one-centimeter in length, was located between two ribs on the right side of his chest and resulted in a collapse of the right lung.

Compare those wounds with the horrific wounds inflicted upon his pregnant wife and two daughters. This will give you an idea of why CID agents didn't believe a word of inmate's hippie home invader story.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th February 2019 at 11:05 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 February 2019, 03:42 AM   #954
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
I agree that Dr. Wecht may not be reliable and he did have some strange beliefs in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's just that there are varying opinions about the medical evidence in the MacDonald case by people who are medically qualified, including by Dr. MacDonald himself, who was an expert emergency room doctor. This is an opinion about the matter on another MacDonald forum with which I agree:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...=158957&page=5


Quote:
There has been recent chatter in this thread about blood evidence. The anti-MacDonald crowd wants you to believe it is absolute, and apparently that the crime scene was handled and evaluated perfectly to maintain that evidence. Anyone who has looked at this case carefully knows that is pure garbage. There is tons of dispute and counter evidence over footprints and the pajama top and the bloody adult palm print, etc.

I'll just provide a good link which looks at the case and the evidence. You can click on the links in the right column that examine other aspects of the case, including MacDonald's wounds, slightly more significant than the likes of HyeTev want you to believe. In fact, you will note that Dr. Jacobson admitted changing his testimony regarding the wounds because the prosecutors convinced him during the grand jury that MacDonald must be guilty of murdering his family. In other words, he slanted his depiction of the wounds to fit what the government wanted and claimed, not based on what he initially saw and concluded regarding the wounds themselves. The other doctors who changed their opinion from 1970 to 1979 apparently did the same thing:

http://www.karisable.com/mac4.htm


Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th February 2019 at 03:46 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 February 2019, 04:18 AM   #955
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
This is a sensible explanation of the injuries Dr. MacDonald had from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-mason.html

Quote:
Q Would you describe to Colonel Rock, the investigating officer, what injuries you saw on his head, where they were located, please?
A He had a large contusion on his forehead, slightly to the left of center, and he had another smaller contusion in the interior portion of his temple region on the right.
Q In regard to the second of those, which you described on the interior portion of the right, would you point your finger as to where that would be?
A It would be about right in here. Just immediately behind the hairline.
Q Was that injury in any way obscured by anything at the time you saw it?
A It was just hard to see because of the hairline.
Q Did you have occasion to observe any body injuries on Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, I did. He had a very large hematoma of his left eye and he had a puncture wound in the lower portion of his right chest anteriorly, and he had some scratches on his abdomen and another puncture wound, near his -- umbilicus on his abdomen.
Q Of all those injuries, which was the more serious injury, taken by itself?
A It most certainly would have been the puncture wound in his -- lower portion of his right chest.
Q Was this injury, in your judgment, a life-threatening injury?
A Because of the possibility of a tension pneumothorax laceration of a major blood vessel or a laceration of the liver.
Q Assuming that a trained medical person, a doctor, was to inflict the wound in that location you've just described, could he know the medical consequences of such injury, if he did inflict it upon himself?
A No.
Q Why would he not be able to anticipate the medical consequences of that injury?
A It's just impossible to predict whether or not one will get a tension pneumothorax from a penetrating wound in the chest. It is impossible to predict where the liver is in relation to any wound in the area and likewise where any of the great veins that run in that area.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th February 2019 at 04:19 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 04:14 PM   #956
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,120
Ignoring Reality

The Landlord's obsession with household debris and the mythical narrative regarding inmate's minor wounds is fodder for insults, but I'll stick to the facts.

No matter how inmate's advocates attempt to spin the fiber/hair analysis, the simple fact is that no hair or fiber collected at the crime scene was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. The best overview of this household debris was put forth by the government in their 5/20/91 supplemental memo.

"Nonetheless, we demonstrated that of the synthetic fibers, claimed by petitioner to have been shed from the wig of a female intruder, one originated from a wig owned by Colette MacDonald and the others were used in the manufacture of children's dolls. We also showed that other allegedly exculpatory hair and fiber evidence found in the MacDonald household was nothing more than inconsequential household debris--some of which plainly originated in the MacDonald home--and that it possessed no exculpatory value whatsoever."

In terms of inmate's wounds, he had a grand total of one deep penetrating stab wound and a single blunt force wound just below the hairline. The rest of his wounds were slashing type wounds that didn't require any sutures. Compare that to the following wounds inflicted upon his family.

Colette MacDonald

Colette sustained severe blunt trauma injuries to her head and arms. She was struck at least six times in the head with a blunt object, resulting in lacerations to her right temple, left temple, forehead, and on top of her head. All of these lacerations were deep enough to expose bone. She also received two blows under her chin resulting in extensive bruising to the left front chin area and the right front chin area.

There was a small fracture in the midline portion of Colette's skull. The blunt trauma injuries to Colette's arms were defensive-type wounds. Colette's right wrist was fractured and the inner aspect of her upper arm bore an extensive bruise and a superficial abrasion. The fingers and hand of her right arm had extensive black and blue marks associated with abrasions.

Her left arm was also fractured in two places. Colette sustained nine deep knife wounds at the front of her neck, seven deep knife wounds to her chest, and 21 puncture wounds to her chest area. Colette's chest also bore a pattern bruise which indicated she had been struck at arm's length by a bayonet-type thrust with the end of a blunt object.

Kimberley MacDonald

Kimberley was struck at least three times in the head with a blunt object. The first blow resulted in her blood being spattered on the door frame leading to the master bedroom. Kimberley's right cheek, right ear, and right mastoid area had overlapping black and blue marks and irregular abrasions. Her right eye was recessed and she had a fractured nose which was deviated to the right.

Her left cheekbone was fractured and a piece of the cheekbone was protruding through the skin. Kimberley's skull showed multiple fractures and the dome portion of her skull was fractured through its entire thickness, and slightly dislocated. Eight to 10 deep knife wounds were found on the right side of her neck.

Kristen MacDonald

Kristen sustained 12 gaping knife wounds to her upper back, four wounds to the chest, and one wound to the neck. Two of the wounds to her back penetrated her heart, causing massive internal bleeding. Fifteen shallow puncture wounds were found in her chest as well as multiple cuts on both of her hands. There was a through-and-through laceration of the skin involving the middle of the right ring finger. This laceration was deep enough to expose bone and the index finger of the right hand revealed a triangular flap of skin.

What more needs to be said?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:36 AM   #957
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's ridiculous.
No, it is not ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The MacDonald defense were never able to raise the matter of the black wool fibers on the murder club and around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps
They had the opportunity it was at this thing called "Trial"

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
because they were never told about those black wool fibers at the trial, or previous to the trial.
that is not true. the information regarding the various wool fibers was included in the material that was provided under discovery. THE FACT THAT BERNIE IGNORED THE INFORMATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF NOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The defense was never able to examine those fibers and so-called pajama fibers in case mistakes or fabrications had been made.
Untrue. The defense was given access to the evidence. HOWEVER BERNIE SEGAL DECIDED TO PLAY GAMES IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET EVIDENCE SHIPPED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. (that was never going to happen and a reasonable and responsible lawyer would have known as much). The prosecution provided access to good lab space and full/complete access to all the evidence. It was the DEFENSE fault that they were limited by the time due to Bernie's unsuccessful machinations.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh kept quiet about them as part of his deception and con artist plan.
********. there was no deception or "con artist" plan. the prosecution provided all the information. that the defense chose to ignore the evidence is the fault of the defense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As Harvey Silverglate, a MacDonald lawyer at the time, said later on those black wool fibers indicate strangers.
Double ********. there is plenty of evidence to PROVE that the family had dark woolen clothing and other items that were the likely source of the fibers INCLUDING THE AFGHAN INMATE CLAIMED HE GOT TOO TANGLED IN TO FIGHT OFF THE ALLEGED INTRUDERS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald did give away and send to the garbage tip several family possessions like the children clothes and Colette's clothes and the children dolls because he thought quite reasonably at the time that he had been cleared after the Article 32 in 1970.
No, he got rid of the items so that there was no opportunity for anyone to come back and gather them for further investigation. He slaughtered his family and threw their belongings away just as blithely as he had butchered them.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He had no possible way of knowing that those items would then be used later on as so-called evidence against him as the prosecution manufactured specious evidence about hairs and threads.
********....the evidence proved him to be guilty and none of it was made up or manufactured. The DNA evidence just further enforces the strength of the case.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:45 AM   #958
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a lie and you and the 4th Circuit judges need to read the hard documentary evidence with regard to the matter.
It is not a lie it is the absolute truth and you know it. The 4th Circuit Court and I HAVE read the actual documented evidence. WE do not rely on specious claims made by trolls, and people enamored of a mass murderer.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Trying to get Murtagh and Dupree to disclose the exculpatory evidence was like dealing with a brick wall for Segal and Thornton,
Judge Dupree had no responsibility for delivering evidence and you know it. He was the Presiding Judge not part of the prosecution. HOWEVER, Murtagh and Blackburn provided the defense with all the necessary materials through the discovery process. there was no withheld evidence in this case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If you are accused of having your pajama fibers on a murder weapon and this is used to sway a jury at a trial, then your defense lawyers should be told in advance of your trial what exactly you are being accused of,
OMG you didn't really write this statement did you? That is beyond ridiculous since the indictment was rendered 9 years prior to trial the defense was very much aware of what inmate had been accused of and they certainly were told before trial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and the evidence to back it up, and if it is made up. That never happened thanks to Murtagh and Dupree.
Again the Presiding Judge has no responsibility in the matter of evidence being provided to the defense. Murtagh and Blackburn provided the discovery evidence to the defense HOWEVER they had no responsibility to point out specific evidentiary items. THE FACT THAT BERNIE IGNORED A GREAT DEAL OF THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM OR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT<
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:14 AM   #959
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Again the Presiding Judge has no responsibility in the matter of evidence being provided to the defense. Murtagh and Blackburn provided the discovery evidence to the defense HOWEVER they had no responsibility to point out specific evidentiary items. THE FACT THAT BERNIE IGNORED A GREAT DEAL OF THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM OR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT<
May I point out that the evidence you describe has "exculpatory" was not in fact "exculpatory" at all. It was basically almost entirely irrelevant. Although I agree that even if it was exculpatory, given that the Prosecutors had disclosed this evidence to the Defence, they had no obligation to point out it's importance to the defence.
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 Yesterday, 09:35 AM   #960
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Black wool fibers with no known source around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon is not household debris to my mind and to a lot of other people as well. It's all very well getting emotional about injuries sustained by the victims but there needs to be a calm and cool presentation of the facts instead of just blaming the wrong man. Tell me where and give me a reference where the MacDonald defense were ever informed about the evidence in the case, including the fiber evidence and the hair evidence. They had to find it out for themselves, mostly after the trial. I agree the defense were able to guess about the Stombaugh and Shirley Green blood evidence and pajama folding evidence strategy from the Grand Jury testimony but they were taken by surprise when the jury were informed that there was supposed to be pajama fibers on the murder weapon as the so-called conclusive evidence.

The matter is discussed at this website:

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

Quote:
As a result of this investigation, following Dr. MacDonald's conviction, shocking discoveries as more fully described in Appellant's brief and have been made with regard to the apparent misconduct of the trial judge and Prosecutors, before, during and following the trial.

What is also disturbing is that the evidence of the familial relationship of the Trial Court to the prosecution team and numerous instances of suppressed evidence was discovered only by the attorneys for Dr. MacDonald as a result of a momentous battle, following the trial, for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Only a small percentage of requested documents have been provided to Appellant and already numerous instances of impropriety have been uncovered. One can only surmise what the tens of thousands of pages of documents, which the prosecutors steadfastly continue to refuse to turn over to appellant, might contain.

If this type of conduct: the appearance of, if not the reality of impropriety of a trial judge; the surreptitious interrogation of an accused by an investigative agent of the government during trial; ongoing intentional suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence; and the refusal of an apparently tainted trial judge to consider volumes of after-discovered evidence; is condoned by this Court, the rights of all of our citizens to a fair trial are in serious jeopardy.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 09:37 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
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 11:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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