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 18th December 2017, 04:11 PM   #3441
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Attention-Deficit Disorder

It must be difficult to grasp the content and/or context of a post when you suffer from racing thoughts, but there is no excuse for consistently replacing documented fact with supposition and fantasy.

- John Thornton was a college professor, not the supervisor of a forensics lab. He did not have his own team of serologists to analyze blood evidence.

- Thornton had "unfettered access" to the evidence in this case, but the pajama top pocket was not one of the evidentiary items he requested to analyze prior to the 1979 trial.

- Thornton was one of Bernie Segal's defense experts, yet Segal did not cross-examine Terry Laber at trial because Thornton did not feel that the pajama top pocket was a case priority.

- According to the CID, FBI, and DOJ, Laber's analysis of the pocket was the epitome of "crucial evidence." Laber concluded that Colette's blood made direct contact with the pocket BEFORE the pocket was torn from the jacket.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...ub_pocket.html

- It's important to note that there were 6 Type A blood stains on the outside or face of the pocket. This FACT bolstered Stombaugh's conclusion that 4 bisected Type A blood stains were formed on the jacket BEFORE the jacket was torn down the left front seam/sleeve.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...ins_pjtop.html

Last edited by JTF; 18th December 2017 at 04:14 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 19th December 2017, 05:04 AM   #3442
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
That's being unfair and unprincipled by JTF.

The history of the MacDonald case was that after the Grand Jury in about 1975 that Dr. Thornton urged and urged Segal to allow him to examine the forensics in the case at his California lab, but that was blocked by Murtagh and Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree.

When the trial date was announced by the Supreme Court, all of a sudden, and to a surprise to Segal, Dr Thornton went rushing up to North Carolina where the forensics were held in a jail cell with illegible markings. He may have been given unfettered access but he was never told about the black
wool fibers with no known source around Colette's mouth and on her biceps and on the murder weapon, or the blond synthetic hair like fibers, or that the prosecution were going to fabricate a theory in court that a violent argument had taken place because of the pajama pocket. He was only able to examine the pajama top and the bed sheet.

The defense should be allowed to examine the forensics as well as the prosecution.

This is what Christina, who is very anti-MacDonald, has said about the matter in a review of the Errol Morris Wilderness of Errors book:

Quote:
Pages 159-160 There were no discrepancies in the blood typing done by Janice Glisson at Fort Gordon and the FBI, because the FBI didn't attempt to retest any of the stains because they were too old. Thornton was given cuttings from bloodstained items which he designated. The cuttings were done by Janice Glisson about August 2, 1979 and furnished to Wade Smith against receipt. Thornton never tested them, and in 2000, when he was cleaning out his laboratory he sent them to AFIP, where they remain.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th December 2017 at 05:08 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 19th December 2017, 05:13 AM   #3443
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
That's unfair for JTF to attempt to discredit Dr, Thornton by saying he was just an academic College professor:

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

Quote:
Q Now, do you have any practical experience in the field of criminalistics and forensic science work?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what that is, please?
A I worked in a crime laboratory for a period of nine years to the day, as a criminalist, as a supervising criminalist and as a laboratory director. This was in the crime laboratory of the county sheriff's department of Contra Costa County, California.
Q And the Contra Costa County is a large suburban county near San Francisco, is that correct?
A That is correct. At the time that I worked there it had a population of about 600,000.
Q And as you are working in various positions in that crime laboratory, including the director, were you involved in the processing of evidence that related to homicidal cases?
A Yes.
Q In how many homicidal cases did you deal with the physical evidence?
A I could just estimate. I would say probably about -- between 150 and 200 cases. Not all of those involved crime scene processing. I think I probably participated in the scene processing of about 100 homicide cases.
Q And I assume that you did in many other cases besides homicide cases you just enumerated for us?
A Yes.
Q Now, are you a member of any professional organizations that deal with the area of forensic sciences and criminalistics?
A Yes.
Q And what are the principal organizations that you belong to?
A The American Academy of Forensic Sciences, the California Association of Criminalists, and the Criminalist Management Association. There is one other -- it is a foreign organization headquartered in Belgium. The name of it is the Academe Internationale de Medicine Legal.
Q Have you held any positions of responsibility in any professional organization in the area of forensics, forensic science or criminalistics?
A Well, I think so, yes.
Q Would you describe just briefly some of those positions that you held in professional organizations?
A I am currently the secretary of the criminalistic section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. I have held the position of president of the California Association of Criminalists. I was editorial secretary of that organization for three years. I have done some committee work. Do you want me to go into that?
A No, I think that won't be necessary. Have you ever received any honors or recognition from your professional colleagues in the field of criminalistics?
A I received a criminalistic section award of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences this year.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th December 2017 at 05:16 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 06:45 AM   #3444
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr. Thornton and his own blood experts should have been allowed to examine that pajama pocket and give their opinion
The pocket was available for Dr. Thorton and Dr. Morton (defense "experts" ). That they DID NOT do so is not the government's problem or responsibility. Bernie should have sent his "experts" to NC to review the evidence immediately. IT WAS BERNIE who screwed up.

Bernie ALSO DID NOT CROSS EXAMINE TERRY LABER SO HIS CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS WERE UNCONTESTED. If the defense couldn't contest the conclusions, so be it.

BERNIE SEGAL decided what evidence he would try to counter and the fact is that he was unable to counter much of anything. Bernie made himself look ridiculous and inmate made himself look ridiculous and the prosecution drove home the important FACTS which is that every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate as the sole murderer.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I believe there would be a difference of opinion and lurking doubts about the matter.
what YOU believe is irrelevant. Segal didn't have his alleged experts examine the PJ Pocket. It is that simple. Segal didn't cross-examine Terry Laber about the pj pocket. NO OTHER OPINIONS have any validity. it is that simple.
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 19th December 2017, 12:14 PM   #3445
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
You constantly use phrases like "in bed with the prosecution" and "drunken Irishman" to refer to people connected with the case who do not agree with your delusions and JTF is unfair? Sorry, it doesn't work that way, Henri.

It's not unfair or unprincipled to correct your errors by pointing out someone is not in a forensics lab; I'm sure the gentleman is proud of the position he was holding at that time. YOU are being very bigoted to think that NOT being in a forensics lab meant he was less competent. (Which is strange, seeing as how he was on the defense.)

But since you're slamming the defense, let me help: Bernie "Can't see the case for my ego" Segal and Jeffrey "Family Annihilator" Macdonald are two you can start using right away.

Last edited by desmirelle; 19th December 2017 at 12:19 PM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 04:29 PM   #3446
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Holding Your Feet To The Fire

In the past 13 years, multiple true crime forums have allowed you to spout your conspiracy narratives AND to cyber-pout whenever your fantasy-driven themes are challenged by documented fact. Hate to break it to ya, but as long as you troll on true crime forums, you will be called out on your little shell game. In regards to the King of Forensics, he lost most, if not all, of his battles with Murtagh and Stombaugh.

At the 1979 trial, Murtagh was able to get Thornton to admit the following...

- Thornton never made an attempt to create an experiment that simulated inmate's claim that he fought with 3 armed men in the living room.

- Thornton admitted that his ham on a sled experiment did not replicate the condition the pajama top was in (e.g., bunched up, one sleeve turned inside out) when found on Colette's chest.

- Thornton admitted that he had no reasonable explanation for the bloody left pajama cuff impression on the blue bedsheet. He admitted to Bernie Segal that the impression was sourced to Colette's pajama top.

- Unlike the 2 right cuff impressions from inmate's pajama top, the defense provided no innocent explanation for the presence of the fabric impression from Colette's pajama top.

- Thornton admitted that he made no attempt to prove the validity of any of inmate's claims.

In terms of Stombaugh's impressive work in this case, Thornton not only agreed with Stombaugh's conclusion regarding 3 separate bloody fabric impressions (e.g., 2 impressions from right cuff of inmate's pajama top, 1 impression from the left cuff of Colette's pajama top), he didn't even look at two additional bloody fabric impressions found on that same bedsheet.

One was sourced by Stombaugh to inmate's left pajama cuff and the other was from Colette's right pajama cuff. Thornton also could not innocently explain why ALL 48 of the puncture holes in inmate's pajama top were perfectly round with no torn edges. The best he could do was put forth his ham on a sled experiment which demonstrated that a majority of the holes had no torn edges.

Of course, that experiment did not come close to replicating a scenario where a drug-crazed home invader is stabbing through your pajama top with an ice pick. That experiment also did not come close to replicating a scenario where you are using that garment as a shield to fend off the alleged assault.

If this scenario was judged in Vegas, the odds that 21 thrusts from this weapon resulted in a single cut in the webbing between two fingers AND that ALL 21 thrusts resulted in 48 perfectly round holes in the garment, would be a thousand to one.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th December 2017 at 04:36 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 03:03 AM   #3447
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
That's a load of blarney from JTF as usual. The point is that both Dr. Thornton and Segal were both taken by surprise at the 1979 trial by the prosecution strategy of the little hair and fiber man Stombaugh saying the pajama pocket, and invented pajama fiber on the wooden club murder weapon, indicated a violent argument. Personally, I think the pajama folding experiment of Stombaugh and Shirley Green defies logic. All of this manufactured evidence was only done to sway a jury, and con the 4th Circuit judges.

Fred Bost got it right when he said those holes in the pajama top could have been made by an ice pick when Jeff MacDonald was unconscious on the floor.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th December 2017 at 03:06 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 05:37 AM   #3448
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Once again the troll ignores documented corroborated facts. The point henri is that Thorton DID A LOUSY JOB of independent testing. He DID NOT REPLICATE THE CONDITIONS and HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO MATCH THE FACTS TO WHAT INMATE STATED. His ham on a sled experiment was beyond ridiculous and DID NOT even begin to replicate what the pj top would have looked like AND what injuries inmate WOULD HAVE INCURRED if he really used that top as a "shield" against an alleged attack.

Fred Bost was totally wrong when he claimed the ice pick holes could have been created while inmate was unconscious on the floor because IF we were to believe inmate's story the pj top would have been bunched around his wrists and it was beneath him as "he lay face down unconscious" on the floor. Of course, we know that inmate was never unconscious, we know he never fought off or with any intruders, we know there were never intruders, and WE KNOW THAT INMATE BRUTALLY AND SAVAGELY SLAUGHTERED Colette, Kimberley, Kristen and his unborn son.
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 20th December 2017, 09:05 AM   #3449
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Cyber-Pouting

Piggybacking on BYN's post, in order for Bost's theory to work, there would have been Type B blood smears and/or direct Type B bleeding stains on the hallway floor. Not surprisingly, Bost's dubious theory doesn't address the FACT that no Type B blood smearing was found on the floor. In addition, if inmate was bleeding directly on the hallway floor for more than 10 minutes, there would have been far more than a single spot of Type B blood at the end of the hallway floor leading to the living room. It's important to note that inmate claims he was CRAWLING on the hallway floor, yet no Type B blood smears or direct bleeding stains were found at the end of the hallway floor leading to the master bedroom.

The rest of the landlord's post is a classic case of cyber-pouting.

- Stombaugh was a former college football player and was hardly a "little" man.

- Segal nor Thornton were taken by surprise at the 1979 trial. During pre-trial preparations, Segal planned to have blood stain/spatter expert Judith Bunker counter Laber's conclusions regarding the pajama top pocket. After analyzing the pocket, Bunker told Segal she couldn't testify for the defense because she agreed with Laber's analysis.

- Speaking of Bunker, she also concurred with Stombaugh's analysis regarding the 4 bisected blood stains found on the pajama top. Thornton decided not to analyze the Type A blood stains found on the pajama top pocket and jacket.

- There were two pajama seam threads found on the club, not one. To this day, those two fibers are stored in a pillbox at the FBI offices in Washington.

- If you want to continue to cyber-pout, read the following.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...op_theory.html

Last edited by JTF; 20th December 2017 at 09:14 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 09:48 AM   #3450
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
- Segal nor Thornton were taken by surprise at the 1979 trial. During pre-trial preparations, Segal planned to have blood stain/spatter expert Judith Bunker counter Laber's conclusions regarding the pajama top pocket. After analyzing the pocket, Bunker told Segal she couldn't testify for the defense because she agreed with Laber's analysis.

- Speaking of Bunker, she also concurred with Stombaugh's analysis regarding the 4 bisected blood stains found on the pajama top. Thornton decided not to analyze the Type A blood stains found on the pajama top pocket and jacket.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...op_theory.html
As I have said several times in the past Judith Bunker is not qualified as an expert to give her opinions in a court house, and I explained the reasons why. It's similar to the way Stombaugh was not qualified to give his opinions about fabric impressions.

Even a skilled professional advocate and defense forensic expert can be put into difficulties if the so-called forensic experts just make it all up. All the forensics including the pajama pocket and the pajama top and bedsheet and pajama fibers were carefully examined by the AFIP lab, and the conclusion that there was nothing to indicate that Jeff MacDonald had done it:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...rari-depo.html

Quote:
Q Were there any pieces of forensic evidence that you reviewed with Dr. Mathews that in any way showed or could be argued that it linked Dr. MacDonald to these killings?
A No. I don't remember -- oh, I am certain there was no such physical evidence that was presented to us for examination.
Q And in the final exit meeting where Dr. Froede spoke in summarizing the findings of the AFIP, was there any statement made that there was certain evidence which links Dr. MacDonald to these killings or which showed that he was involved in these killings?
A No. On the contrary, Dr. Froede, if anything, helped all of us to believe on the basis of what was presented, there was no way they could implicate or connect Dr. MacDonald with the homicides that occurred at Fort Bragg. In fact, Dr. Froede was or appeared to be assured on the basis of what he really had at his disposal to reach a conclusion.
He would not commit himself, but he did say this, on the basis of what he had, there were no way that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would return a report indicating that, any implication of Dr. MacDonald.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th December 2017 at 09:52 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 20th December 2017, 10:46 AM   #3451
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,722
The defence ran into problems refuting the prosecution's forensic experts for several reasons:

1. The defence choose to NOT present a different interpretation of the evidence.

After that we really don't need to present any other reasons. The defence did not present alternative interpretations of the forensic evidence. Whining about it is pointless - if you don't even make an attempt to do something when it counts, then you don't get to whine about how unfair the other party was.
__________________
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 20th December 2017, 03:18 PM   #3452
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
It's Always Something

The landlord's post is a reminder that advocates for the Ice Pick Baby Killer always have an excuse for his conviction and subsequent 36 year incarceration. The landlord has his personal list of unqualified forensics experts, but he rarely places emphasis on the context of their role in this case.

In the case of Judith Bunker, Bernie Segal certainly felt that Bunker was a qualified expert in blood stain/spatter analysis. As a matter of fact, she was the ONLY expert he went to for advice on how to rebut the testimony of both Terry Laber and Paul Stombaugh.

Segal's respect for Bunker's expertise is further evidenced by the fact that he didn't cross-examine Laber nor did he seek the advice of another blood stain/spatter expert to combat Stombaugh's analysis of the bisected blood stains on the pajama top.

In essence, the landlord's opinion on the qualifications of Laber, Green, and Stombaugh are worthless. Their respective conclusions have stood the test of time and none of the "specious" claims put forth by inmate's rotating band of lawyers have passed muster.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th December 2017 at 03:25 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 21st December 2017, 04:35 AM   #3453
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In the case of Judith Bunker, Bernie Segal certainly felt that Bunker was a qualified expert in blood stain/spatter analysis. As a matter of fact, she was the ONLY expert he went to for advice on how to rebut the testimony of both Terry Laber and Paul Stombaugh.

Segal's respect for Bunker's expertise is further evidenced by the fact that he didn't cross-examine Laber nor did he seek the advice of another blood stain/spatter expert to combat Stombaugh's analysis of the bisected blood stains on the pajama top.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The references to Judith Bunker seem to have vanished on the internet for some reason, a bit like this forum becomes heavily edited or censored when Jeff MacDonald is quoted. I made a posting years go that Bunker had only received a few hours training in blood evidence but there is now no reference to that.

It looks like Segal and Dr. Thornton hastily employed blood evidence man Morton for the trial but I can find no reference in his testimony to the pajama pocket which JTF always claims as crucial evidence. Frankly, I think it was made up to sway a jury and mislead the 4th Circuit judges with false forensic evidence.
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 21st December 2017, 05:51 AM   #3454
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
henri - NOW you are complaining about the "expertise" of persons THE DEFENSE APPROACHED? How ridiculous can you get?

First, you need to be reminded THAT YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE IF SOMEONE IS AN EXPERT OR NOT.

Second, Bernie Segal (inmate's attorney) FELT THAT JUDITH BUNKER WAS AN EXPERT.

Third, IF YOU DON'T ARGUE WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL AND/OR OFFER AN ALTERNATE DETERMINATION THEN YOU ARE S.O.L.....trial is where those arguments must take place if they are to have any validity. A murderer loving nutcase's opinions are less than worthless.

Fourth, how come all the things you claim to have "read or seen" on the internet always "disappear"?

Fifth, your posts may get edited for various reasons including the fact that you overly cut and paste and you like to insult others. It is long past time for you to put up or shut up! Either argue the points USING FACTS NOT YOUR RIDICULOUS OPINIONS BASED ON WHO KNOWS WHAT or GO AWAY!
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 21st December 2017, 08:58 AM   #3455
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
The defence ran into problems refuting the prosecution's forensic experts for several reasons:

1. The defence choose to NOT present a different interpretation of the evidence.

After that we really don't need to present any other reasons. The defence did not present alternative interpretations of the forensic evidence. Whining about it is pointless - if you don't even make an attempt to do something when it counts, then you don't get to whine about how unfair the other party was.
That's not true. Both Dr. Thornton and Morton were in disagreement with Stombaugh. The trouble was the defense strategy went off on a tangent and didn't focus on priorities. Laber was very inexperienced then.

The thing that seems to have swayed the jury and the 4th Circuit judges in their little minds was the pajama pocket and the invented pajama fiber on the wooden club weapon, and the false belief that there was no blood and fibers where MacDonald fell unconscious. Segal and Wade Smith never really addressed all that and that was a mistake. MacDonald needed a competent attorney.

Morton had lurking doubts about Stombaugh's testimony:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...15-morton.html

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, were you also asked -- did you also hear the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh about areas "C" and "D" on the blue sheet?
A Those are the areas that he had identified as hand impressions?
Q Yes, sir?
A Yes; I did.
Q Now, having heard his testimony, having examined the sheet yourself, do you have an opinion as to whether or not those areas represent impressions made by a hand, either having blood on it or pressing on blood?
A I find no evidence in those areas that would be convincing that those were caused by hand impression.
Q Did you hear the testimony of Dr. Thornton in that regard earlier today?
A Yes; I did.
Q Do you agree or disagree with his explanation and his statement with regard to those areas, "C" and "D"?
A Yes. I think it is much more likely that that blood got in those areas by either flow -- blood flow -- or fabric transfer, a contact with another area of the fabric that caused the transfer.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st December 2017 at 09:04 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 21st December 2017, 09:31 AM   #3456
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
There is a bit about Judith Bunker on the internet. I don't know why JTF keeps quoting her:

Quote:
"For example, testimony reveals that Investigator Dupius testified as to blood spatter. Interestingly, Investigator Dupius was exclusively trained by the now discredited Judith Bunker. Ms. Bunker was revealed to have converted herself into an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis from a brief four hour workshop conducted by Mr. Herbert MacDonnell in Birmingham, Alabama. With only this minimal experience Ms. Bunker launched a career instructing law enforcement upon the complex science of blood-stain pattern analysis. Investigator Dupius testified that he observed a reddish stain on Mr. Johnston's right sock and that the stain projected. This claim was raised and rejected as to Ms. Bunker's lack of credentials in Johnston v. State, 708 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1998)."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st December 2017 at 09:32 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st December 2017, 10:55 AM   #3457
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Fantasy Narratives And Dubious Sources

For the past 13 years, the landlord has studiously relied on fantasy and internet blogs to formulate pseudo-rebuttals to documented fact.

- To my knowledge, Judith Bunker has never publicly commented on this case, so the landlord is simply presenting a mythical (e.g., "JTF keeps quoting her") talking point.

- Bunker's involvement in this case was revealed in several books that focused on the forensics in high profile murder cases.

- At no time during pre-trial preparations did Bernie Segal ask Charles Morton to analyze the pajama top pocket. This is just another fantasy narrative created by the landlord.

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

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

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

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st December 2017 at 10:58 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st December 2017, 12:58 PM   #3458
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
geez henri has lather rinsed and repeated back to the "made up fiber" nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence and documentation that shows that the pj fibers were found on the club and then removed and stored in a pill vial. he cannot REALLY believe the nonsense he spouts!
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 21st December 2017, 05:17 PM   #3459
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Burden Of Proof

Once inmate was transported back (e.g., Spring of 1982) to his concrete bunker, the burden has been on him to prove that hippie home invaders slaughtered his family. His rotating band of lawyers have attempted to skirt around that burden and his advocates have attempted to ignore this prodigious stumbling block.

The only good news for the defense/inmate's advocates is that each advocate is on the same playing field. The burden is/was on Harvey Silverglate, Wade Smith, Tim Junkin, and Joey Z to provide definitive proof that a specific individual(s) murdered inmate's family. They have all failed. The burden is/was on Melinda Stephens, Errol Morris, Fred Bost, and Jerry Allen Potter to provide definitive proof that a specific individual(s) murdered inmate's family. They have all failed.

What kind of proof is considered "definitive?" Outside of a video and/or eyewitness to the crime, the standard of proof involves an evidentiary item (e.g., DNA, fiber, hair, fingerprint, bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions) that is sourced to a specific individual. The problem for the defense and inmate's advocates is that no such evidence exists.

The best that the defense has been able to come up with are inferences and associations, but not one DNA/hair/fiber/print exemplar has been definitively sourced to an intruder suspect. Not one. The same cannot be said for inmate.

- Bloody left footprint found on the hallway floor was sourced to inmate.

- Broken, bloody body hair found clutched in Colette's left hand was sourced to inmate via DNA analysis.

- Bloody fiber found entwined with Colette's bloody head hair was sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Two pajama seam threads adhering to the club in Colette's blood were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Twenty-Four blue fibers found underneath Colette's body were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- A warp yarn measuring 20.5 inches was found under Kimmie's pillow and was sourced to the left front seam of inmate's pajama top.

- Nineteen blue fibers found under Kimmie's bedcovers were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Two blue fibers found under Kristen's bedcovers were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- A blue fiber found under Kristen's fingernail was sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Twenty-Two blue fibers found on top of the master bed were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- A blue fiber found behind the headboard (e.g., PIG written in blood on that headboard) was sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Three bloody pajama cuff impressions found on the blue bedsheet were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Blood found on the face of the hallway closet that contained needles/drugs was sourced to inmate.

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 21st December 2017, 05:41 PM   #3460
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Burden Of Proof

CORRECTED POST

Once inmate was transported back (e.g., Spring of 1982) to his concrete bunker, the burden of proof rested solely in his lap. His rotating band of lawyers have attempted to skirt around that burden and his advocates have frequently ignored this prodigious stumbling block.

The only good news for the defense/inmate's advocates is that everyone is on the same playing field. The burden is/was on Harvey Silverglate, Wade Smith, Tim Junkin, and Joey Z to provide definitive proof that a specific individual(s) murdered inmate's family. They have all failed to meet that burden. The burden is/was on Melinda Stephens, Errol Morris, Fred Bost, and Jerry Allen Potter to provide definitive proof that a specific individual(s) murdered inmate's family. They have all failed to meet that burden.

What kind of proof is considered "definitive?" Outside of a video and/or eyewitness to the crime, the standard of proof involves an evidentiary item (e.g., DNA, fiber, hair, fingerprint, bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions) that is sourced to a specific individual. The problem for the defense and inmate's advocates is that no such evidence exists.

The best that the defense has been able to come up with are inferences and associations. In 1998, the 4th Circuit Court deemed these inferences/associations as "specious" evidence. The simple fact is that not one DNA/hair/fiber/print exemplar has been definitively sourced to an intruder suspect. Not one. The same cannot be said for the Ice Pick Baby Killer.

- Bloody left footprint found on the hallway floor was sourced to inmate.

- Broken, bloody body hair found clutched in Colette's left hand was sourced to inmate via DNA analysis.

- Bloody fiber found entwined with Colette's bloody head hair was sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Two pajama seam threads adhering to the club in Colette's blood were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Twenty-Four blue fibers found underneath Colette's body were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- A warp yarn measuring 20.5 inches was found under Kimmie's pillow and was sourced to the left front seam of inmate's pajama top.

- Nineteen blue fibers found under Kimmie's bedcovers were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Two blue fibers found under Kristen's bedcovers were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- A blue fiber found under Kristen's fingernail was sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Twenty-Two blue fibers found on top of the master bed were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- A blue fiber found behind the headboard (e.g., PIG written in blood on that headboard) was sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Three bloody pajama cuff impressions found on the blue bedsheet were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

- Blood found on the face of the hallway closet that contained needles/drugs was sourced to inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st December 2017 at 05:43 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 22nd December 2017, 09:58 AM   #3461
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Neither Stombaugh of the FBI, or Judith Bunker, were qualified to testify and give their opinions as experts in a murder case about fabric impressions. It was the usual nonsense. Laber and Craig Chamberlain of the Army CID lab were both very young and inexperienced at the time. Janice Glisson of the Army CID lab was a qualified serologist, but she was sidelined at the trial and told to keep her mouth shut because she was in disagreement with the prosecution:

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

Quote:
B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, we have no further objection that this witness be heard by the Court as a witness on hairs and fiber identification.
We think there is an inadequate basis to qualify him as an expert in the so-called area of fabric damage or fabric impressions. We can find nothing in the examination to support his claim of being a certified expert in those areas.
He can't name a single case where he has ever been accepted by any court as an expert in those areas. And absent such corroboration, it is generally vague and self-serving to call himself an expert in those matters. He has no academic training that he can point to. He says he read some FBI bulletin in that regard.
For those reasons, I would suggest most seriously that he should not be received in that area.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd December 2017 at 10:00 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2017, 12:36 PM   #3462
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Making Things Up

The landlord's ongoing shell game (e.g., refusing to address inculpatory evidence) has never nor will ever fool those who have taken the time to read the documented record. Judith Bunker never testified in this case due to the FACT that she agreed with the blood stain analysis put forth by Laber and Stombaugh. She simply told Segal that her testimony would do more harm than good to his client.

Thornton was certainly qualified to analyze the blood stains on the pajama top, yet Segal seemed to put more faith and/or stock in the expertise of Bunker. I would bet the farm that if Bunker disagreed with Laber/Stombaugh, the landlord would hail her as being THE expert on blood stain/spatter analysis.

In terms of Janice Glisson, the landlord is creating another in a long line of fantasy narratives. His claim that Glisson was "told to keep her mouth shut," has no basis in reality. There are several affidavits by Glisson that contradict this claim and prove beyond ALL doubt that the landlord is a serial fabricator.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd December 2017 at 12:38 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 December 2017, 04:12 AM   #3463
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In terms of Janice Glisson, the landlord is creating another in a long line of fantasy narratives. His claim that Glisson was "told to keep her mouth shut," has no basis in reality. There are several affidavits by Glisson that contradict this claim and prove beyond ALL doubt that the landlord is a serial fabricator.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
It's true that Janice Glisson was no whistleblower, but there can be no doubt that she was in disagreement about all that stuff about when the pajama top and pajama pocket were torn to supposedly indicate a violent argument.

Glisson was a qualified serologist, unlike Laber at that time, and the FBI should have presented a qualified expert serologist in court rather than the hair and fiber man Stombaugh, whose integrity along with Malone of the FBI has been questioned in the past, including his work for the Warren Commission. Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry, or JTF and Byn, could present the forensic evidence in court. It's against the rules of evidence and procedure which states that only real experts can give their opinions in court.

This is what Silverglate has said about the matter in the past:

Quote:
What MacDonald’s lawyers did not know prior to trial — indeed, until the Murphy FOIA expedition — was that the government’s evidence files contained laboratory bench notes written by CID lab technician Janice S. Glisson that identified the presence of long, blonde synthetic wig hairs in a brush at the murder scene. In addition to bolstering MacDonald’s account of the murders, the presence of these blonde fibers would have corroborated the defense’s hearsay testimony and required Judge Dupree to allow the witnesses to Stoeckley’s repeated confessions to be heard by the jury.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd December 2017 at 04:16 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2017, 08:05 AM   #3464
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
A Bunch Of Blahs And A Big Fat Yawn

The landlord has a penchant for providing an answer to a question that has yet to be posed. For example, there hasn't been a single mention of Janice Glisson being a "whistleblower," yet the landlord states that "Glisson was no whistleblower." Wow. In addition, the landlord repeats the erroneous claim that Glisson disagreed with Laber's analysis of the pajama top pocket.

The FACT is that Glisson NEVER analyzed the pajama top pocket, so the landlord is simply concocting a fantasy narrative for his own personal enjoyment. Paul Stombaugh was not a serologist nor did he ever claim to be one. If the landlord had bothered to read Stombaugh's trial testimony, he would have noticed the FACT that Stombaugh told Segal that he relied on the CID's blood analysis in this case.

Last time I checked, Stombaugh's hair/fiber analysis in the JFK case has never been questioned by the FBI. The only people who question it are conspiracy nuts who wouldn't know the first thing about the techniques used by Stombaugh to compare hairs/fibers.

Silverglate can bluster with the best of them, but his hyperbolic presentations to Judge Dupree and the 4th Circuit Court fell on deaf ears. Silverglate couldn't prove that the source of the saran fibers was a cosmetic wig, he couldn't prove that the government knew about Glisson's analysis, and he couldn't prove that the presence of synthetic fibers at the crime scene corroborated inmate's tale of mythical hippie home invaders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd December 2017 at 08:09 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2017, 09:19 AM   #3465
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The FACT is that Glisson NEVER analyzed the pajama top pocket, so the landlord is simply concocting a fantasy narrative for his own personal enjoyment. Paul Stombaugh was not a serologist nor did he ever claim to be one. If the landlord had bothered to read Stombaugh's trial testimony, he would have noticed the FACT that Stombaugh told Segal that he relied on the CID's blood analysis in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The point is that Stombaugh, who was not a qualified serologist, manufactured that so-called evidence about when the pajama top was torn, and Laber seems to have fabricated out of whole cloth all that waffle about the pajama pocket in order to incriminate MacDonald with false evidence. It was never a big issue at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. You must remember that Laber was PAID by the prosecution and Army CID and ordered what to testify by Stombaugh and the FBI.

I suppose you can partially blame Segal and Dr. Thornton for not seeing it coming, but 'what if' arguments and perjury should be taken into consideration in any careful preparation.

There is a bit about this sort of thing on the internet:

Quote:
Unlike most witnesses, who can only give evidence on questions of fact, expert witnesses are allowed to draw inferences and give opinions based on their experience, exposing them to accusations of bias. That danger is exacerbated by an adversarial system pitting one set of experts against the other, and the fact experts are engaged and paid by one side (ESR forensic scientists are paid by police and defence experts are paid by Legal Aid, via defence lawyers).

In two recent cases (see On The Case) judges have berated both Crown and defence experts for failing to have an open mind.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd December 2017 at 09:21 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 23rd December 2017, 05:30 PM   #3466
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Thought Disorganization

Not surprisingly, the landlord spouts conspiracy narratives when backed into a corner by documented fact. I realize that the landlord's lone reason for posting on this case is to garner a reaction from those who have taken the time to read the documented record. He doesn't really care about the truth in this case and is simply deriving enjoyment from HIS perception that he is effectively "poking the bear."

A few comments on his disjointed musings.

- Stombaugh's analysis of the 4 bisected blood stains fell into the category of fabric damage, not serological analysis.

- As mentioned in prior posts, Stombaugh testified at trial that he accepted the CID's blood typing results and that the focus of the 4 blood stains in question was whether the stains formed a contiguous whole.

- The claim that the blood stain analysis was "manufactured" has no basis in fact and is simply the landlord's way of avoiding the stark reality that the analysis inculpates inmate.

- The landlord uses the same tactic when addressing Laber's analysis of the pajama top pocket. If there was any validity to the claim that Laber fabricated his serological report, Bernie Segal would have certainly cross-examined Laber at the 1979 trial. The FACT that Segal did NOT cross-examine Laber speaks to the strength of Laber's analysis.

- The landlord provides no proof of his claim that "Laber was PAID by the prosecution and Army CID and ordered what to testify by Stombaugh and the FBI." This claim demonstrates that the landlord has no real interest in discussing the facts of this case AND it invalidates ALL of his bizarre claims.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd December 2017 at 05:33 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 December 2017, 08:30 PM   #3467
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,704
I can only admire the stamina of those responding to Henri in this thread having seen his performance elsewhere on the forum. A collection of non-sequiturs, quotes from increasingly ancient books and a shameless refusal to acknowledge his numerous errors.
__________________
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 23rd December 2017, 09:41 PM   #3468
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
I can only admire the stamina of those responding to Henri in this thread having seen his performance elsewhere on the forum. A collection of non-sequiturs, quotes from increasingly ancient books and a shameless refusal to acknowledge his numerous errors.
Site record for fact-free posting and a potential world record for fantasy construction and self contradictory posts.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th December 2017, 12:37 AM   #3469
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
I can only admire the stamina of those responding to Henri in this thread having seen his performance elsewhere on the forum. A collection of non-sequiturs, quotes from increasingly ancient books and a shameless refusal to acknowledge his numerous errors.
Personally, I have an allergy to stupidity that makes me break out in sarcasm if I've not taken the meds for it.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th December 2017, 09:36 AM   #3470
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

- Stombaugh's analysis of the 4 bisected blood stains fell into the category of fabric damage, not serological analysis.

- As mentioned in prior posts, Stombaugh testified at trial that he accepted the CID's blood typing results and that the focus of the 4 blood stains in question was whether the stains formed a contiguous whole.

- The claim that the blood stain analysis was "manufactured" has no basis in fact and is simply the landlord's way of avoiding the stark reality that the analysis inculpates inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

There were lurking doubts about all this, especially from Janice Glisson at the Army CID lab, and at the AFIP lab. Stombaugh was not qualified in fabric damage and neither is JTF, or Laber at the time. The 4th Circuit judges should get a thorough grasp of the subject:

Quote:
"Regarding the blood stains that bisect the tear, Bost states on page 148 of the hardcopy edition that Janice Glisson, years earlier, "had explored the same bloodstain theory and had come to a different conclusion. She had determined that the stain edges on either side of the rips did not intersect, that the pajama top was, therefore, stained after it was ripped, not before."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th December 2017 at 09:37 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2017, 03:11 AM   #3471
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
There is a bit in that English Justice book published in 1932 by a solicitor and police court advocate, which applies to the MacDonald case. Not much has changed in that regard:

Quote:
The Royal Commission report, however goes on to say : "But responsible witnesses with experience on the bench have stated that there is occasionally a tendency on the part of the police, when they genuinely believe a prisoner to be guilty, to strain the evidence against him so as to secure his conviction." This is certainly true, and the word "occasionally" may be omitted. Several times I have known guilty persons escape in consequence of the prosecution being bolstered up by evidence the falsity of which was easily exposed. But it is easy to see that innocent persons may be put in grave peril by such means.
These 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court judges should be given training in forensic evidence, and false forensic evidence by unqualified people so that they become thoroughly acquainted with the whole business, and especially of forensic fraud. They are supposed to be judicial lawyers, not just rubber stampers.
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 December 2017, 06:12 AM   #3472
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,720
The forebearance of some in this thread is amazing.

Because of this thread I have re-read Fatal Vision and Final Vision as well as the major pro- and anti-guilty websites thinking I must have missed something.

I haven't. This was and still is a slam dunk conviction. People who don't see this are delusional. And that's being kind.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 December 2017, 11:46 AM   #3473
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,704
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
These 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court judges should be given training in forensic evidence, and false forensic evidence by unqualified people so that they become thoroughly acquainted with the whole business, and especially of forensic fraud. They are supposed to be judicial lawyers, not just rubber stampers.
But then they could all see through your ineptitude and misinformation so how would that help your cause?
__________________
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 25th December 2017, 02:09 PM   #3474
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Santa Claus

According to inmate's advocates, the main difference between a beloved mythical home invader (e.g., Santa Claus) and the Stoeckley Seven is that neither Mr. Claus nor inmate are "capable" of causing harm to another human being.

Taking a deep breath...

- Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, Stombaugh testified at the 1979 trial as an expert in hair, fiber, fabric impression, AND fabric damage analysis.

- Janice Glisson has NEVER testified as a defense and/or government witness in regards to fabric damage analysis.

- Glisson admitted to me that she disagreed with Stombaugh's analysis of 4 bisected blood stains, BUT she stated that she and every other CID staff member felt that inmate was guilty of murdering his family.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...s_glisson.html

- Stating that appellate court judges should be trained in the forensic sciences is beyond absurd. They simply take the lead of the FBI which has set the bar at sourced and unsourced evidence. With the exception of unsourced DNA present in a case involving a sexual assault, the FBI considers unsourced hair/fiber/print evidence to be "forensically insignificant."

- Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, the government effectively used this paradigm to keep inmate in his concrete bunker. The government has labeled this unsourced evidence as "household debris."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 25th December 2017 at 02:19 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 December 2017, 03:45 AM   #3475
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Taking a deep breath...

- Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, Stombaugh testified at the 1979 trial as an expert in hair, fiber, fabric impression, AND fabric damage analysis.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...s_glisson.html

[/url]
You people miss the point. You have to be a real expert before you give opinions in a deadly place like a court otherwise it's a mistrial. Witnesses other than experts must speak only as to facts in court. It's what is known technically as the rules of evidence and procedure. Byn and JTF are not real experts.

Segal questioned Stombaugh on his credentials as a real expert at the 1979 trial. The answers were not satisfactory:

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

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you recall how many cases, if any, that you were found qualified as an expert by a court somewhere on the matter of fabric impressions as distinguished from fabric damage?
A No, sir; I was qualified as an expert in many courts and in many cases throughout this country in that field.
Q What I asked was can you tell us how many cases were you qualified as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Here again, sir, you are asking for a number which I cannot give you. I don't keep records like that.
Q All right, could you tell me, please, the name of one case and what court that was that you were qualified, as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Sir, I couldn't even tell you the cases that I have just testified in Greenville recently. It's just something you don't remember. I don't.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A I'm finished.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you are unable to name any specific case or any specific court in which you were found to be a qualified expert in fabric impressions?
A That is correct, sir. I would have to go back to Washington, D.C., and go through all kinds of records just to try to find the cases I testified in.
Q On fabric impression. I am only asking you about one subject now.
A I know.
Q Well, how about -- you say you have been in Greenville since 1976, up to now. How many cases have you testified in Greenville as an expert on fabric impressions?
A I can't recall having one down there, sir. Most of these cases are in hairs and fibers.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th December 2017 at 03:49 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 27th December 2017, 03:54 AM   #3476
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
This reply from Stombaugh to Segal does not fill one with any confidence with all the empty waffle on the internet forums about blood evidence from Stombaugh:

Quote:
Q You weren't trained in, say, doing any types of blood analysis.
A No, sir; the Serology Unit did the blood work in the FBI Laboratory.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th December 2017 at 03:56 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 27th December 2017, 08:41 AM   #3477
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,722
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You people miss the point. You have to be a real expert before you give opinions in a deadly place like a court otherwise it's a mistrial. Witnesses other than experts must speak only as to facts in court. It's what is known technically as the rules of evidence and procedure. Byn and JTF are not real experts.

Segal questioned Stombaugh on his credentials as a real expert at the 1979 trial. The answers were not satisfactory:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...stombaugh.html
You miss the point - expert witnesses are accepted as experts by the court. Prior to being allowed to give expert evidence, persons present their credentials to the court and the other side challenges them. If the challenges are credible, then the court does not accept them, or the decision to accept them as expert witnesses can be a ground for appeal.

The inmate was unable to successfully challenge the prosecution's experts at trial and haven't overturned the expert testimony on appeal.

That is a good indication that he can't.
__________________
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 27th December 2017, 08:51 PM   #3478
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Zero For Seven And Counting

Piggybacking Border's post, inmate has had more chances at overturning expert testimony than any convicted murderer in history. His current round of legal machinations is his 8th shot at obtaining a new trial.

To put this scenario in it's proper context, the totality of the physical evidence used to convict Wayne Williams of multiple homicides in the Atlanta Child Murder Case was 17 carpet fibers and fibers from the clothing worn by two of the victims.

Despite the limited amount of SOURCED evidence in this case, Williams has only received two chances at obtaining a new trial. Compare that scenario to the MacDonald Case which includes over 1,000 evidentiary items presented at the 1979 trial. The pajama top alone shed over 100 fibers at the crime scene with most of those fibers found under/near bodies and under bedcovers.

Once DNA technology was applied to the Williams Case, not a single evidentiary item was sourced to an individual other than Wayne Williams. In the MacDonald Case, two hairs found on the children's bedding and a limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th December 2017 at 08:54 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 December 2017, 03:09 AM   #3479
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,124
It's all trust me I'm in the FBI. It's Egyptian or Iranian justice.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th December 2017, 08:29 AM   #3480
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's all trust me I'm in the FBI. It's Egyptian or Iranian justice.
Table pounding at its lamest, Henri.

(If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if neither is on your side, pound on the table.)
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 07:24 AM.
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.