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 11th September 2018, 02:12 PM   #321
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
Gee, a Green Beret trained doctor has some scratches, a small bump on his head, and a perfectly clean incision between his ribs.....his pregnant wife has both arms broken along with her face and over 40 stab wounds; his eldest daughter's face has literally been dislocated and her brain serum is in the room with her mother but the girl is tucked into her own bed; the younger girl has been stabbed and placed back into bed with a bottle - who do we suspect? Uh, the guy who should at least have more injuries than you get wrestling with your kid brother. Logic, it's a bitch.

Add to that there is no evidence of the highly suspicious story the survivor tells (that curiously matches up with a story in a magazine in the house) and he's well enough to be entertaining friends within a day. That story would make Deputy Barney Fife suspicious of the sole survivor.

Of course he's the first suspect. What Henri and the rest of the fan club fail to note is that others were investigated and cleared and there was no evidence that anyone other than the Macdonalds were in the quarters that night.

Has anyone else lived in army quarters of that era? I have (on more than one army post). Your neighbor sneezes, you say "God bless you" and nobody has used any tone other than everyday conversational tones - no raising of the voice, no shouting. Had there been strangers in the Macdonald quarters that evening, the neighbors would have known. Especially at 0200 hours.
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 11th September 2018, 03:11 PM   #322
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 74
Henri,

It's no mystery why the CID didn't "fully investigate" Stoeckley and some of the people she knew. She was not in the Army, and those people were not in the Army. The CID is an Army investigating unit.

That's why Rock in his report asked other agencies to investigate. MacDonald was in his purview, Stoeckley was not directly.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 07:32 PM   #323
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
CID Reinvestigation

The CID may not have "fully investigated" Stoeckley in their original investigation, but they sure made up for it in their reinvestigation of this case.

1) Detective Jim Gaddis obtained head hair exemplars from Stoeckley and he provided the CID with those exemplars. None of those exemplars were microscopically similar to the head hair exhibits collected at the crime scene.

2) Gaddis also obtained fingerprint exemplars from Stoeckley and none of those exemplars matched print exhibits collected at the crime scene.

3) CID agents interviewed a number of individuals who were acquainted with the Queen of Serial Confessors. A majority of them disputed her specious claims.

4) During a 1971 interview with Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett, inmate was shown a photograph of Stoeckley and he stated that she was not the mythical woman holding the candle and chanting "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs."

5) Pat Reese was a legendary reporter for the Fayetteville Observer and he was well acquainted with Stoeckley. Reese told Peter Kearns that two days after the murders, he spoke with Stoeckley and she claimed she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. Stoeckley's rationale for her memory loss was her excessive use of several substances on 2/16 and 2/17/70.

The totality of this data resulted in the CID following more viable leads which included requesting that the FBI analyze the physical evidence in this case. It's important to note that the FBI later launched (e.g., 1980-1983) their own investigation of Stoeckley and they deemed her as being a red herring in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 11th September 2018 at 07:36 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 12th September 2018, 02:44 AM   #324
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The CID may not have "fully investigated" Stoeckley in their original investigation, but they sure made up for it in their reinvestigation of this case.

1) Detective Jim Gaddis obtained head hair exemplars from Stoeckley and he provided the CID with those exemplars. None of those exemplars were microscopically similar to the head hair exhibits collected at the crime scene.

2) Gaddis also obtained fingerprint exemplars from Stoeckley and none of those exemplars matched print exhibits collected at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Gaddis had a short conversation with Judge Dupree during the trial somewhere, which I now can't find. It may have been pulled and censored. Nashville cop Gaddis told Dupree that from what Stoeckley had told him in Nashville he would have had her further investigated for the MacDonald murders. This is what Gaddis testified at the MacDonald trial in 1979 as it has been transcribed, but it may not be comprehensive. It looks like there may have been one of these numerous bench conferences and on voir dire stuff when the jury were never told what was being discussed, so that Dupree could hush it all up:

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

Quote:
A Well, I have had several informants, and she is, by far, the best informant I have ever had.
Q And how do you decide that informants are good informants -- the basis, I guess, or the criteria you use?
A The basis would be how smooth she is with the people she works with, the information she comes across with, the reliability or percentage of good busts we make with her. I say the percentage of busts we made with her were about 90 to 95 percent correct.
Q That means that 95 percent of the time you actually found drugs at the place that she indicated to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long did you continue to work with Ms. Stoeckley in that relationship as using her and working with her as an informant?
A We used her for approximately four months, sir. Then she left Nashville and went to Florida for drug rehab.
Q Now, at some time did you learn that she had previously lived in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area?
A Yes, sir; I did.
Q And when did you learn that, Officer Gaddis?
A Well, it was -- I don't know the exact date when I learned that she lived in Fayetteville, but she came up to me one night and asked me if I could find out, through contacting the Faytteville police, if she was still wanted in connection --

MR. BLACKBURN: (Interposing) OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q All right, the result of -- without telling us what she said, the result of whatever conversation you had with her at that time -- did you take any action as a result of that conversation? Did you make any inquiries?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Members of the jury, the evidence now apparently sought to be elicited by counsel is evidence which this Court has heard in your absence. The Court has ruled that the evidence is not admissible. I am instructing you at this time that you should not draw any inference whatever from the fact that the question itself has been asked. I will instruct counsel not to repeat such questions. I also inform you that it is the duty of counsel for either side, when it is perceived that objectionable testimony is sought to be introduced or elicited from a witness, to register an objection and that you are not under any circumstances to draw any inference adverse to counsel making such an objection, whether it be the Government or the Defendant or anyone. Proceed.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th September 2018 at 02:50 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:01 AM   #325
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
5) Pat Reese was a legendary reporter for the Fayetteville Observer and he was well acquainted with Stoeckley. Reese told Peter Kearns that two days after the murders, he spoke with Stoeckley and she claimed she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. Stoeckley's rationale for her memory loss was her excessive use of several substances on 2/16 and 2/17/70.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Pat Reese was a curmudgeonly Fayetteville Observer reporter, now deceased and a former drug addict, who was up to his eyeballs with the Stoeckley group killer gang. He was interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation right after the MacDonald murders, who for some reason vanished from the MacDonald case police investigation. He was acquainted with the suspect Dwight Smith:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...984-07-12.html

Quote:
4. He noted that in 1970, he resided in an apartment complex at 1810 Fort Bragg Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina, and he is known by the nickname of "Smitty". He resided in the same apartment complex as did Pat Reese.

5. He could not recall the names or identities of any of Helena Stoeckley's friends and/or associates. He was of the opinion she resided somewhere in the Haymont area, possibly with her parents. The names of Bruce Johnny Fowler, Shelby Don Harris, Allen Patrick Mazerolle and "Wizard" meant nothing to him whatsoever. He believes he remembers the name of Gregory Howard Mitchell and thinks Mitchell was probably acquainted with Helena Stoeckley, although he could not provide any information regarding Mitchell.

6. He could not recall specifically where he was during the evening of February 16 or the early morning hours of February 17, 1970. He does remember that during the early or mid-morning hours of February 17, 1970, that Ray Davis and Cuyler Windham, SBI Agents, came to his residence and spoke with him and Pat Reese regarding the MacDonald murders. They were seeking information from Smith and Reese as to possible suspects as the SBI had a description of a group of individuals which may have participated in the MacDonald murders. To the best of Smith's recollection, he was unaware of the MacDonald murders until informed about same by Windham and Davis. Windham and Davis were obviously looking for help as to suspects as he worked closely with them with various drug users. Smith noted he did many programs of a community nature at schools and churches regarding drugs with Windham and Davis. To the best of his recollection, at the time he was contacted he could not furnish any suspects to Windham and Davis. He advised Helena Stoeckley never entered his mind as a suspect and it was his recollection that after the murders, she started wearing a brown floppy hat which was kind of a joke among the drug scene in Fayetteville, North Carolina, as it was felt she was merely wearing the hat to gain attention and a possible connection with the MacDonald murders.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th September 2018 at 03:06 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 05:07 AM   #326
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Pat Reese was a curmudgeonly Fayetteville Observer reporter, now deceased and a former drug addict, who was up to his eyeballs with the Stoeckley group killer gang.
Pat Reese was curmudgeonly - so what? most of the BEST investigative reporters of that era were also curmudeonly. It is part of what made them so good. Yes, he was a former addict himself which is what made his insights into Helena etal so impactful. HOWEVER, since there was no Stoeckley Murder group killer gang - there was no Stoeckley group at all, therefore they were not a gang and the only killer was inmate himself.

There is absolutely no evidence of ANYONE other than inmate, Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy being inside the apartment that night PERIOD. No evidence of outsiders means there were no outsiders. PERIOD henri.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He was interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation right after the MacDonald murders, who for some reason vanished from the MacDonald case police investigation.
I have never seen anything that stated that NC SBI was ever involved in this case. PROVE IT. They didn't vanish they were never involved....and everyone other than CID were removed from the case quickly because the Provost Marshall wanted the case to be handled by CID. It was several years later that the FBI was brought back onto 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 12th September 2018, 09:52 AM   #327
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

I have never seen anything that stated that NC SBI was ever involved in this case. PROVE IT. They didn't vanish they were never involved....and everyone other than CID were removed from the case quickly because the Provost Marshall wanted the case to be handled by CID. It was several years later that the FBI was brought back onto the case.
I have just mentioned above that Madden of the FBI quotes the suspect Dwight Smith as saying that two agents of the SBI, which is the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation to me, interviewed Dwight Smith and Pat Reese right after the MacDonald murders. It looks to me as though they were then taken off of the MacDonald case, rather like Detective Steve Ainsworth was taken off of the case in the JonBenet Ramsey case for not saying Patsy, or Burke, did it.

I have found that quote where Nashville cop Gaddis tells Judge Dupree that he would have further investigated Stoeckley. The conversation was held on voir dire which means that the jury never heard about it. It just shows what a very bad judge Dupree was, and that he was clearly erroneous, and why the 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court and the U.S. presidents should have put their foot down about it:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...17_gaddis.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:15 PM   #328
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Living In A Fantasy World

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the "Stoeckley group killer gang." LOL. You would have fit right in with the descriptions of Stoeckley leveled by members of this mythical killer gang.

SOURCE: 1983 article authored by investigative reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese.

Unlike Ted Gunderson, Huettel and Reese actually made an effort to find and interview several members of this mythical killer gang. Don Harris called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "ravings of a madwoman." Dwight Smith called Helena Stoeckley's claims the "craziest thing I've ever heard," and "totally insane." Allen Mazzerolle labeled Stoeckley's statements as "ridiculous," adding that Stoeckley was "the one who fingered me to the narcotics agents." I would argue that your posts are the ravings of a madman, totally insane, and ridiculous, but I digress. All three of these individuals were investigated and cleared by the CID and/or FBI. No amount of bluster, hyperbole, or plunges into the conspiratorial stew will ever change that fact.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2018, 02:16 AM   #329
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Don Harris called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "ravings of a madwoman." Dwight Smith called Helena Stoeckley's claims the "craziest thing I've ever heard," and "totally insane." Allen Mazzerolle labeled Stoeckley's statements as "ridiculous," adding that Stoeckley was "the one who fingered me to the narcotics agents."
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
They would say that wouldn't they? They were all as guilty as hell. It was bad police work and dishonest lawyers. Convicting somebody of murder on 'pajama-like' fibers by the FBI is not evidence. It's a public scandal.
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 September 2018, 08:21 AM   #330
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
There is a bit of background to what Helena Stoeckley said exactly happened at this website in the CID or FBI records. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page there is a legible print translation. Personally, I consider this to be true:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...r_1980-12.html

Quote:
SIDE 6 (Cont'd)

and he said if you're going, I'm going too because they're looking for me too

He said stay out of the Village shop but I hung around for awhile

being in the house is clear, other parts are fuzzy, she is sure she was there the night of the murders

when they accused Dr. Mac she thought maybe she wasn't there, she was on so many drugs there weren't 13 at the murder, only 7, don't know where other six were

Beaber asks, Was (blacked out) there?

No, not in the house
I didn't know murders were planned and I don't know if others knew

Beaber asks, Can you remember the murders themselves?
No, I didn't see any, I saw Dr. Mac struck with fists, and it drew blood

when I saw child in bedroom she was already covered with blood from what I could see from a dimly lit hallway; there was no rise and fall of her chest and judging by the amount of blood she was dead, I wouldn't go in, there was a small doll on the floor that I wanted to go in and pick up, you know how children sleep, she was in a position that looked like she was sleeping but you know she wasn't so I wouldn't go in the room

In the master bedroom, Colette was pregnant was struggling with people and there was another small child lieing (sic) next to her

struggling I saw with Mac and Colette but never the murders exactly

because when I screamed and left and went back in, started blacking out, MacDonald supposedly pulled a paring knife out of her throat, when I left, there wasn't a paring knife in her throat, yet one time when I heard her in there when she was calling out to him "Jeff why are you letting them do this to me?"

her voice was in a gurgle as if she had been stabbed in the throat already, like someone that has something in their throat and were trying to talk

Beaber asks, Why did she say that?

Dr. Mac was in the living room, he had fallen asleep watching television or reading a book, he had a book on his chest turned upside down, he was on the couch, she was in the back bedroom, one child with her (not sure which one), another child's bedroom was empty, 2nd child in another bedroom, 3 bedrooms in total

Beaber says, You seem to remember more now than before

No, it's all in the statement, I don't know, its hard to explain

Beaber says, I'm not sure what you are thinking? What are you thinking?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th September 2018 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 13th September 2018, 01:52 PM   #331
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Wow.

HENRIBOY: You're the gift that just keeps on giving. True crime trolling, conspiracy buff, no critical thinking skills, and a penchant for regurgitating previously debunked claims. I'll give you this, you have managed to be true to yourself for more than two decades.

Unfortunately, I'm going to bring you back to reality and point out the pesky fact that no DNA, hairs, fibers, fingerprints, or bloody footprints collected at 544 Castle Drive were sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Nothing, nada, zip.

Your claim that Harris, Mazzerolle, and Smith were "guilty as hell," has no basis in reality. The same is true of Stoeckley, Mitchell, Fowler, and Perry. It's certainly your right to create posts that adhere to the Bellwether Fallacy, but I would like to point out that adhering to this Fallacy is not a good thing.

Considering that you either ignore or give a cursory read to a majority of my posts...

The Bellwether Fallacy is a common pattern of argumentation in conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories are, to a large extent, theories of history. That is, history tells us that something happened, but a conspiracy theory says that some other (typically poorly defined) events unfolded instead to give us that evidence.

Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives.

Hence historical lines of reasoning talk about preponderances of evidence. And so when we dispute a conspiracy theory, we point back to the preponderance -- the totality of available evidence that en masse suggests a particular cause. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.

MacDonald advocates have become partners in this fallacy with Helena Stoeckley being the main ingredient in this cognitive stew. MacDonald advocates have relied on the statements made by Helena Stoeckley in order to justify the position that unsourced trace evidence equals hippie home invaders. To MacDonald advocates, it doesn't really matter that unsourced synthetic fibers, hairs, dark woolen fibers, and candle wax were never linked to Stoeckley in any tangible sense.

It matters not to these same advocates that Stoeckley recanted about 50 percent of her confessions and that she testified under oath that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. It carries no weight with MacDonald advocates that none of her confessions match-up with one another and there seems to be a collective shrug when it is pointed out that there isn't any evidence of her presence at the crime scene.

The only thing that matters to MacDonald advocates is that Stoeckley's CLAIMS make her involvement and the involvement of others in these horrific crimes a foregone conclusion. Stoeckley and her acquaintances have to be the perps because Stoeckley said so. They add that there is evidence of her presence at the crime scene, but the CID/FBI/DOJ have conspired to manipulate, distort, and supress that evidence. All of the other more logical explanations for the household debris found at 544 Castle Drive are dismissed.

Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th September 2018 at 01:57 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2018, 02:30 AM   #332
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
I still think it's suspicious that the daughter of the Provost Marshal, Colonel Kriwanek, was mixed up with drugs and the Stoeckley gang. That's a conflict of interest. The real detectives, and good murder investigators like Detective Beasley, or cop/detective Gaddis in Nashville, or the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation were sidelined and discredited off of the case. That just left that fool CID agent Ivory and his cohorts. There is quite a detailed and sensible discussion of the MacDonald case and the crime scene at this website:

http://www.earonsgsk.proboards.com/t...ld-case-xiulan

Quote:
Thank you Xiulan. Great posts and info.

It sounds like these MP's were not prepared for a case such as this one. Were these MP's specifically trained in this type of investigation? From what I have found on the web, it appears they dealt more with crowd control, bombs, and terrorism. Do you know what happened to these MP's after? I follow a couple of other cases with a similar LE performance, and I found that even though these cases were mishandled, some of the LEO's went on to a surprisingly successful career. Are there any instances of that with these MP's?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th September 2018 at 02:37 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 14th September 2018, 09:36 AM   #333
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
So what if the Provost Marshall's daughter was mixed up in drugs and hung out with other hippie types? Irrelevant henri. What is relevant as that no such "Stoeckley Gang" existed. There is no sourced evidence that puts anyone other than inmate, Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy inside 544 Castle Drive the night of the murders. THE FACTS show that inmate was the one who slaughtered his family. simple fact, actual fact, FACT.
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 September 2018, 02:33 AM   #334
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
THE FACTS show that inmate was the one who slaughtered his family. simple fact, actual fact, FACT.
That's just your opinion. There is no absolute proof of that.
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 September 2018, 07:38 AM   #335
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Reality Check

HENRIBOY: The CID, FBI, DOJ, Freddy Kassab, Joe McGinniss, Gene Weingarten, Robert Sam Anson, and 95 percent of the general public who have researched this case disagree with your stance on the evidence in this case.

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 15th September 2018, 08:21 AM   #336
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
There is a bit about Gene Weingarten and how biased he is about the MacDonald case at a website. His wife was an assistant to the dishonest prosecutor Murtagh for several years:

http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/stor...ne-weingarten/

Quote:
I’d never met Brian Murtagh before starting on this article, but he and my lawyer-wife worked together for years at the Justice Department. She would tell me about her friend who, 30 years after the case that would consume his life for better or worse, could not stop talking about ice picks, bloodstains, holes in pajamas, and beautiful, dead children.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th September 2018 at 08:23 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 September 2018, 10:44 AM   #337
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's just your opinion. There is no absolute proof of that.
No, actually the jury decided there was absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it's a fact.

You can be as delusional as Cleo (his second wife, the Queen of Denial), but you cannot change the fact that all arrows point to Jeffrey Macdonald.

You have yet to present us with anything other than: your obsessive belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Macdonald is 'innocent'; anyone who participated in the investigation of Macdonald who did not find him 'innocent' is taking part in a vast conspiracy against him; your seeming pathological inability to refrain from insulting/slandering/libeling any official involved in the case; and your detachment from reality where this case is concerned.

Give us facts, give us evidence, or give us silence.
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 16th September 2018, 02:30 AM   #338
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
There was never any impartial judge or jury, or excellent court in the MacDonald case. Judge Fox is a very bad judge who just uses the law's delay to keep an innocent man in prison. Like his pal Judge Dupree, Judge Fox is in bed with the prosecution. It's like beating against the wind.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2018, 05:13 AM   #339
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Four Decades Of Failure

Since inmate returned to his concrete bunker in 1982, his advocates have failed him at every level. Plenty of bluster and bravado, but they haven't come close to producing the goods. Nary a sourced evidentiary item directly linking a perp not named Jeffrey MacDonald to this horrible crime. False claims and broken promises resulted in a majority of the media skipping town a day after the government began to present their case at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. As the 4th Circuit Court pointed out, inmate faces a "daunting burden," so loading the wagons with hearsay testimony isn't going to cut it.

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 September 2018, 08:35 AM   #340
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Why did Judge Dupree arrange for the evidence by six different witnesses against Helena Stoeckley to be held on voir dire without any jury or journalists to be there, at the 1979 MacDonald trial? It's clearly erroneous and was only done in case it swayed the jury if it was held in public.

In the UK I think this on voir dire business is termed held 'in camera' which in plain English means it's a secret court. It's usually done in things like National security cases involving spies or that sort of thing. There are also reporting restrictions. Journalists are prevented from many, if not all family court cases which involve sensitive information about children and other private matters. The Daily Mail newspaper had a campaign about the matter of secret family courts a few months ago, I think because there were some bad decisions being made by the judges.

Sidney Carton on another forum does not have the same confidence in Judge Fox as the people on this forum:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/lies...t3355-s10.html

Quote:
The defense was rightfully, expectinig a full hearing on its merits.This is the standard procedure iin such cases. Judge Fox waited over three years to file an opinion which he could have dictated( with his eyes shut) twenty minutes after receiving the higher court's directive. He himself admits that what he did may not be exactly what they had in mind,but,if not,that's up to them ,not him, right?

Contrary to certain allegations which have recently surfaced even Fox found that Officer Britt was a credible witness but "Macdonald never had a shortage of credible hearsay witnesses(p.29)";the defense has,in fact, filed "almost 1000 pages of transcripts of confessions allegedly made " by three of the killers,Stoeckly,Mitchell and Perry."Nearly half" of these witnesses "were active or former police officers"(p.28).These confessions are further corroborated by "dozens of affidavits of witness
who[sic He means which] corroborate the involvement of Stoeckly,Mitchell,and Pallmer(p.16).

Therefore Britt's statement is "cumulative"(p.28).I.e.,Britt is saying what nearly every reputable witness in the case has been saying for nigh thirty years.

Fox is plainly in factual error here.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th September 2018 at 08:42 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 September 2018, 01:09 AM   #341
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Sidney Needs Help

Man, why won't anyone listen to Sidney Carton's fantasy narrative? This guy has a firm grasp on the entertainment value of a fixed delusional system.

- The only thing that inmate's defense team can rightfully expect is for the sun to set in the evening and rise in the morning.

- Last time I checked, Judge Fox granted a "full hearing on its merits," in 2012.

- Sidney clearly can't count for Judge Fox took two years, not three, to make a decision on the merits of both the 2008 filings and the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

- Judge Fox wasn't the only one who was confused about the 4th Circuit Court's rationale for remanding the case under the narrow umbrella of the "evidence as a whole." Inmate's defense team was just as confused about the nature and scope of this remand.

- Judge Fox didn't make a determination of Britt's credibility in 2008, but in his 2014 decision, he determined that none of Britt's claims were credible. This determination was based on the FACT that Britt's 5 affidavits contained 27 falsehoods.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 04:56 AM   #342
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's just your opinion. There is no absolute proof of that.
No henri it is not "just my opinion" it is FACT. Just because you continue to stamp your feet and say "he didn't he didn't" doesn't erase the OVER 1,100 pieces of evidence. EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS AT INMATE AS THE SOLE MURDERER. period. those are just the facts!
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 17th September 2018, 07:21 AM   #343
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,010
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Man, why won't anyone listen to Sidney Carton's fantasy narrative? This guy has a firm grasp on the entertainment value of a fixed delusional system.

- The only thing that inmate's defense team can rightfully expect is for the sun to set in the evening and rise in the morning.

- Last time I checked, Judge Fox granted a "full hearing on its merits," in 2012.

- Sidney clearly can't count for Judge Fox took two years, not three, to make a decision on the merits of both the 2008 filings and the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

- Judge Fox wasn't the only one who was confused about the 4th Circuit Court's rationale for remanding the case under the narrow umbrella of the "evidence as a whole." Inmate's defense team was just as confused about the nature and scope of this remand.

- Judge Fox didn't make a determination of Britt's credibility in 2008, but in his 2014 decision, he determined that none of Britt's claims were credible. This determination was based on the FACT that Britt's 5 affidavits contained 27 falsehoods.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I looked at Sidney Carton's posts at that website. They are almost has delusional has Henri's postings. What I especially loved was Carton's nonsense about one of McDonald's injuries coming with a "fraction" of killing him.

What I especially also loved was Carton's systematic ignoring of the utter destruction of Britt's credibility in his later posts.
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 September 2018, 08:32 AM   #344
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
I love the way non medically qualified people discuss the seriousness of MacDonald's injuries on the internet and this forum. I have always thought Sidney Carton writes sense about the MacDonald case, though there is more to the MacDonald case than Jimmy Britt and pajama-like fibers and bad police work.

There is an interesting website which seems to be an analysis of the Morris book 'Wilderness of Errors' which makes sense to me:

https://www.womanaroundtown.com/sect...rey-macdonald/

Quote:
Morris’ most critical point, however, is that there was evidence the judge, Franklin T. DuPree, was biased. At the very least, according to him, DuPree should have recused himself, since one of the early investigators, Assistant US Attorney James C. Proctor, was both his former employee and son-in-law. And on this point, he makes his strongest case.
Judges would not be human if they did not have an opinion after hearing the same evidence that the jurors heard. After speaking to a few judges (none of whom wished to be quoted), I wonder whether Morris is right.

According to Dimitry Bam, writing for the Brigham Young University Law Review, “In the United States, judges are required to recuse themselves—that is, remove themselves from participating in a case—not only when they are biased, but even when they may appear biased to a neutral observer. This nominally strict, appearance-based recusal standard is intended to ensure the judge’s impartiality in resolving disputes and to protect the judiciary’s reputation”. He then presents a compelling argument for even stricter rules.

The first canon under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges currently covers this same issue for federal judges, although, incidentally, not for those on the Supreme Court. Under the Code, judges in effect self police themselves and are supposed to step aside when they have a conflict. Would being the former boss and father-in law of the Assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict?

Of course, lawyers defend the guilty all the time—that’s their job. But judges are different—they are supposed to ensure that defendants get a fair—not necessarily “perfect”—trial. The book cites many examples of rulings by Judge DuPree that, to be charitable, appear questionable.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th September 2018 at 08:35 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 September 2018, 09:37 AM   #345
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
There is an interesting quote from that Sidney Carton MacDonald case website by retired LEO which makes sense to me:

Quote:
I always considered the whole investigation unprofessional and untrustworthy. These people were out to save their reputations, by convicting an innocent man, just like NIFONG, was trying to do. Between the prosecutors arrogance, the incompetence of the police and the investigators, this is what happens, an innocent man goes to jail for life.
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 September 2018, 10:53 AM   #346
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Ignoring The Rubber Room Crowd

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. I must say, your definition of the word "interesting" is, well, unique. In my world, the only interesting articles on this case are constructed by those who rely on critical thought. For example.

https://archives.cjr.org/critical_ey...rol.php?page=1

Thirty-Seven years in the joint and counting for the Ice Pick Baby Killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 01:49 PM   #347
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In my world, the only interesting articles on this case are constructed by those who rely on critical thought. For example.

https://archives.cjr.org/critical_ey...rol.php?page=1

Thirty-Seven years in the joint and counting for the Ice Pick Baby Killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's just an article by some silly fake news journalist. It's flimsy evidence to imprison a man for life on pajama-like fibers, and the pajama pocket, and not being able to find the fingerprints of the real culprits. The Rock report after the Article 32 proceedings got it right. The bad judge Dupree censored any mention of the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 on the spurious grounds that it was ten years old!

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

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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th September 2018 at 01:53 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 17th September 2018, 02:23 PM   #348
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Further Commentary From The Rubber Room

HENRIBOY: Flimsy evidence? Ah, you mean the over 1,000 pieces of evidence presented at trial and/or the inculpatory DNA evidence that demonstrated inmate assaulted his wife with the club? Not being able to find the fingerprints of the real culprits, eh? For the past 15 years, you've proclaimed on several MacDonald Case discussion forums that the real culprits were members of the Stoeckley Seven, yet print exemplars from all seven suspects were collected or "found" by the CID.

Guess what? None of the exemplars matched prints "found" at the crime scene. I hope this news brings you some closure. Speaking of closure, the author of the article should know that the CID and FBI know exactly where the pajama top was torn, and when the pocket was ripped off the garment. Not only were both the pajama top and the pocket torn in the master bedroom, both evidentiary items were stained with Colette's blood BEFORE they were torn.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2018, 04:09 PM   #349
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I love the way non medically qualified people discuss the seriousness of MacDonald's injuries on the internet and this forum. {snip of Henri nonsense}
From a doctor (yeah, I asked one): "Anyone allowed to drink any alcoholic beverage is not on pain medication or several other sorts of medication, nor are they seriously injured. I'm surprised it was allowed in the hospital, it wouldn't be nowadays. Anyone allowed unlimited visitors is clearly not in serious condition, I'd say they were on their way to a quick discharge."
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 17th September 2018, 04:12 PM   #350
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
deleted so the mods wouldn't have to.

Last edited by desmirelle; 17th September 2018 at 04:13 PM.
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 17th September 2018, 08:21 PM   #351
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
DESMIRELLE: C'mon, it makes perfect sense for inmate to heal to the point where he could find and kill one of the mythical hippie home invaders. The only reason he was able to survive his attack by 3 armed men was his mastery of the pajama top. Inmate's Matrix-like ability to use a pajama top to shield himself from 21 thrusts from an ice pick and 2 thrusts from the Old Hickory knife, is the stuff of legend.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th September 2018 at 08:26 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 September 2018, 02:51 AM   #352
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Speaking of closure, the author of the article should know that the CID and FBI know exactly where the pajama top was torn, and when the pocket was ripped off the garment. Not only were both the pajama top and the pocket torn in the master bedroom, both evidentiary items were stained with Colette's blood BEFORE they were torn.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There was never any DNA found on the wooden club murder weapon that I've ever heard about. Even if it was, the explanation would be that it was MacDonald's private property. As far as I can judge, it's fairly normal for a patient to celebrate with a bottle of alcohol when that patient is about to be discharged from hospital.

The pajama pocket is very weak evidence, rather like all that crap about footprints. Fred Bost explained the matter of the pajama pocket in his short study:

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

Quote:
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; 18th September 2018 at 02:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 05:37 AM   #353
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,122
Ducking And Dodging

During one my phone conversations with Fred Bost, I brought up the issue of the pajama top pocket. I found his analysis of the issue in both his letter to me and in his Short Study to be unimpressive. During our phone conversation, he ducked and dodged the prosecution's presentation of this issue at the 1979 trial.

Fred's claim that the pocket only had a "spot" of Colette's blood on it is one of several distortions or falsehoods in his analysis. 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.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th September 2018 at 05:42 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 September 2018, 05:43 AM   #354
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was never any DNA found on the wooden club murder weapon that I've ever heard about.
henri they didn't test the murder club for DNA HOWEVER as you well know evidence item E-5 "the mystery hair" which was found CLUTCHED in Colette's hand along with a splinter from the murder club WAS TESTED for DNA. The item (E-5) was dubbed the "mystery hair" by the DEFENSE and the DEFENSE always said whoever that hair belonged to was the wielder of that club (thus the murderer). That hair was the distal portion (tip) of a limb hair. it was unsourced prior to DNA testing because ONLY PUBIC AND HEAD HAIRS have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared. E-5 was (again) a limb hair and therefore couldn't be microscopically compared. It was covered in blood also....no surprise to anyone with 2 functional brain cells that item E-5 was a 100% DNA match to INMATE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As far as I can judge, it's fairly normal for a patient to celebrate with a bottle of alcohol when that patient is about to be discharged from hospital.
well, even if it is common place to celebrate with alcohol when one is about to be released, inmate was not about to be released. He was sitting up drinking his Cold Duck the evening he was admitted. Granted he did not NEED to be in the hospital more than a couple of days, but since his home was a crime scene his stay was extended. That being said, no actually drinking alcohol in the hospital is not at all NORMAL and in most hospitals it is probably not allowed either.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The pajama pocket is very weak evidence, rather like all that crap about footprints.
actually, no the pj pocket is very good evidence. and the footprint evidence is not crap either. but since you will ignore any FACT that you don't like I am not going to go into it now....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Fred Bost explained the matter of the pajama pocket in his short study:
The BOST Short Study is CRAP. It is nothing but cut and paste, misrepresentations, revisionist history and outright lies.
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 18th September 2018, 08:01 AM   #355
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,321
There is a fair and just criticism of the Morris Wilderness of Errors book, even though the writer rather stupidly thinks MacDonald is guilty. The forensic evidence against MacDonald is not scientifically reliable:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-w...ris/1111374612

Quote:
Perhaps Mr. Morris' strongest argument for MacDonald lies within the weakness of the government's supposed shoe-in evidence. He takes on their pajama top experiment and invalidates their results, as well as their assertion that saran hair fibers found in a hairbrush at the crime scene were not those of one of the MacDonald children's dolls but had come from a wig. Helena Stoeckley owned a wig of the same color as those hairs found and during one of her confessions, claimed to be wearing that wig at the time of the crimes.

Despite my assertions that I would not be moved by Mr. Morris' writing, I was. He made a clear and concise argument that Jeffrey MacDonald did not receive a fair trial - - from Judge Dupree's relationship with the original prosecutor (his son-in-law) to inaccurate government tests that were presented as gospel to threats of prosecution given to Helena Stoeckley should she testify to being present at the crime scene and vouching for MacDonald's innocence - - and there was no shortage of reasonable doubt.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th September 2018 at 08:02 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 18th September 2018, 10:30 AM   #356
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Errol Morris may or may not think inmate is guilty - doesn't matter the book is a piece of crap and inmate IS GUILTY.
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 18th September 2018, 11:26 AM   #357
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
JTF: He may have mastered the pajama top, but that afghan around his feet whupped him good.

Last edited by desmirelle; 18th September 2018 at 11:27 AM.
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 18th September 2018, 12:01 PM   #358
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
JTF: He may have mastered the pajama top, but that afghan around his feet whupped him good.
pfffft pfffft pfffft! roflmao! good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this post.....
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 18th September 2018, 01:39 PM   #359
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 74
Severity of MacD's injuries

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I love the way non medically qualified people discuss the seriousness of MacDonald's injuries on the internet and this forum. I have always thought Sidney Carton writes sense about the MacDonald case, though there is more to the MacDonald case than Jimmy Britt and pajama-like fibers and bad police work.

There is an interesting website which seems to be an analysis of the Morris book 'Wilderness of Errors' which makes sense to me:

https://www.womanaroundtown.com/sect...rey-macdonald/
Ok, Henri, let's review how MacD himself described his injuries:

Quote:
not being able to breathe.
Now I--you know, when I look back, of course, it's merely a symptom, that shortness of breath. It isn't--you weren't really that bad, but that's what happens when you get a pneu-mothorax. You--you think you can't breathe.
And I had to get down on my hands and knees and breathe for a while, and then I went in and checked the kids and checked their pulses and stuff. And--I don't know if it was the first time I checked them or the second time I checked them, to tell you the truth; but I had all--you know, blood on my hands and I had little cuts in here (pointing to his mid-section), and my head hurt.
So, when I reached up to feel my head, you know, my hands were bloody. And so I--I think it was the second circuit 'cause it--by that time, I was--I was thinking better, I thought. And I went into that--I went into the bathroom right there and looked in the mirror and didn't--nothing looked wrong. I mean there wasn't really even a cut or anything.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2018, 08:25 PM   #360
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 472
According to Henri's man crush's own words, "..nothing looked wrong, there wasn't really even a cut or anything." This is after the mythical fantasy four have left. So, who inflicted all those life-threatening injuries to said man crush? His dead pregnant wife? The dead five-year-old? The dead two-year-old? The neighbors? Henri? Sidney? JP? Errol Morris?


Macdonald can't even avoid consciousness of guilt with his own mouth. He has, in this instance, admitted that he really wasn't injured. And he was a doctor at the time, so he had a level of expertise above, say, mine. After the "bad guys" left, he was okay, he was walking around, checking on things (in the dark, remember, no prints were found on the light switches and the lights were off when Henri's beau was on the couch). This wasn't one foot, this was both feet in his own mouth. And he put them there.
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
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 05:24 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.