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

Closed Thread
Old 22nd May 2016, 10:57 PM   #1681
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Worthless

HENRIBOY: The link you provided is full of distortions, half-truths, and lies. The author or authors clearly spent about 10 minutes researching this case and focused on a singular source (e.g., Fatal Justice) for their fantasy narrative. I could write a short story on the holes in this slanted piece of hyperbole, but I'll focus on your ongoing obsession with the unsourced fibers in this case.

The MacDonald defense team has argued that unsourced fibers found at the crime scene are proof of home invaders being present at the MacDonald home on February 17, 1970. The FBI, however, has a policy which specifically states that without source material to compare it to, unsourced fibers are forensically insignificant. The focus of the defense team's fiber arguments are the five dark woolen fibers found at the crime scene. Since 1989, several defense motions have put forth the argument that the source of the five dark-colored fibers was clothing worn by Helena Stoeckley.

What is missing from these motions is the fact that Stoeckley never mentioned wearing dark woolen clothing items on February 17, 1970. Two fibers were found on the club and three fibers were found on Colette’s body. Three of the five fibers differed in chemical composition, indicating three different source materials. There was no dark woolen clothing available for comparison purposes due to the fact that most of the MacDonald family clothing items were discarded after the Article 32 hearings. There are, however, home movies and photographs of the MacDonald family wearing multi-colored stocking caps, dark-colored sweaters, and dark-colored hats.

During the 1990 and 1992 appellate process, Jeffrey MacDonald's lawyers argued that three saran fibers found at the crime scene was evidence of a wig-wearing intruder. Intruder suspect Helena Stoeckley made several post-trial statements claiming that she wore her wig to 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. Stoeckley, however, testified under oath at the 1979 trial that she wasn’t wearing her wig on the night of the murders. The three saran fibers were 24, 22, and nine inches in length. All three fibers were found in a clear-handled hairbrush located in the dining room next to Colette's purse.

In 1974, Paul Stombaugh analyzed these three fibers, and labeled them as FBI Exhibits Q46 and Q49. Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc." In 1990, FBI Special Agent Robert Webb analyzed the fibers and concluded that the 24-inch and nine-inch saran fibers differed in chemical composition to the 22-inch saran fiber. This indicated that the three saran fibers came from two different source materials. In terms of dolls being the source material for the three saran fibers, Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection, and Kimberley had several dolls of her own. In 1990, hair and fiber expert Michael Malone matched the 24-inch saran fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the saran fibers matched any wig exemplar in the FBI's reference collection. There were also two platinum-colored synthetic hairs found in hairbrushes at the crime scene and Malone matched these synthetic hairs to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald. In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a post-argument letter to MacDonald’s defense team.

In regards to Malone’s fiber analysis, the government stated that “Examiner Malone added that standard references that he had consulted do not reflect the use of saran fibers in human cosmetic wigs.” The letter also addressed the claim that the 22-inch and the 24-inch saran fibers were too long to be doll hair. The government stated that “doll hair is doubled or looped when placed in the skull of a doll. A 22-inch fiber, therefore, is consistent with an 11-inch hair strand on a doll. Appellant has never attempted to rebut this explanation.” Unfortunately, there were no doll exemplars available for comparison purposes due to the fact that Kristen’s and Kimberley’s doll collections were discarded after the Article 32 hearings. In a 1990 People magazine article, Freddy Kassab addressed this issue and stated that Kimberley or Kristen brushing their dolls hair with the clear-handled hairbrush was a far more logical scenario than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the course of a home invasion.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd May 2016 at 10:58 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 05:40 AM   #1682
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
isn't it amazing how "there used to be a statement on the internet" has become part of henri's mantra? Isn't it also amazing how only statements that he thinks can bolster his inanities suddenly "disappear" from the internet?

henri I know you hate it when we insist on clouding the issues with FACTS but the FACTS are that you know nothing and your lather, rinse, repeat, recycle pattern of posting has been called out by another poster! Helena was not involved in the murders, the candle wax found in the apartment were from 3 different sources so they couldn't have come from the candle holding hippy girl (even if she had existed). Besides, Helena claimed her candle dripped blood not wax.
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 06:40 AM   #1683
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There used to be a statement on the internet by a witness that Helena Stoeckley had asked him in a park if fingerprints could be detected on candle wax. That's suspicious.
What witness? How did this witness know Stoeckley? When did this witness come forward? How credible is that witness? Is there any corroboration for this claim? How about a citation so we can read what the witness said in context? The problem is your summaries aren't very truthful, and leave out much needed information. I'll establish that below re: MacDonald's supposed concussion.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
She could have handled her candles before she put on surgical gloves for the MacDonald murders.
There is so much wrong with this sentence I don't know where to begin. You have three independent assumptions strung together with no evidence cited for any of them.

(1) You're assuming she owned candles and surgical gloves.
(2) You're assuming she put on surgical gloves at some point.
(3) You're assuming she was at the MadDonald house on the night of the murders.

You do not solve a crime by assuming the party you want to convict did a bunch of stuff that implicates them. You need to prove it with evidence.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know if that candle wax still exists, or if it is now hopelessly contaminated, but because the fingerprint testing was bungled we will probably now never know. There might still be some DNA.
Assuming for the sake of argument the "fingerprint testing was hopelessly bungled" (as you assert but do not prove), you cannot conclude anything, including but not limited to these:

(1) Stoeckley left the candle wax in the MacDonald house
(2) Stoeckley handled the candle wax in the MacDonald house.

As an aside, who handles candlewax after it's been melted down onto the floor? Your whole argument here makes no sense and is based on assumptions upon assumptions.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Another witness made a statement that Greg Mitchell had said to her that all children under ten years of age should be exterminated. That's odd and suspicious.
What witness? How did they know Mitchell? How credible is that witness? Is there any corroboration for this claim? What evidence implicates Mitchell in the murders, except for Stoeckley's drug-addled claims (repudiated by her own words at other times, including under oath). Which should bear more weight, her claims under oath or her claims not under oath?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm not too happy with that evidentiary hearing before the biased Judge Fox in about 2012. It seemed to concentrate on Jimmy Britt, and Segal's load of rubbish closing speech, rather than the exculpatory evidence.
Respectfully, you don't get a voice in the evidentiary hearing, so nobody cares whether you're happy with it or not. The 'bias' of Judge Fox is asserted but not proven. The 'exculpatory' evidence is likewise asserted but not proven.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The military Dr. Bronstein testified that it had been reported to him that Dr. MacDonald was lapsing in and out of consciousness, and that's medically concussion.
Hilarious. It was reported to Dr. Bronstein *** by Jeffrey MacDonald ***, who has been convicted of murdering his family and accused of faking his injuries. It's curious you left that piece of information out of what you reported. Do you think it's not pertinent who reported this to Bronstein? Or are you trying to mislead by leaving out pertinent information?

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

Q Now, besides observing the injuries that you specified, did you conduct any tests on him? I mean, did you make any observations, for example, his neurological functions?
A I went over him pretty thoroughly.
Q His reflexes?
A I especially went over his reflexes. I did a neurological examination because I did something that I don't think that I could really support medically in that he was very upset and I was very concerned for him and, because he was kind of hysterical I thought, I wanted him to be sedated. And generally when a person has had a head injury, which I felt that he had, and --
Q Not a serious head injury, I take it.
A I thought so because he had a bruise and *** he said that there had been times when he had lost consciousness ***. And this would indicate medically that he had sustained a concussion. It's only by history, obviously. You can't make the diagnosis any other way. But I wanted to give him sedation. I wanted to give him a narcotic to relax him and I wanted to give him a barbiturate to help him to sleep.
You generally withhold those drugs from patients who have that type of injury. And I did go over him very thoroughly. And I was sure that he had no localizing neurological sign. I'm sure that he had no other head injury because I went over his scalp and his hair. And I did give him those drugs. I gave him a fair amount of them.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr. Bronstein then gave Dr. Macdonald a massive dose of sedatives, without checking if he had a hairline skull fracture which could cause brain damage or if Dr. MacDonald had breathing difficulties. Dr. MacDonald remarked later that his treatment at the hospital was pretty shi***.
Your claim about the possibility of the hairline fracture is established as not true by Dr. Bronstein's testimony, quoted above. He tested MacDonald and examined his head thoroughly:
"And I did go over him very thoroughly. And I was sure that he had no localizing neurological sign. I'm sure that he had no other head injury because I went over his scalp and his hair."

Evidence: No other head injury than the one bruise on the head, probably caused by Collette during the initial stages of the fight.
Henri's supposition: MacDonald might have had an undiagnosed skull fracture caused by the intruders.
Your supposition carries no weight, Henri. It is disproven by the doctor's testimony, which you should be familiar with.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is quite a good website about the MacDonald case at:

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co....acdonald/trial

I am not sure if the writer got it right about where the long blond synthetic hair-like fibers were found, which obviously came from Helena Stoeckley.
JTF dealt with the fibers quite effectively. This is only like the fifth time he's posted that information, which you ignore each and every time, never attempting to refut any of it.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd May 2016 at 06:48 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 08:31 AM   #1684
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY:

What is missing from these motions is the fact that Stoeckley never mentioned wearing dark woolen clothing items on February 17, 1970. Two fibers were found on the club and three fibers were found on Colette’s body. Three of the five fibers differed in chemical composition, indicating three different source materials. There was no dark woolen clothing available for comparison purposes due to the fact that most of the MacDonald family clothing items were discarded after the Article 32 hearings. There are, however, home movies and photographs of the MacDonald family wearing multi-colored stocking caps, dark-colored sweaters, and dark-colored hats.


http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's ridiculous. Helena mentioned somewhere the clothes that she and her murdering mates were wearing at the MacDonald murders. She mentioned that Mazerolle was wearing velveteen clothes, which would shed dark fibers. For Murtagh to say that that dark fibers with no known source on Colette's mouth and arm and the wooden club murder weapon can be explained because there are photos of Colette and the children wearing black clothes is absurd in the extreme.

All these witness statements may still be on the MacDonald case information website, but it would take me hours to find them again. There were people like Jan Snyder who said she had a rifle pointed at her after she provided information about what she had seen. She vanished from the MacDonald case soon after. There was the restaurant waitress who saw the Stoeckley gang in the early hours of the morning in a car, and blood in the bathroom sink.

Malone is under investigation by the Department of Justice. The integrity of Stombaugh has been questioned with regard to his false testimony at the Warren Commission. Segal was a bad advocate, and Judge Dupree's court was a bad court. The prosecutors Murtagh and Blackburn were very shady.

The judge and the jury were never impartial. The fingerprint testing was bungled. Hairs and fibers were misidentified at the Army CID lab, and by the FBI lab. The blood evidence was never presented to the court by a qualified serologist, which disregards the rules of evidence and procedure. There has never been an extremely competent judge on the MacDonald case. That cheat McGinniss influenced the American public against MacDonald with all his lies in that Fatal Vision book and TV movie.

I don't know how doctors tested for hairline skull fractures in those days, but I would have thought Dr. MacDonald should have been given a head X-ray rather than a massive dose of sedatives. Nowadays he would have been put in a scanner, particularly if he was something like a wealthy footballer.

As Colonel Rock said at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 the MacDonald case was biased. It was bad police work.
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:01 PM   #1685
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
"helena metnioned somewhere" is hardly definitive evidence or proof, henri. Also, the fact that you've been told multiple times that it has been PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Allen Mazzerole WAS IN JAIL the night of the murders makes anything Helena said suspect.

The Article 32 hearing has no bearing on the Grand Jury, Trial, or multiple appeals. Col. Rock was an infantry officer untrained in law or legal procedures. So what he stated is of no value and has no bearing on the case.

Was the crime scene perfectly preserved? No it was not. Was inmate convicted on any of the questionable items? No he was not. The MPs were responding to a Domestic situation, the SOP was preserve life first and worry about the crime scene second. That being said, it is also obvious to anyone who chooses to pay attention "inmate himself made efforts to tamper with the crime scene" for example his "struggles" to get to his children whom he admitted he already knew were dead by the time the MPs arrived. Not only that but his "convenient" loss of consciousness that had him "rousing" just as the MPs entered the utility room.

Why do you insist on arguing points that have long since been disproven? What sort of sick perverse thrill does it give you to champion a mass murderer?
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:10 PM   #1686
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The integrity of Stombaugh has been questioned with regard to his false testimony at the Warren Commission.
And I've asked you repeatedly to tell us what, specifically, is false about his testimony (and how you know it's false) and you never did.

Please stop issuing proclamations you cannot prove.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:16 PM   #1687
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Henri, is it safe to say that if the evidence points to MacDonald anywhere, with testimony from anyone, you're going to find some reason to dismiss it?
Well, I guess you told me the answer to that question:

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Malone is under investigation by the Department of Justice. The integrity of Stombaugh has been questioned with regard to his false testimony at the Warren Commission. Segal was a bad advocate, and Judge Dupree's court was a bad court. The prosecutors Murtagh and Blackburn were very shady.

The judge and the jury were never impartial. The fingerprint testing was bungled. Hairs and fibers were misidentified at the Army CID lab, and by the FBI lab. The blood evidence was never presented to the court by a qualified serologist, which disregards the rules of evidence and procedure. There has never been an extremely competent judge on the MacDonald case. That cheat McGinniss influenced the American public against MacDonald with all his lies in that Fatal Vision book and TV movie.
The answer to my query is "yes", isn't it?

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:19 PM   #1688
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were people like Jan Snyder who said she had a rifle pointed at her after she provided information about what she had seen. She vanished from the MacDonald case soon after. There was the restaurant waitress who saw the Stoeckley gang in the early hours of the morning in a car, and blood in the bathroom sink.
I can almost hear the violins playing a sad song in the background.

I didn't ask about those two, I asked about the other two supposed witnesses you brought up in an earlier post and asked you to document your claims.

You didn't. You simply changed the subject to some other supposed people that gave some supposed testimony that you don't document here either.

That is NOT persuasive, Henri.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:25 PM   #1689
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know how doctors tested for hairline skull fractures in those days, but I would have thought Dr. MacDonald should have been given a head X-ray rather than a massive dose of sedatives. Nowadays he would have been put in a scanner, particularly if he was something like a wealthy footballer.
So you have no evidence of a skull fracture, is that your admission?

Previously, you were assuring us that MacDonald had a concussion:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The military Dr. Bronstein testified that it had been reported to him that Dr. MacDonald was lapsing in and out of consciousness, and that's medically concussion.
But we found out that was based only on MacDonald's claims when we examined Bronstein's testimony carefully, didn't we? We also found that Dr. Bronstein found no evidence of a skull fracture whatsoever, didn't we?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1683

Repeating arguments that have already been exposed as having no evidence in support isn't a good look for you.

You might want to try stamping your feet and holding your breath for emphasis the next time you repeat these disproven claims. It might not help, but it certainly couldn't hurt.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd May 2016 at 12:27 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:26 PM   #1690
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Doing The Work For You

HENRIBOY: Read it and weep. No mention of dark woolen clothing or multiple candles or brushing a wig in the dining room or...

In 1981, Stoeckley provided a signed confession to a defense-funded, private investigator by the name of Ted Gunderson. Stoeckley told Gunderson that she was a member of a Satanist group calling itself the Black Cult and that she was instructed to call the MacDonald residence to find out whether they would be home in the evening. Stoeckley stated she called at 6:20 p.m., spoke to Colette MacDonald over the phone, and Colette told her she was going to her college class. Stoeckley claims that Colette also gave her the name of the school she was attending, and that the babysitter was going to watch the children until Doctor MacDonald returned home.

Stoeckley states that cult member Bruce Fowler drove Stoeckley and four other cult members to the MacDonald home. She said that the cult members entered through the kitchen door and that they did not bring any weapons with them even though they planned to "annihilate" the entire family. The cult members then confronted Jeffrey MacDonald in the living room, demanded that he sign a prescription for Dexedrine, and MacDonald agreed to call a friend in order to procure the Dexedrine. Jeffrey MacDonald then dialed the post operator in an attempt to summon the military police. The cult members then beat MacDonald for a second time, MacDonald fell unconscious on the hallway floor, and Stoeckley subsequently gave MacDonald mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Stoeckley stated that SHE WORE A FLOPPY-SLEEVED BLOUSE, A DENIM SKIRT, and was the only cult member carrying a candle.

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 Back to Top
Old 24th May 2016, 05:40 AM   #1691
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
The book Fatal Vision (well written, well researched) was published AFTER inmate had been convicted and was already in jail. Therefore, that book had nothing to do with the fact that inmate was convicted. It is amazing how cronies like to bad mouth Joe McG and the book Fatal Vision yet in all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE ERROR has been found. Contrast that to Fatal Joke (yes, I know it is Fatal Justice) but that "book" is replete with substantive errors, misrepresentations, half-truths, distortions, cut and paste presentation, and out right lies. WOE, from what I have heard is not much better than FJ as far as accuracy goes.....
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 Back to Top
Old 24th May 2016, 08:25 AM   #1692
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
I agree that Helena Stoeckley and her group were bad characters maddened by drink and drugs and that they all lied like a trooper. The Kassabs perjured themselves as a matter of course in their vindictiveness against Dr. MacDonald. Malone was a total liar. Joe McGinniss was a liar. Cathy Perry confessed, but she really was mentally ill, and she wasn't a reliable witness.

The point is that there is no evidence against Dr. MacDonald, apart from manufactured evidence. As Helena's lawyer, Leonard, said at that evidentiary hearing in 2012 the prosecution never proved its case, and Dr. MacDonald was screwed. Murtagh then rather unfairly accused Leonard of being an alcoholic. The job of the police and judges is to elicit the truth, not to jump to conclusions. You don't disregard leads and suspects, and witnesses, like Judge Dupree did.

There was a recent case in the UK where a restaurant owner was sent to prison for six years because one of his clients died of a peanut allergy. I don't think it was deliberate. It has been said that a third of all civil cases are decided wrongly.

There is some background information to all this in an old English law book published in 1932:

"The Press is not much help. Very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part."
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 Back to Top
Old 24th May 2016, 09:12 AM   #1693
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,722
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that Helena Stoeckley and her group were bad characters maddened by drink and drugs and that they all lied like a trooper. The Kassabs perjured themselves as a matter of course in their vindictiveness against Dr. MacDonald. Malone was a total liar. Joe McGinniss was a liar. Cathy Perry confessed, but she really was mentally ill, and she wasn't a reliable witness.



The point is that there is no evidence against Dr. MacDonald, apart from manufactured evidence. As Helena's lawyer, Leonard, said at that evidentiary hearing in 2012 the prosecution never proved its case, and Dr. MacDonald was screwed. Murtagh then rather unfairly accused Leonard of being an alcoholic. The job of the police and judges is to elicit the truth, not to jump to conclusions. You don't disregard leads and suspects, and witnesses, like Judge Dupree did.
Amazing, MacDonald must be the unluckiest man in the world. In the nearly 37 years since the initial murder trial, he's only EVER had corrupt prosecutors and judges, incompetent defence counsel, and expert witnesses for the prosecution that never should have been. Why, it's almost like he was guilty! I mean of course the North Carolina system was stacked against him, and the FBI, and the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the US, and all of them remain so despite the passage of time and the changing cast of characters, so it's good that there are brave and perceptive internet warriors able to see the truth.

Quote:
There was a recent case in the UK where a restaurant owner was sent to prison for six years because one of his clients died of a peanut allergy. I don't think it was deliberate. It has been said that a third of all civil cases are decided wrongly.
Citation please.

This demonstrates your lack of understanding of the legal system. You can only be sent to prison in criminal cases, not civil cases.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2016, 12:19 PM   #1694
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Benjamin Franklin said "Three men may keep a secret only after two of them are dead". I know I've stated this before, but obviously henri doesn't get the significance.

So henri - in other words - there was no conspiracy against inmate. he did it! he butchered his family savagely, then lied and manipulated things in an attempt to get out of the just punishment he earned. to this day, he is trying to get out of serving the sentence he earned when he battered Colette so badly that EVEN IF THE BEST MEDICAL INTERVENTION HAD BEEN ON THE SCENE she would have been permanently disfigured. He earned his prison sentence when he bashed Kimberley's head/face so hard that he broke the cheekbone on the other side of her head and forced the fractured pieces out through her skin, and dislocated that poor little girls facial mid-line sending her into an unrecoverable coma. inmate earned a life sentence for deliberately stabbing 2 year old Kristen over and over again, including AT LEAST TWO stabs directly into her heart. No one else was in that apartment. inmate's stories do not match the evidence. inmate thought his allegedly superior intellect would let him convince others that he was not responsible. however, his own statements and the forensic evidence shows clearly that he did it.

I recently heard of a restaurant owner/chef that was sent to prison due to being convicted of manslaughter (I believe was the charge) because a man came in, ordered a curry and stated several times that there could be no nuts or nut derivatives in the meal at all, he stated clearly several times that he was highly allergic. The restaurant said no problem, man left and ate his curry, man was dead within 24 hours due to a severe allergic reaction. Yes, the family also sued him civilly but he went to jail for a criminal offense since he knowingly added a flavoring made from nuts after it was made clear the man could not eat nuts.

You know you make it so obvious that you don't pay any attention to facts, rules of evidence, or rules of procedures so why do you insist on posting your inane comments???
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 02:52 AM   #1695
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Benjamin Franklin said "Three men may keep a secret only after two of them are dead". I know I've stated this before, but obviously henri doesn't get the significance.
There was a good defense submission in about 2013, which I am not sure can be linked to this forum, and which stated that Helena Stoeckley knew she was dying in about 1981. Frankly, I have my doubts about that. She had appeared on TV shortly before to say she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. I believe she was bumped off, as was Greg Mitchell, who was quoted as saying he was trying to leave the country because he was badly scared at about the same time, after being interviewed by the South Carolina Bureau of Investigation.

That just leaves Mazerolle who said he was in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. A likely story! Lawyers and journalists are very credulous. Detective Beasley got it right when he said he was almost positive Mazerolle was out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders, but he was never believed because he was an astute detective. Mazerolle never tuned up in court on the date he was due to appear, and he went on the run. Mazerolle was out on bail. Tampering with jail documents by the prosecution, and losing police notes is not good enough.

Detective Beasley said that Helena was laughing and waving an ice pick with the rest of the Stoeckley gang when he went to investigate them after the murders.

People who had knowledge in relation to the crime, and who were associated with the Stoeckley group, were never thoroughly and properly investigated.

There was mention in that defense submission that there was a bench Conference at that MacDonald trial in which Judge Dupree said that it all depends on whether the jury buys it. That's not trying to elicit the truth. That's just a question about who is the best trickster lawyer with a dense jury.

It says in that defense submission in 2013 that at approximately 2.00 am Stoeckley, Harris, Mitchell, and Fowler left Dunkin' Donuts for the MacDonald residence. Mitchell was wearing dark trousers and a light colored mohair sweater and Smitty was wearing a fatigue jacket with stripes on the sleeves.

At that evidentiary hearing in 2012, Helena's brother Gene Stoeckley related an incident when he was junior high and high school, he held her accountable. At one point, he confronted her about it. She had come back to the house to visit. He confronted her about it. He was mad at her."At that point, she told me to be careful because she had certain friends, and she told me she had an ice pick."
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 06:41 AM   #1696
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was a good defense submission in about 2013, which I am not sure can be linked to this forum, and which stated that Helena Stoeckley knew she was dying in about 1981. Frankly, I have my doubts about that. She had appeared on TV shortly before to say she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. I believe she was bumped off, as was Greg Mitchell, who was quoted as saying he was trying to leave the country because he was badly scared at about the same time, after being interviewed by the South Carolina Bureau of Investigation.
Helena was not "bumped off" and that is an ignorant statement to make. She died of pneumonia and complications of cirrhosis of the liver. she was a complete mess of a human who had used so many drugs and consumed so much alcohol that her body simply failed. there was nothing anywhere to suggest that Helena did not die of natural causes. What she did or did not know is irrelevant and certainly makes no sense in context with the Benjamin Franklin quote from my post that you "quoted". YOU allege some sort of conspiracy against inmate, and I pointed out AGAIN that IF such a conspiracy had indeed existed the full details of said conspiracy would be public knowledge. GET OVER YOURSELF - inmate is guilty. He has been proven guilty and that is FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That just leaves Mazerolle who said he was in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. A likely story! Lawyers and journalists are very credulous. Detective Beasley got it right when he said he was almost positive Mazerolle was out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders, but he was never believed because he was an astute detective. Mazerolle never tuned up in court on the date he was due to appear, and he went on the run. Mazerolle was out on bail. Tampering with jail documents by the prosecution, and losing police notes is not good enough.
GET OVER YOURSELF henri. Allen M didn't just SAY he was in jail at the time. PEB claims have no bearing on the FACTS. There are plenty of documented records that show AM was arrested by PEB and put in jail after he was fingered for drug dealing by Helena S. AM was unable to arrange bail until March 10. HE WAS IN JAIL AND YOUR CONSTANT CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY ARE LUNACY. The prosecution did not tamper with any documents. THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR ADMITTED THAT HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE MADE THE STATEMENTS THAT ALLEN MAZZEROLE WAS OUT OF JAIL. THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR ADMITTED HE GOT THE MATERIALS ABOUT AM'S CO-DEFENDANT IN THE DRUG CASE AND ASSUMED THAT ALLEN M WAS ALSO BONDED OUT. This was not the case. Non only that but by the time of the trial, Prince Beasley was in seriously bad health and was confabulating due to his inorganic brain disorder. This is also documented FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
People who had knowledge in relation to the crime, and who were associated with the Stoeckley group, were never thoroughly and properly investigated.
This is BS. First of all there was no Stoeckley group. Everyone that Helena mentioned in any of her on again off again confessions were thoroughly investigated. EVERYONE knows that there were no intruders. WHY do you insist on posting BS claims that even the defense admits are untrue?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
At that evidentiary hearing in 2012, Helena's brother Gene Stoeckley related an incident when he was junior high and high school, he held her accountable. At one point, he confronted her about it. She had come back to the house to visit. He confronted her about it. He was mad at her."At that point, she told me to be careful because she had certain friends, and she told me she had an ice pick."
IF he actually said any such thing so what? it has no bearing on the case. Helena was a pathetic drug user with a penchant for telling tall tales. At one point she even claimed to have "stood watch" on post. It would not happen and it did not happen. Gene Stoeckley was looking for his 15 minutes of fame, and he pathetically used his ill and dying elderly mother and his pathetic deceased sister to accomplish it. He is a nothing to this case. The only story Helena told consistently was that she had no idea where she was the night of the murders because she had ingested so many drugs. There were not fibers, finger prints, hairs, or blood to show anyone other than inmate and his victims were in that house. PERIOD.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2016, 08:37 PM   #1697
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was a good defense submission in about 2013, which I am not sure can be linked to this forum, and which stated that Helena Stoeckley knew she was dying in about 1981. Frankly, I have my doubts about that.
You have your doubts about what, specifically? That she was dying, that she knew she was dying, or you doubt the defense's statement that she knew she was dying? Or that the submission was in 2013, or what, exactly? Your point is again totally unclear, and besides the point. I'm looking for you to make statements you can prove with evidence. You seem to be doing everything you can to avoid making any clear statements that can be established with evidence... even to the extent of saying the evidence can't be linked to. What's that all about? The last time you said the evidence didn't exist on the internet, it took me less than a minute to prove you wrong with a Google search.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
She had appeared on TV shortly before to say she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg.
Are you claiming she was making terrorist threats? What exactly are you claiming, and why are you claiming it (i.e., Cite The Evidence!) What was her precise claim, and please tell us what that has to do with the MacDonald murder, and how you know that.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I believe she was bumped off, as was Greg Mitchell...
Your beliefs are not the issue here, Henri. I've told you before, the issue is what the evidence indicates.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...who was quoted as saying he was trying to leave the country because he was badly scared at about the same time, after being interviewed by the South Carolina Bureau of Investigation.
Quoted by whom? Where? Is this sworn testimony by Mitchell you are referencing, or is this just more of your infamous hearsay you always bring up?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That just leaves Mazerolle who said he was in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. A likely story!
Well, yeah... especially since that's the same story the paperwork tells.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Lawyers and journalists are very credulous.
When you want them to be.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Detective Beasley got it right when he said he was almost positive Mazerolle was out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders...
He got it absolutely right, I would think, that his opinion was he was "almost positive". Who would know his opinon better than himself? But as to the actual fact, and not his opinion, that was something he got wrong.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
but he was never believed because he was an astute detective.
According to whom, Henri? One of those credulous journalists? Who exactly didn't believe him, and how do you know the reason they didn't believe him?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle never tuned up in court on the date he was due to appear, and he went on the run. Mazerolle was out on bail. Tampering with jail documents by the prosecution, and losing police notes is not good enough.
More uncited claims with NO support offered for any of them.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Detective Beasley said that Helena was laughing and waving an ice pick with the rest of the Stoeckley gang when he went to investigate them after the murders.
Ok, assuming this is true for the sake of argument, if someone is laughing and possesses an ice pick, is that sufficient to indict them for murdering Collette, Kimberley, and Kristen in the MacDonald house that evening? Or would you need something more?

Why would you bring this up, and not cite for it, and tell us what corroboration Beasley's claim has, if any?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
People who had knowledge in relation to the crime, and who were associated with the Stoeckley group, were never thoroughly and properly investigated.
What people who had knowledge about the crime weren't investigated properly, and how do you know they had knowledge of the crime since they weren't investigated properly? Is this knowledge provable in a court of law? What evidence is there of their knowledge? Can you cite for anything or will you continue to change the subject to something else each time you're asked to provide evidence for any of your claims?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was mention in that defense submission that there was a bench Conference at that MacDonald trial in which Judge Dupree said that it all depends on whether the jury buys it. That's not trying to elicit the truth. That's just a question about who is the best trickster lawyer with a dense jury.
Are you paraphrasing or quoting the judge? Why no citation once again? I just cited one instance above where the judge said a particular issue was for the jury to decide. That is the case here in America. In simplest terms, the judge decides the law, the jury decides the facts. So it becomes a point for the jury to determine if they 'buy' the prosecution or the defense argument.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It says in that defense submission in 2013 that at approximately 2.00 am Stoeckley, Harris, Mitchell, and Fowler left Dunkin' Donuts for the MacDonald residence. Mitchell was wearing dark trousers and a light colored mohair sweater and Smitty was wearing a fatigue jacket with stripes on the sleeves.
Who says that, and how credible are they? Was this supposed evidence (or is it hearsay, Henri?) presented to the trial jury or was it not presented? If not, why not? If it was, why did the jury not buy it? Why should we buy it?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
At that evidentiary hearing in 2012, Helena's brother Gene Stoeckley related an incident when he was junior high and high school, he held her accountable.
Held her accountable for what? The murders? Based on what evidence?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
At one point, he confronted her about it. She had come back to the house to visit. He confronted her about it. He was mad at her."At that point, she told me to be careful because she had certain friends, and she told me she had an ice pick."
There you go, quoting hearsay again! You understand that what he said would never be allowed to be presented to a jury in a criminal trial, right? So why are you presenting that hearsay here? Could it be because you have no evidence to present?

And of course, this allegation raises a number of questions you don't go into whatsoever: Did he ever mention this to anyone at the time it happened? Were there other witnesses to the exchange or do we have only his word for this? Did he only come forward after his sister died? If so, why did he wait? Does his claim establish anything about whether his sister actually had anything to do with the MacDonald murders, or is it one sibling interacting with another?

Your arguments, whatever you think they do, do not provide any reasonable person with any evidence of anyone's involvement in the three murders who is not named Jeffrey MacDonald.

Respectfully, and try citing some evidence for a change,

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 25th May 2016 at 08:49 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 03:00 AM   #1698
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

Respectfully, and try citing some evidence for a change,

Hank
The information about Greg Mitchell tends to be gossip. Helena said somewhere that Mitchell murdered Colette with one other man, who I take to be Mazerolle.

There is a citation about Mitchell in a newspaper article in the The Charlotte Observer, September 20. 2012. It starts off with "John and Chris Griffin. The couple says they hired Greg Mitchell to do some electrical work at their Lake Wylie home in the early 1980s. While drinking at their home he confessed to killing the MacDonald family in 1970." It's a report of their new evidence at that evidentiary hearing in court before Judge Fox in 2012.

Mitchell's statement to the bunch of idiots in the Army CID in 1971 can be found at:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_mc...mitchell.html/

The November 24 1981: handwritten statement of Greg Mitchell to FBI SA Brendan Battle can be found at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-fbi-stmt.html

scroll down half way on the page for a legible translation.

I fully appreciate that the UK and America are different countries, and that North Carolina justice and prosecutors tend to be Nazi justice. It's just that Anglo-American justice has developed historically in the same way, just like in Australia or Canada or New Zealand, or in many other parts of the British Commonwealth.

This is from an old English law book:

"The duty of the judge to keep control of the proceedings before him is an essential part of the justice in all our Courts.....But it is safe to say that all his interventions must be governed by the supreme duty to see that a fair trial is enjoyed by the parties. His interventions must be interventions and not a complete usurpation of the functions of counsel."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th May 2016 at 03:33 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 04:06 AM   #1699
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,722
The stuff you just posted is still just gossip. There is no corroborating evidence to place anyone other than MacDonald in the house that night.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 06:32 AM   #1700
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
I am sure you will ALL be surprised to learn that inmate has requested and received an extension of time to file his opening brief on his last appeal. (roflmao, sarcasm really doesn't play well in typed communication does it?) June 7 is inmate's new deadline to file. Oh, and it says further requests for more time will not be looked at favorably, but we all know how little that really means......
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 09:14 AM   #1701
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
The stuff you just posted is still just gossip. There is no corroborating evidence to place anyone other than MacDonald in the house that night.
The Army CID and FBI and the judges were told who did the MacDonald murders and they just disregarded it. That's bad police work, and biased, and not fair and just on Dr. MacDonald. There was sufficient evidence for an indictment of Stoeckley and her murdering pals.

Mitchell did mention to the Griffins in South Carolina in 1981 that he was once affected as a soldier by agent orange in Vietnam, but it seems pretty obvious to me that he was a dangerous criminal and drug addict, and pure evil before that.

The link I posted with regard to the statement Mitchell made to the CID in 1971 was working this morning but for some unexplained reason it is 'not found' in the afternoon. I used to be able to copy and paste on my computer, which I found useful, but a few months ago Microsoft suddenly put a stop to that, perhaps for copyright reasons.
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 09:52 AM   #1702
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
There is a couple that came forward after WOE was published and claimed to have known Greg Mitchell etc. but it was BS. IF they really had known him and really HAD heard him confess then why did it take them 30 plus years to come forward? Oh, that is right, it isn't true.

I do know someone who really did know Greg Mitchell and even at one time believed Greg was possibly involved in the murders. however, the most she ever heard Greg say was "I did something bad while I was in the Army" (not exact quote)......Now, this person has spent the last few years researching the case and she is now firmly in the "he did it, that bastard slaughtered his family camp".

how does henri KNOW what was told to whom in 1970 or 1979 North Carolina? he doesn't, once again he is making up random claims that he cannot back up with evidence of any kind.

Last edited by byn63; 26th May 2016 at 09:54 AM. Reason: tone
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 01:00 PM   #1703
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Respectfully, and try citing some evidence for a change,

Hank
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The information about Greg Mitchell tends to be gossip.
So not evidence. Just hearsay. Thanks.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Helena said somewhere that Mitchell murdered Colette with one other man, who I take to be Mazerolle.
So not evidence. Just hearsay. Thanks. This also makes a liar of MacDonald, who said there were at a minimum three men and a woman in his house that night. You can't believe Stoeckley's claim above without disbelieving MacDonald. So tell us, do you believe both, even though they disagree with each other, or just one or neither? If just one, which one?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a citation about Mitchell in a newspaper article in the The Charlotte Observer, September 20. 2012. It starts off with "John and Chris Griffin. The couple says they hired Greg Mitchell to do some electrical work at their Lake Wylie home in the early 1980s. While drinking at their home he confessed to killing the MacDonald family in 1970."
So not evidence. Just hearsay. Thanks. We're supposed to just accept that this man admitted to some relative strangers that he murdered three people more than a decade after the murder, and they didn't come forward to tell their story for another three decades? Sorry, I stopped being gullible in the 1970's.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's a report of their new evidence at that evidentiary hearing in court before Judge Fox in 2012.
It's NOT evidence. It's hearsay. Which is probably why that evidentiary hearing's outcome wasn't too great for MacDonald.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mitchell's statement to the bunch of idiots in the Army CID in 1971 can be found at:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_mc...mitchell.html/
This is evidence. What in it do you think indicates Mitchell was involved in the murders?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The November 24 1981: handwritten statement of Greg Mitchell to FBI SA Brendan Battle can be found at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-fbi-stmt.html

scroll down half way on the page for a legible translation.
This is evidence. What in it do you think indicates Mitchell was involved in the murders?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I fully appreciate that the UK and America are different countries, and that North Carolina justice and prosecutors tend to be Nazi justice.
Nazi justice? This is based on what expertise and familiarity of yours with North Carolina justice, precisely? Can you list it below? Use as much space as you need.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's just that Anglo-American justice has developed historically in the same way, just like in Australia or Canada or New Zealand, or in many other parts of the British Commonwealth.

This is from an old English law book:

"The duty of the judge to keep control of the proceedings before him is an essential part of the justice in all our Courts.....But it is safe to say that all his interventions must be governed by the supreme duty to see that a fair trial is enjoyed by the parties. His interventions must be interventions and not a complete usurpation of the functions of counsel."
What exactly do you think you're establishing? It's the jury's obligation to determine the facts of the case. It's the judge's to uphold the law as it pertains to the case. It's counsel's job to present the evidence and argue the evidence.

Hank

PS: Are we supposed to not notice all you retained and responded to from my lengthy post was the closing salutation? Try responding to the questions I asked. Or is that asking too much? Here's the link to the post in question: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1697

In that closing salutation, I asked for evidence. You presented a bunch of hearsay and two statements by one man who you've suggested was involved in the murders, but you don't tell us how you know that he was involved, and what in his statements you find pertinent.
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 26th May 2016 at 01:33 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 01:20 PM   #1704
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Army CID and FBI and the judges were told who did the MacDonald murders and they just disregarded it.
Well, then, just provide the evidence of that. That should not be that hard, if this evidence really exists, and you're not making up claims.

So just cite:
1) The evidence (not the hearsay and innuendo) that someone else committed the murders;
2) The evidence that this evidence is sufficient to convince reasonable people;
3) The evidence that this evidence was presented to the Army CID, the FBI, and the judges (who gathered and presented this evidence to them, by the way)?
4) The evidence that the Army CID, the FBI, and the judges disregarded this evidence that the murders were committed by someone other than MacDonald.

You do this and I will commend you for making an air-tight case. But you can't do this, because there is no such evidence, and you are just blowing smoke.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's bad police work, and biased, and not fair and just on Dr. MacDonald. There was sufficient evidence for an indictment of Stoeckley and her murdering pals.
Cite that evidence that indicates "Stoeckley and her murdering pals" murdered anyone in that house.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mitchell did mention to the Griffins in South Carolina in 1981 that he was once affected as a soldier by agent orange in Vietnam, but it seems pretty obvious to me that he was a dangerous criminal and drug addict, and pure evil before that.
Wait... the Griffins are the ones reporting these claims after a passage of decades, right? These are unsworn statements, and just hearsay, right? There's no evidence Mitchell said any of these things, right?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The link I posted with regard to the statement Mitchell made to the CID in 1971 was working this morning but for some unexplained reason it is 'not found' in the afternoon. I used to be able to copy and paste on my computer, which I found useful, but a few months ago Microsoft suddenly put a stop to that, perhaps for copyright reasons.
I found the Mitchell statement by drilling down from the top level.

It's this:

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

Do tell us what in it is incriminating to Mitchell.

If you can't copy and paste from that statement, it's because the format is an image, not text.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 26th May 2016 at 01:21 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2016, 04:17 PM   #1705
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Lacking Merit

The fact that Judge Fox did not request that the Griffin's midnight hour claims be presented at the evidentiary hearing, speaks to their lack of merit. I find it interesting that Henriboy keeps bringing forth Allen Mazzerolle as one of the mythical hippie home invaders, yet has studiously ignored suspect Bruce Fowler. Henriboy's favorite serial fabricator claimed that Fowler drove the "murderous gang" to 544 Castle Drive in his blue mustang.

I'm assuming that Fowler's deletion from the home invader narrative is due to the CID's thorough investigation of Fowler in 1971. No prints or head hairs from Fowler were found at the crime scene, and Fowler passed a CID polygraph administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine. It's interesting to note that the defense only requested that DNA exemplars from Stoeckley and Mitchell be tested by the AFIP. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th May 2016 at 04:26 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 Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 03:06 AM   #1706
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

I do know someone who really did know Greg Mitchell and even at one time believed Greg was possibly involved in the murders. however, the most she ever heard Greg say was "I did something bad while I was in the Army" (not exact quote)......Now, this person has spent the last few years researching the case and she is now firmly in the "he did it, that bastard slaughtered his family camp".

how does henri KNOW what was told to whom in 1970 or 1979 North Carolina? he doesn't, once again he is making up random claims that he cannot back up with evidence of any kind.
Byn is talking here about the poster One Who Cares who posts on that biased anti-MacDonald yuku forum. She used to be married to her then husband Bryan Lane. Both their eyebrows were raised then when Mitchell confessed to them about the MacDonald murders in 1982. One Who Cares has said in the past that she became anti-MacDonald when MacDonald's wife didn't reply to her once, or else she is just a silly woman.

Bryan Lane is on record as saying to the BBC that Mitchell confessed to him. He said the authorities were uninterested. I think there are other Mitchell confessions. I seem to remember there was one to a garage mechanic in South Carolina, which may still be in the depths of the Jeffrey MacDonald Information website. Judge Dupree made the silly remark at the 1992 appeal that all these confessions were made by publicity seekers.

There is a mention about this on the internet by an author unknown which says "G- men also tinkered with the statements of witness Norma Lane, who reported that suspect Greg Mitchell (a left-handed soldier and addict) had confessed the murders in her presence, in 1982. An FBI affidavit claimed that Lane was uncertain whether Mitchell had referred to events at Fort Bragg or in Vietnam, a falsehood Lane flatly denies."

There is a bit about all this on a blog by Bret Burquest:

"Greg Mitchell was Helena Stoeckley's boyfriend. He was a soldier and a heroin addict, now deceased. Prior to his death, Mitchell confessed to the crime to his boss, his pastor and various other people. Several of these people have signed sworn statements of witnessing this confession."

There is background information to all this at:

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/m...e14410814.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 Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 05:08 AM   #1707
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
the man's name is Bryant and he and OWC no longer believe inmate to be innocent. OWC studied the evidence and learned that the defense had been feeding her and especially Bryant misrepresentation, cut and paste, distortions, and out right lies. and the Yuku board is not biased it is simply full of people who used their brains, read the evidence and understand that evidence.
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 Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 08:26 AM   #1708
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
You are right that his name is Bryant Lane. He has an affidavit on the internet which is in pdf and I don't think it would link to this forum. For some strange reason it is not dated, but it seems to be in the 2000's at some time. I am not sure if he is still alive. It was a voluntary affidavit, though MacDonald's private investigator Shedlick was obviously interested in what he had to say.

This is part of it:

5: "I knew Don Mills, Gregory Mitchell's partner at M&M Electric. Don Mills died of cancer over ten years ago at about age 50, in the Charlotte area. Don Mills told me that Gregory Mitchell had confessed to his involvement in the MacDonald murders on many occasions. Don Mills told me that he (Mills) didn't see any reason to "drag all that up now."

6: I recall Don Mills being interviewed by Ted Landreth for a BBC documentary on the MacDonald case. Don Mills told me he should have said more to Mr. Landreth about Gregory Mitchell, but that Mills felt "faithful to Greg."

7: During the period 1980-81, Gregory Mitchell stated to me that he "personally knew MacDonald is innocent, because I was the one that killed the MacDonald family. I did not tell anyone at the time because Mitchell asked me to keep this a secret so that he could try to get his life back together. I promised not to say anything. Later I became troubled about what Greg had told me and came forward."

That Judge Dupree was a bloody fool, and Judge Fox is not much better. They needed a bit of dignity and courtesy.

These are some of the silly remarks Judge Dupree made after the 1985 MacDonald appeal:

February 22 1985, Raleigh NC- A federal judge has denied Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald a new trial for killing his pregnant wife and two daughters because the new evidence offered by lawyers was "a factual charade." U.S. District Judge Franklin Dupree also wrote Friday that a new jury would again reach the almost inescapable conclusion that he was responsible for the horrible crimes."
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 Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 09:00 AM   #1709
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You are right that his name is Bryant Lane. He has an affidavit on the internet which is in pdf and I don't think it would link to this forum.
Hilarious. You mean this PDF?

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Imag...RYANT_LANE.pdf

Why would you think it wouldn't link here?

Did you not notice it's unsigned by the supposed deponent, and unverified by the supposed notary public who took the statement? It's valueless.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
For some strange reason it is not dated, but it seems to be in the 2000's at some time. I am not sure if he is still alive. It was a voluntary affidavit, though MacDonald's private investigator Shedlick was obviously interested in what he had to say.

This is part of it:

5: "I knew Don Mills, Gregory Mitchell's partner at M&M Electric. Don Mills died of cancer over ten years ago at about age 50, in the Charlotte area. Don Mills told me that Gregory Mitchell had confessed to his involvement in the MacDonald murders on many occasions. Don Mills told me that he (Mills) didn't see any reason to "drag all that up now."

6: I recall Don Mills being interviewed by Ted Landreth for a BBC documentary on the MacDonald case. Don Mills told me he should have said more to Mr. Landreth about Gregory Mitchell, but that Mills felt "faithful to Greg."

7: During the period 1980-81, Gregory Mitchell stated to me that he "personally knew MacDonald is innocent, because I was the one that killed the MacDonald family. I did not tell anyone at the time because Mitchell asked me to keep this a secret so that he could try to get his life back together. I promised not to say anything. Later I became troubled about what Greg had told me and came forward."
All that's still hearsay, and it still all comes from one person... Bryant Lane. None of it comes from Greg Mitchell, Don Mills, or anyone else. All of it comes from Bryant Lane. "Bryant Lane says Greg Mitchell said" is hearsay. "Bryant Lane says Don Mills said" is more hearsay.

Not evidence.

Do you understand why hearsay is not evidence, Henri? Why do you persist in filling your posts with hearsay, instead of evidence, Henri? Could it be you have no evidence? It sure appears that way.

By the way, point 12 says:
12. I have given previous signed statements to the defense, via investigator Raymond Shedlick, dating back to the mid-1980’s.

Here's another one Bryant Lane gave, to the FBI in 1984:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...984-05-30.html

In it on page 3, he says "MITCHELL never brought up any conversation about Captain MacDonald, or the killing of MacDonald's family."

So the unsigned, un-notarized statement you quote from can be impeached by the earlier one, where Bryant Lane said nothing of any Greg Mitchell confession, right? And we know Bryant Lane will lie to investigators, right (one of those statements is untruthful, right)? And we therefore should NOT give much credence to anything Bryant Lane says, because we can't tell when his statements are truthful or untruthful, right?

So why exactly are you citing this statement?

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 27th May 2016 at 09:21 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 02:37 PM   #1710
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Greg Mitchell

Greg Mitchell is every MacDonald advocates evil straw man. The problem is that there isn't a single salient link between Mitchell and the crime scene. In 1971, Mitchell was polygraphed by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine and he passed with flying colors. No prints or head hairs from Mitchell were found at the crime scene and 10 years later, he was cleared by the FBI after denying any involvement in the MacDonald murders. In 1999, the AFIP received a tissue sample from Mitchell for DNA testing. In 2006, the AFIP announced that none of the DNA exemplars matched Mitchell's DNA profile.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th May 2016 at 02:40 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 07:49 AM   #1711
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

In that closing salutation, I asked for evidence. You presented a bunch of hearsay and two statements by one man who you've suggested was involved in the murders, but you don't tell us how you know that he was involved, and what in his statements you find pertinent.
A criminal defense counsel could do with a couple of witnesses like Bryant Lane, and the Griffins. You can't just disregard what they had to say as hearsay, or making it up. Stoeckley would have been useful if she had been willing to testify in court exactly what happened, but she was being threatened by Mazerolle, and she wanted to save her own skin. I think she turned up in court with a broken arm.

The problem with all witnesses is that many, if not most witnesses, don't want to get involved in a court case, particularly if they are going to be disbelieved by the Army CID, and by the FBI, and the hassle of it all might put them in danger. It should be an offense to refuse to provide information when properly called upon to do so. That's why many witnesses are served a court order to attend a court case.

Nobody has ever suggested that Bruce Fowler, or Don Harris, or Dwight Smith murdered Colette and the two children. It has been suggested that they have knowledge in relation to the crime, and that they are involved in a code of silence.

Judge Dupree was talking through his hat in 1985 by saying that any new jury would come to a similar verdict. That's being disrespectful. It was a wrong verdict. A new jury would be informed that blood and pajama fibers were found where MacDonald fell unconscious, which they were never told about, and black wool fibers with no known source were found around Colette's mouth, and on the murder weapon, and around her arm and biceps, and that the forensic psychiatrist Dr Sadoff was fairly certain MacDonald didn't do it. Murtagh and Judge Dupree cunningly kept that information from the jury.

The jury were never told that any so-called evidence against Dr. MacDonald was manufactured evidence presented to the court by people lacking in credentials and integrity.

I remember years ago when I was a kid being in a car driven by my father when the car in front was signalling he was going right, and then it suddenly turned left, knocking a motor cyclist off his bike who was quite reasonably overtaking. Later on my father received a lawyer's letter accusing him of lying with regard to his brilliant observation. I thought that was a bit off at the time because I saw exactly the same thing.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 02:49 PM   #1712
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A criminal defense counsel could do with a couple of witnesses like Bryant Lane, and the Griffins.
You're wrong. The testimony wouldn't be considered by the jury because no competent judge would allow that hearsay before the jury for their consideration.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't just disregard what they had to say as hearsay, or making it up.
It is *clearly* hearsay. And by law, it should be disregarded. It's not evidence.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=859

"the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her."

There are certain exceptions to this rule, but none of those appear to apply. If you wish to differ, tell us what exception would allow the hearsay claims before the jury for their consideration.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stoeckley would have been useful if she had been willing to testify in court exactly what happened, but she was being threatened by Mazerolle, and she wanted to save her own skin.
Assertions without evidence are meaningless here.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think she turned up in court with a broken arm.
Assertions without evidence are meaningless here. And respectfully, nobody cares what you think. What does the evidence indicate?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The problem with all witnesses is that many, if not most witnesses, don't want to get involved in a court case, particularly if they are going to be disbelieved by the Army CID, and by the FBI, and the hassle of it all might put them in danger.
So you're appealing now to the logical fallacy of the unseen evidence! That is, the evidence we have that points to MacDonald should be disregarded because, why, there might be other evidence no one has yet seen (and may never see) that proves that evidence wrong! Is that a correct summation of your argument here?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It should be an offense to refuse to provide information when properly called upon to do so. That's why many witnesses are served a court order to attend a court case.
You can compel witnesses to give a statement via a subpoena. You can't force them to testify the way you want them to. Ultimately, that's your problem. You have no evidence for your arguments, so you imagine it must be out there somewhere.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Nobody has ever suggested that Bruce Fowler, or Don Harris, or Dwight Smith murdered Colette and the two children.
Didn't your own supposed prime witness, Helena Stoeckley, claim Fowler, Harris and Smith were all at the scene in one of her 'confessions'?

Yeah, here it is: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...n_beasley.html

See the first page, third paragraph.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It has been suggested that they have knowledge in relation to the crime, and that they are involved in a code of silence.
Stoeckley said otherwise, didn't she? Who you going to believe, your own witness or something else?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Dupree was talking through his hat in 1985 by saying that any new jury would come to a similar verdict. That's being disrespectful. It was a wrong verdict.
Show us why, precisely. *From the evidence*.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The jury would be informed that blood and pajama fibers were found where MacDonald fell unconscious, which they were never told about, and black wool fibers with no known source were found around Colette's mouth, and on the murder weapon, and around her arm and biceps, and that the forensic psychiatrist Dr Sadoff was fairly certain MacDonald didn't do it. Murtagh and Judge Dupree cunningly kept that information from the jury. The jury were never told that any so-called evidence against Dr. MacDonald was manufactured evidence presented to the court by people lacking in credentials and integrity.
Here on this board, you can say any silly thing that enters your mind. In a courtroom, you need evidence. Maybe that's why the jury never heard any of that.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I remember years ago when I was a kid being in a car driven by my father when the car in front was signalling he was going right, and then it suddenly turned left, knocking a motor cyclist off his bike who was quite reasonably overtaking. Later on my father received a lawyer's letter accusing him of lying with regard to his brilliant observation. I thought that was a bit off at the time because I saw exactly the same thing.
Not sure what this has to do with the MacDonald case. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2016 at 04:20 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 04:26 PM   #1713
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Keep Dancing

HENRIBOY: It's amusing watching you dance around the documented record. In addition, you consistently contradict prior talking points as evidenced by your statements regarding Fowler, Harris, and Smith. Despite your current assertions to the contrary, MacDonald advocates have certainly painted these three individuals as taking part in the MacDonald murders.

Inmate claimed that a black male was the wielder of the club in the living room and Colette/Kimmie were both struck several times with this weapon. Your favorite serial fabricator (i.e., Stoeckley) claimed that Smitty (i.e., Dwight Smith) was the black male intruder suspect. Smith was cleared by both the CID and FBI.

Don Harris was also cleared by both the CID and FBI, and your favorite serial fabricator claims that Fowler drove the "murderous gang" to and from the crime scene. As a matter of fact, Stoeckley's initial confessions fingered Mitchell, Fowler, and Smith as the 3 male intruders in the living room. Inmate claims that the two white male intruders were wielding a knife and an ice pick.

Your pet suspect (i.e., Mazzerolle) was not fingered by your favorite serial fabricator until 1981. Stoeckley made no mention of Mazzerolle in 1970, 1971, 1974, 1979, and 1980. Stoeckley had a penchant for adding and subtracting suspects as this case progressed.

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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 02:52 AM   #1714
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You're wrong. The testimony wouldn't be considered by the jury because no competent judge would allow that hearsay before the jury for their consideration.

There are certain exceptions to this rule, but none of those appear to apply. If you wish to differ, tell us what exception would allow the hearsay claims before the jury for their consideration.

You can compel witnesses to give a statement via a subpoena. You can't force them to testify the way you want them to. Ultimately, that's your problem. You have no evidence for your arguments, so you imagine it must be out there somewhere.

Didn't your own supposed prime witness, Helena Stoeckley, claim Fowler, Harris and Smith were all at the scene in one of her 'confessions'?

Yeah, here it is: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...n_beasley.html

See the first page, third paragraph.

Stoeckley said otherwise, didn't she? Who you going to believe, your own witness or something else?

Hank
I agree with Hank that Anglo-American law and English law are similar with regard to gossip and hearsay evidence. Murtagh keeps harping on about the hearsay rule of evidence with regard to Stoeckley's confessions, but Murtagh disregards the rule of evidence that only real experts can give an opinion in a deadly place like a courtroom.

The point is that it is not good police work to disregard leads and suspects and witnesses, and even tips. A detective is as good as his informants. Helena Stoeckley was a very reliable and intelligent informant. An astute detective is interested in what is being said on the street and 'information received' about who did it, but that may not be regarded as evidence in a courtroom with regard to the rules of evidence and procedure.

"It's a vitally important principle that the best possible evidence should be given, which implies the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts."

Helena Stoeckley became an informant for Officer Gaddis in Nashville when she moved there after the MacDonald murders. Gaddis testified at the 1979 MacDonald trial. This is part of it:

Mr. Segal: Mr. Underhill please

The Court: While he is coming. let me ask Mr. Gaddis, just one question. On the basis of what this girl told you - these murders - had these murders happened in Nashville, would you have issued or signed a warrant for her?

The Witness: I am not sure, sir. I have a feeling - like I say, I would have tried to have her indicted.

The Court: You would have investigated her further?

The Witness: I would have investigated further, and I would have indicted her; yes, sir.

The Court: All right; call your next witness.

It was the wrong verdict.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...mt_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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:41 AM   #1715
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
The Dancing Continues

This is the same Jim Gaddis who obtained hair exemplars from Stoeckley eight years prior to this particular piece of testimony. It appears that Gaddis had no knowledge of the FACT that the exemplars did not match any of the head hairs found at the crime scene. Gaddis also appears to be unaware of the CID's massive reinvestigation efforts which produced a 10,000 page report. This report concluded that the only viable suspect in the murders of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen was Jeffrey MacDonald.

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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 07:54 PM   #1716
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Dancing, Dancing, Dancing

Piggybacking on the CID's massive reinvestigation, the following link demonstrates that Henriboy's decades old claim that suspects were "never properly investigated", is beyond laughable.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...stigation.html
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 08:25 AM   #1717
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Piggybacking on the CID's massive reinvestigation, the following link demonstrates that Henriboy's decades old claim that suspects were "never properly investigated", is beyond laughable.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...stigation.html
That is simply not correct. It's patently untrue.

The CID's 'massive reinvestigation' as JTF puts it was never a complete investigation. It was designed because the CID were annoyed at the Article 32 verdict in 1970. It was only intended by the Army CID and FBI to discredit and ignore and reject the leads and suspects and witnesses in the case, and to get the innocent Dr. MacDonald convicted..

The Kassabs were told there had been marital infidelity so that they would perjure themselves at any future trial. The FBI were told, or agreed, to fabricate evidence in order to sway a pig ignorant jury. The prosecutors were chosen so that they would be shady con artists, and the judges and appeal judges were chosen crap and biased judges. Colonel Rock at the Article 32 proceedings was fair and just, and he had comprehensive vision..

Ron Harrison never did say that there was an ice pick at the MacDonald apartment, as JTF implies on his website. That's not being profound enough. This is what MacDonald's friend Ron Harrison actually said at the Grand Jury in 1975:

Q: All right. On this Thanksgiving occasion, do you remember that drinks were served and there was a problem with the ice? Tell us about that.

A: Well as I recall there was a plastic bag of ice which was on a washing machine in the kitchen. I think it was a washing machine. Or, it might have been a dishwasher. I don't really remember. But anyway this ice was all melted together. And, as I recall Jeff asked somebody -Colette, maybe -"Where is the ice pick?" He was the host and couldn't find it right away. So I went out in the kitchen and looked at the ice and the top couple of cubes seemed to me could be knocked loose and the bottom of it looked to be pretty frozen. So I slammed it a couple of times around and hit it with my hand a couple of times and did knock a few of the looser cubes off at the top. And I think I used -I had a pocket knife. And still the ice pick was I don't know where. And then we opened a drawer, as I recall, and got a screwdriver out and used the screwdriver to pry the ice apart, chip it away.

Q: So apparently someone had mislaid the ice pick at that time and a search was made, and it didn't turn up.

A Sir, I don't remember if they ever found the ice pick or not.

Fred Bost had quite a reasonable explanation for why the pajama top holes were round, which the prosecution made such a big deal of at the trial, and which JTF mentions on his website:

"The government's argument can be stolen by the defense. According to MacDonald, he was unconscious for awhile in the hallway. No tears in fabric would result if he were attacked at that time with an ice pick. An unknown number of thrusts through the pajama top twisted around his wrists could have produced 48 holes."

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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th May 2016 at 08:30 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 09:49 AM   #1718
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,703
Sorry but after all these pages it's obvious McDonald was innocent, the Real Killer was our own Henri McPhee. Guilt ridden he want to clear McDonald's name, but he doesn't want to go to jail himself. In fact I do believe I recall a posting somewhere on the internet where he actually confessed to the crime.

See Henri? Wild claims and accusations are easy, proof is hard. As it stands my theory of the crime has precisely the same level of evidence yours does.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 10:10 AM   #1719
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
"The government's argument can be stolen by the defense. According to MacDonald, he was unconscious for awhile in the hallway. No tears in fabric would result if he were attacked at that time with an ice pick. An unknown number of thrusts through the pajama top twisted around his wrists could have produced 48 holes."

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html
Are you *SERIOUS*?

So these supposed assailants who put dozens of stab wounds into Kristen, Kimberley and Collette, broke both Collette's arms and bashed her and her daughter Kimberley in the head with a wooden club, and then left were content to stab at the shirt around his wrists while he was unconscious but not actually put a knife wound or ice pick into Jeffrey MacDonald, the only male living in that house, even while he was unconscious? All they did while he was supposedly unconscious was stab at his pajama top?

Is that really the best the defense could do at trial? No wonder they lost. No reasonable jury member could find that explanation adequate for how those holes got in MacDonald's pajama top, when considered alongside the autopsy evidence.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 10:18 AM   #1720
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,039
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is what MacDonald's friend Ron Harrison actually said at the Grand Jury in 1975:

A: ... And, as I recall Jeff asked somebody -Colette, maybe -"Where is the ice pick?" He was the host and couldn't find it right away.
Whether you like it or not, and as I previously pointed out to you, MacDonald's question is an admission there was an ice pick in that house. He didn't ask "Do we have an ice pick?" He asked "Where is the ice pick?" which shows he knew there was an ice pick in the home and it was simply misplaced at that time.

Now, contrast that to MacDonald's statement of April 6th, 1970:
Investigator: Did you have an ice pick around the house? Is that your ice pick (shows photograph)?
MacDonald: No, I didn't have an ice pick.
Investigator: You did not have an ice pick around the house?
MacDonald: Not that I know of, no.


Can you explain the discrepancy, Henri?

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 02:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.