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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 9th February 2018, 08:06 AM   #3601
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
More from that legal document which fits the Byn and JTF theories without facts:

Quote:
The evidence the Government adduced at trial to support this bizarre theory
was exclusively circumstantial evidence from the crime scene. It included
evidence such as in what rooms certain blood types were found, where the murder
weapons were found, where MacDonald’s pajama fibers were and were not found,
where a pajama pocket was found and on which side it was bloodied, and an
experiment involving the possible ways the holes were made in MacDonald’s
pajama top.

Much of the evidence was speculative. The Government presentation
was designed to attempt to disprove the version of events given by MacDonald as
to what happened on the night of the murders, thereby casting suspicion on him as
the murderer. This Government strategy was interwoven with its repeated theme
that, given MacDonald’s version of events, there should have been ample physical
8
evidence of intruders, and the lack of such evidence of intruders proved
MacDonald’s guilt.
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 9th February 2018, 09:35 AM   #3602
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is part of the testimony of military policeman Tevere on oath at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 with regard to this unconscious matter. It's a fact:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...32-tevere.html
Weak stuff. "Appeared" to be semi-conscious = subjective opinion.

I know my head injuries and have had my own. Your man crush was play acting.

The rest of the family was slaughtered and he didn't even have enough injuries to require two days in the ICU. His story stinks on ice.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2018, 10:01 AM   #3603
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
Fantasy Bubble

HENRIBOY: You certainly have the right to live in a fantasy bubble, but neither the documented record nor the challenge put forth to you is going to magically disappear. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of inmate's innocence. This burden has NOTHING to do with inmate's play-acting for the military police (e.g., sorry fellas, that hairbrush packs a wallop) or the exact number of pajama fibers found in the hallway. For the past 15 years, you have failed in spectacular fashion to meet this burden, but the details of the challenge have not changed.

1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.

2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.

3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.

4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th February 2018 at 10:17 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 9th February 2018, 11:28 AM   #3604
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
just because that is what inmate SAID happened does not make it true. IN FACT, IN THIS INSTANCE IT PROVES HE WAS LYING. IF he had been knocked out and "left for dead" as he claimed, he would not have been able to remember detailed descriptions of any alleged intruders nor the series of events leading up to his loss.....his story is medically impossible. ALSO, the lighting in the living room, him "coming awake", and thus not wearing his glasses proves he is lying because he'd have been unable to see anyone well enough to give hair, skin, eye color, or clothing description (partly because everyone but him would have been backlit and partly because he couldn't see without his glasses). Every time you post something that inmate "said" I hear the chimes saying "liar, liar pants on fire" and he IS a LIAR, a narcissistic sociopath, and a familial slaughterer, and I fail to see what you can find to support in this b@$t@rd. Every single sourced piece of evidence points to his guilt and his alone and the "unsourced" evidence is useless.
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 9th February 2018, 05:32 PM   #3605
carrps
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 111
One of my neighbors had a recent serious fall down the stairs in their condo. Her husband rushed downstairs as soon as he heard the crash. She was unconscious. Fortunately, she's on her way to a complete recovery, but she has no memory of the fall and its aftermath. At.All.
carrps 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 9th February 2018, 06:16 PM   #3606
carrps
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 111
One of my neighbors had a recent serious fall down the stairs in their condo. Her husband rushed downstairs as soon as he heard the crash. She was unconscious. Fortunately, she's on her way to a complete recovery, but she has no memory of the fall and its aftermath. At.All.
carrps 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 10th February 2018, 03:11 AM   #3607
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY:
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.

2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
If CID agent Kearns had testified in any of the MacDonald court cases he would have said that a urine stain could be retested after ninety weeks! That is clearly erroneous and scientifically unreliable. CID agent Shaw testified at the Article 32 in 1970 that one pajama fiber was found where MacDonald fell unconscious, when the hard documentary evidence from FOIA states that a pile of pajama fibers were found there. That is clearly erroneous, and even perjury. The babysitter Kalin was cross-examined by Wade Smith at the trial and she was proved to have committed perjury about the ice pick and knives being there at the MacDonald apartment.

It was clearly erroneous for the biased Judge Dupree not to allow Helena Stoeckley's numerous out of court confessions to be heard at the trial. A first-class trial judge, or appeal court judge, would have put his, or her, foot down about all that.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th February 2018, 12:25 PM   #3608
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If CID agent Kearns had testified in any of the MacDonald court cases he would have said that a urine stain could be retested after ninety weeks! That is clearly erroneous and scientifically unreliable. CID agent Shaw testified at the Article 32 in 1970 that one pajama fiber was found where MacDonald fell unconscious, when the hard documentary evidence from FOIA states that a pile of pajama fibers were found there. That is clearly erroneous, and even perjury. The babysitter Kalin was cross-examined by Wade Smith at the trial and she was proved to have committed perjury about the ice pick and knives being there at the MacDonald apartment.

It was clearly erroneous for the biased Judge Dupree not to allow Helena Stoeckley's numerous out of court confessions to be heard at the trial. A first-class trial judge, or appeal court judge, would have put his, or her, foot down about all that.
Point of Fact: Nobody in any court would have asked Kearns about the urine stain testing, not his area.

Point of Medical Fact: There is no evidence Macdonald was every unconscious, in fact, his own words prove he was not unconscious. (Maybe, wuss that he is, he just fainted?)

Point of Fact: Babysitter Kalin has never been impeached or convicted with regard to her testimony vis a vis ice picks or knives.

Question for the landlord: The only confession Helena made that fits the evidence is that she was having an affair with Macdonald and watched him kill his family, is that what you wanted introduced?

The judge would have to admit ALL of her confessions, which contradicted themselves (and included the one above), and this would not have helped your man crush at all, they've have viewed her as a complete kook. (Really close to the truth.) It would have been a complete waste of time for the jury and justice.
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 11th February 2018, 12:25 AM   #3609
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
snipped

It was clearly erroneous for the biased Judge Dupree not to allow Helena Stoeckley's numerous out of court confessions to be heard at the trial. A first-class trial judge, or appeal court judge, would have put his, or her, foot down about all that.
Stoeckley's confessions and her denials, or just her confessions?

She made plenty of both, and that's why she was useless as any type of witness.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 02:56 AM   #3610
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Personally, I think some people are definitely bad, and they should be executed. The trouble is Jeff MacDonald is not definitely bad. The MacDonald case was a gross miscarriage of 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 11th February 2018, 03:53 AM   #3611
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Stoeckley's confessions and her denials, or just her confessions?

She made plenty of both, and that's why she was useless as any type of witness.
Greg Mitchell confessed as well. There were numerous out of court confessions by Helena which should never have been rejected and ignored by an astute detective. I have posted about this matter previously on this forum:

Quote:
Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous on a point of law in describing Helena as untrustworthy when it came out after the trial that Helena was used as an informant by the Army CID and by the Nashville police. Detective Beasley had described her as his most reliable informant.

Perhaps Helena's most reliable statement was to her lawyer, Leonard, at the time of the trial. She was assured that she was protected by lawyer and client confidentiality, which happened while she was still alive, a bit like a priest's confessional box confessions are supposed to be confidential. Leonard later said the prosecution never proved its case to which Murtagh typically accused him of being an alcoholic among other things.

There is a bit about this matter in a MacDonald case document:

Quote:
What Stoeckley told Leonard in 1979, while the MacDonald trial was in progress, has this ambit of trustworthiness. The importance of her statement to Leonard that she was in the house when the murders occurred
can hardly be overstated. In the words of the government’s own witnesses, Joe. McGinniss, it would have been the “holy grail” for the defense. (Htp. 987) It would be eyewitness evidence, a firsthand account, of intruders. If the jury had heard those three words, the circumstantial evidence of intruders that was existing at trial, even before that circumstantial evidence was augmented by other evidence that has been amassed in the intervening years that is within the ambit of the “evidence as a whole.”
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 11th February 2018, 11:48 AM   #3612
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
Keep Running

HENRIBOY: Gross miscarriage of justice, eh? Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of this claim. For the past 15 years, your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden doesn't change the nature of the challenge.

1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.

2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.

3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.

4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

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 11th February 2018, 03:32 PM   #3613
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
welcome to the discussion AnimalFriendly! I agree and you are correct there were people who would have and deserved to have the "he is guilty" point of view presented.....for example Bob Stevenson (Colette's brother)....
A belated thanks for your welcome, byn63! Yes, even if Bob Stevenson didn't want to be interviewed for this show - and I sure don't recall the narrator stating he was ASKED to participate and refused - there should have been plenty of others (his wife, children, their friends, etc., etc.) who would wanted to be interviewed.

I've actually always liked Wade Smith for his work on some other cases, such as the Duke Lacrosse players'. I'm not sure if he's even involved with JM any more but, regardless, I'll never be convinced he believes anyone other than his (former?) client killed that family.
AnimalFriendly 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 11th February 2018, 04:24 PM   #3614
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Greg Mitchell confessed as well. There were numerous out of court confessions by Helena which should never have been rejected and ignored by an astute detective. snipped
There are two words in the above that don't work together. If you remove "never" you can keep "astute," but you can't use ""astute" in that sentence with the word "never."


Might want to bone up on why naked confession without corroborating fact doesn't hold up for the purposes of prosecution. Might want to study the definition of the words "credible" and "credibility."
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 02:56 AM   #3615
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
I just think most of the judges, or judicial lawyers, in the MacDonald case were awful.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th February 2018 at 02:59 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 12th February 2018, 06:15 AM   #3616
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
It is a good thing that what you "think" is irrelevant henri. As usual, you choose to ignore facts and make up a different standard for making statements of discussion in re: this case. THE FACT is that the Honorable Judge Dupree made huge efforts to ensure that inmate got a fair trial INCLUDING trying to get Bernie Segal to recognize how being condescending to the jury was NOT a smart move and would hurt his client. The Honorable Judge Fox has made every possible effort to continue to give inmate every legal chance possible DESPITE the FACT that this case should long have been out of the courts. THE FACTS were long ago proven to be that inmate viciously, savagely, brutally slaughtered Colette and the unborn baby she carried, Kimmie and Kristy his own flesh and blood. Inmate is a narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer and THAT IS FACT.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 06:26 AM   #3617
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
I've actually always liked Wade Smith for his work on some other cases, such as the Duke Lacrosse players'. I'm not sure if he's even involved with JM any more but, regardless, I'll never be convinced he believes anyone other than his (former?) client killed that family.
Wade Smith has always appeared (to me) to be a TRUE Southern gentleman lawyer. I believe that he has removed himself from the rotating members "legal team" that defends inmate. I believe the last act for Wade Smith on "behalf of" inmate was to put Jimmy Britt in touch with more active members of the team.

Due to his ethics, even if he does not believe inmate to be innocent, we will never hear that he has made a statement to that effect. A fine quality in a defense lawyer.....
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 12th February 2018, 08:14 AM   #3618
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
I have always thought that if Eisman from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 had been at the 1979 trial he would have given prosecutors Murtagh and Blackburn a hard time. Eisman understood the forensics of the MacDonald case, unlike Wade Smith, or even Segal. Wade Smith became too much like pals, or even boyfriends, to Blackburn, and the dour Irishman Joe McGinniss for my liking.

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this website:

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...ld-murder-case

Quote:
Worse still, Judge Franklin Dupree seemed to have his mind made up before the trial began. Some said he should never have taken the case because his former son-in-law was the prosecutor in the original army hearing. Dupree would not admit overwhelming psychiatric testimony in MacDonald’s favor, nor the testimony of witnesses to whom Helena Stoeckley had confessed her involvement. Bernie Segal, a long-haired Jewish lawyer from Philadelphia, took the lead in the case and managed to alienate the entire courtroom. Segal took up nearly all the time in the critical period for closing remarks and left only a few minutes for co-counsel Wade Smith, an eloquent native North Carolinian who understood the jury.

One thing about this case is never in doubt no matter who’s talking: If Wade Smith had been able to lead and give his closing remarks, MacDonald would be a free man today.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th February 2018 at 08:19 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 08:56 AM   #3619
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Eisman was not a a great lawyer, he was the one who staged the whole "hair sample" episode during the Article 32. That sort of machination is the provenance of cheaters and liars (both of which inmate is/was). IF inmate had been innocent then he should have provide hair and print exemplars voluntarily (even if the Government didn't ask for it). Create the whole, they followed us, jumped us, and knocked us around nonsense (that Eisman created) is another episode of "consciousness of guilt".
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 12th February 2018, 09:37 AM   #3620
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I just think most of the judges, or judicial lawyers, in the MacDonald case were awful.
There's no more despicable individual in this crime than your man crush.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 11:27 AM   #3621
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
There's no more despicable individual in this crime than your man crush.
AMEN!
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 12th February 2018, 02:31 PM   #3622
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
Hello, Time To Walk The Walk

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that singular lab document or court decision that proves beyond ALL doubt that hippie home invaders committed this brutal crime and that the CID/FBI/DOJ railroaded the Ice Pick Baby Killer. I know that I've waited 15 years for you to provide this documentation. I know that you know that no such documentation exists. I know that you are intellectually bankrupt and derive enjoyment from wearing the black hat on multiple true crime forums. I know that you will NEVER provide the proof to back your claims because of your innate cowardice.

Despite it all, I will never let you off the hook for your reliance on rinse and repeat logic. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of this claim. For the past 15 years, your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden doesn't change the nature of the challenge. If you can't meet the challenge, show some class by admitting that your proof consists of your personal bias, opinion-based source material, and your cursory knowledge of the facts of this case.

1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.

2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.

3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.

4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 12th February 2018 at 02:34 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 13th February 2018, 03:24 AM   #3623
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Eisman was not a a great lawyer, he was the one who staged the whole "hair sample" episode during the Article 32. That sort of machination is the provenance of cheaters and liars (both of which inmate is/was). IF inmate had been innocent then he should have provide hair and print exemplars voluntarily (even if the Government didn't ask for it). Create the whole, they followed us, jumped us, and knocked us around nonsense (that Eisman created) is another episode of "consciousness of guilt".
Personally, I think Eisman was a brilliant lawyer and competent attorney, even though he was an aggressive defense attorney. I don't know the American law on that hair sample business but I believe MacDonald was within his rights. There is something highly suspicious about the way Eisman was shot dead when he was involved in some kind of drugs trial in Philadelphia in about 1982. I'm not saying he was bumped off by Murtagh and Blackburn, but the case was never really solved. MacDonald is quite reasonably fearfully aggrieved about all the lawyers in the MacDonald case because he was wrongly convicted and imprisoned.

Quote:
Some Of MacDonald's Description Of Others
On October 16, 982, MacDonald wrote McGinniss a letter. On the back of one of the pages, MacDonald wrote Bernie Segal is "truly pathological."

When MacDonald was asked what did you mean by that, he stated "I meant that he had -- I had heard that he had made entreaties to a man in Washington to try to prevent my transfer from one prison to another for a period of at least several weeks; and I had just found out that -- I believe had just found out that for those several weeks none of the supposed entreaties to that person in Washington had been made, and I now had to get another attorney to do the same work."
<<>>
When confronted about saying Brian Murtagh was a basically evil person, dumb, ruthless, I think he'll stop at nothing, but he doesn't hide it well, he replied "I don't recall those exact words, but I may have said that." When asked if he referred to Brian Murtagh as a snail spreading slime, he said "I don't recall that."
<<>>
When asked do you recall saying that "I think Blackburn is essentially identical, except he hides it a little better. I think he is a face man, totally phony from the word go." MacDonald replied "Not those exact words. I expressed a feeling like that, yes."
<<>>
As to Wade Smith one of his defense attorneys, MacDonald referred to him as a "candy ass in his own town."

When asked if he said that about Smith, MacDonald said "I did say that." When asked what he meant by that, MacDonald replied "That he was afraid to buck Judge Dupree, that he let Judge Dupree run all over him."
<<>>
When asked if he remembered referring to Judge Dupree as an "ominous villain", MacDonald replied "Yes, I do recall saying that." Continuing on to describe him as "This ominous figure, appropriately dressed in black, looking like a decaying person, cancer-ridden or something, like a boil that should have burst." When asked if he remembered saying that, MacDonald replied "I don't recall that."
<<>>
MacDonald referred to Dennis Eisman "as a grating schmuck whose immaturity outweighed his intellect."
<<>>
In one of MacDonald's Defense Update Newsletters, it was written "Joe thinks he's invulnerable now because the Supreme Court ruled against me. But he's wrong. I'm going to sue to stop the paperback and the movie; and I want you to understand this. I hope the hard cover does not sell a single copy. And I'm going to sue him. Joe will pay."
<<>>
And another quotation attributed to MacDonald saying "Now there's a bad book out about me, and some sleezeball who globbed on to the story to make a buck is going on every TV show in America."
<<>>
MacDonald said Cleve Backster was "the biggest shyster I've ever met."

That Cleve Backster "is clearly a charlatan."

MacDonald said Backster was "unprofessional because he asked questions about his sexual habits."

That Cleve Backster "is clearly a charlatan."
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 13th February 2018, 05:38 AM   #3624
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,425
How odd, a convicted murderer denying his own responsibility for his crimes and placing the blame on everyone else.

Why, that has never happened before in the history of the world! Every other convicted murderer has definitely taken responsibility for their own actions and accepted the verdict of the court.
__________________
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 13th February 2018, 05:51 AM   #3625
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think Eisman was a brilliant lawyer and competent attorney, even though he was an aggressive defense attorney.
You would believe him brilliant. Aggressive is not the word for his tactics, dirty, rotten, under-handed, scheming, childish, moronic would be better words to use when describing Eisman.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know the American law on that hair sample business but I believe MacDonald was within his rights.
The government had a subpeona to take hair, blood, fingerprint exemplars and inmate refused to do so....THIS WAS NOT WITHIN HIS RIGHTS. When the court says you will submit - that is what one does. Why would he refuse to provide samples if he was innocent? That is the main point, he wasn't innocent and he didn't want to provide samples because he knew it would show him guilty.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is something highly suspicious about the way Eisman was shot dead when he was involved in some kind of drugs trial in Philadelphia in about 1982.
Nothing suspicious about a man committing suicide. Sad, but not suspicious.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm not saying he was bumped off by Murtagh and Blackburn, but the case was never really solved.
Of course you would LIKE to create an entirely new conspiracy to attach to your already long ago disproven theory of the crimes. Just like your man crush you like to throw in the kitchen sink in order to make people forget that the victims Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy should be the focus. Inmate butchered his family, one of the lawyers in the case committed suicide. Independent incidents and FACTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald is quite reasonably fearfully aggrieved about all the lawyers in the MacDonald case because he was wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
If he is aggrieved then he should take his various lawyers to Court and attempt to prove ineffective counsel. HOWEVER, he'd never be able to prove that the lawyers were ineffective and the evidence backs up that he is in jail because he murdered his family and therefore was RIGHTFULLY convicted.
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 13th February 2018, 09:54 AM   #3626
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

The government had a subpeona to take hair, blood, fingerprint exemplars and inmate refused to do so....THIS WAS NOT WITHIN HIS RIGHTS. When the court says you will submit - that is what one does. Why would he refuse to provide samples if he was innocent? That is the main point, he wasn't innocent and he didn't want to provide samples because he knew it would show him guilty.
This matter is highly technical, and as I have said before I don't know the American law with regard to the matter. From what I can gather a suspect has the right to remain silent, or to no comment under some kind of Amendment. There have been cases on these American murder case TV shows where suspects have refused to provide DNA, or to take a polygraph. Where is the REFERENCE that the government had a subpoena? In the UK a person who is arrested now automatically has his or her fingerprints and DNA taken at the police station. It may be similar in America now, but that was way back in 1970.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 04:56 PM   #3627
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
Charlie Brown's Teacher

HENRIBOY: Hate to break it to ya, but not one of inmate's rotating band of lawyers was able to produce a single lab document that definitely sourced an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. No sourced DNA, hairs, fibers, fingerprints, and/or footprints. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Let's talk turkey, your posts are simply rinse and repeat arguments narrated by Charlie Brown's teacher.

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 14th February 2018, 03:06 AM   #3628
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
I just think the MacDonald case is a bit like this so-called Russian collusion in American and British elections, which is high on opinions, and sadly lacking in facts and 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 14th February 2018, 05:47 AM   #3629
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
inmate's case IS NOT LACKING IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE. THAT is the part that you seem to fail to understand. IT IS FACT that if the Court issues a subpeona for your hair, fingerprints, palmprints, blood, etc. THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO THE TAKING OF THESE SAMPLES. PERIOD. There is nothing technically complicated about it. It is very simple:
1. Prosecution presents to the Judge the request for whatever samples they believe they require.
2. Judge hears the request, reviews the legal precedents on the matter and either issues a subpeona or does not.
3. Judge issues the subpeona and it is given to the defense (including lab where the samples are to be taken)
4. Subject of the subpeona shows up and a technician takes the samples as required.

that is not complex at all. you can't try to play off every item as a complex issue. the issue is simple. inmate viciously, brutally, and savagely slaughtered his family, he was rightfully convicted, his behavior before and after conviction are the actions of a person who is conscious of his guilt, he was tried before a jury of his peers and was convicted. He is in prison, he is rightfully convicted.....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 14th February 2018, 06:02 AM   #3630
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,425
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I just think the MacDonald case is a bit like this so-called Russian collusion in American and British elections, which is high on opinions, and sadly lacking in facts and evidence.
Two senior members of the government have pled guilty, others have been charged.

That all the facts have not been publically revealed prior to trial is NOT unusual, nor is it proof that there is no evidence.
__________________
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 14th February 2018, 08:23 AM   #3631
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I just think the MacDonald case is a bit like this so-called Russian collusion in American and British elections, which is high on opinions, and sadly lacking in facts and evidence.
In your man crush's (and your) dreams. The two things the case wasn't short of were facts and evidence. That turned out to be ice-pick-baby killer's undoing: FACTS and EVIDENCE - which all pointed straight at him.
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 14th February 2018, 08:57 AM   #3632
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
inmate's case IS NOT LACKING IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE. THAT is the part that you seem to fail to understand. IT IS FACT that if the Court issues a subpeona for your hair, fingerprints, palmprints, blood, etc. THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO THE TAKING OF THESE SAMPLES. PERIOD. There is nothing technically complicated about it. It is very simple:
1. Prosecution presents to the Judge the request for whatever samples they believe they require.
2. Judge hears the request, reviews the legal precedents on the matter and either issues a subpeona or does not.
3. Judge issues the subpeona and it is given to the defense (including lab where the samples are to be taken)
4. Subject of the subpeona shows up and a technician takes the samples as required.

that is not complex at all. you can't try to play off every item as a complex issue. the issue is simple. inmate viciously, brutally, and savagely slaughtered his family, he was rightfully convicted, his behavior before and after conviction are the actions of a person who is conscious of his guilt, he was tried before a jury of his peers and was convicted. He is in prison, he is rightfully convicted.....period
I just think that's ignorance of the law. Eisman was a skilled professional advocate, and he understood that the Army CID could not just get a forced admission from MacDonald under the law as it then was. I agree that the police can be hamstrung if a witness, or a suspect, refuses to provide evidence when properly called upon to do so, but the law is the law. There is no mention of a subpoena in the MacDonald case records that I have ever seen. The law may have changed since then. There is a bit of legal waffle about the matter at this website:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+s.....-a0368281585

Quote:
Before January 2012, this evidence would most likely have been beyond the reach of the Article 32. With the 2012 congressional amendments to Article 47 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), however, this evidence is now potentially available to an Article 32. Proposed changes to Rules for Court Martial (RCM) 405 and 703 will grant authority to Article 32 officers and the trial counsel to issue subpoenas pre-referral.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th February 2018 at 08:59 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 14th February 2018, 09:16 AM   #3633
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I just think that's ignorance of the law. Eisman was a skilled professional advocate, and he understood that the Army CID could not just get a forced admission snipped The law may have changed since then.
Talk about ignorance of the law! The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights has not been repealed.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It's only been in effect since 1789 so maybe it has escaped your notice.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:57 PM   #3634
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
Hollow Chatter

HENRIBOY: Eisman's capability as a lawyer? The process of obtaining hair samples? Hypotheticals regarding the Article 32? Yup, none of your dodging tactics pass muster nor do they have any relationship to the clear challenge put before you. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim.

1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.

2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.

3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.

4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th February 2018 at 02:00 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 06:10 AM   #3635
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
JTF haven't you been waiting for henri to provide this evidence ALMOST as long as you have waited for him to produce a salient timeline of the events that matches the 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 15th February 2018, 08:33 AM   #3636
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
Promises, Promises

BYN: The landlord even argued that inmate had put forth some sort of timeline. LOL. Henriboy would then add that inmate sounded "sincere" and "truthful" when providing his non-existent timeline. When I quoted the line from Fatal Vision that inmate's story was a mess filled with "inconvenient details," he attacked Joe McGinniss and bragged that he would post a timeline demonstrating inmate's innocence. No such post was forthcoming and similar to the forensic/legal challenge, he has taken the coward's route by not walking the walk.

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 15th February 2018, 09:42 AM   #3637
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Eisman's capability as a lawyer? The process of obtaining hair samples? Hypotheticals regarding the Article 32? Yup, none of your dodging tactics pass muster nor do they have any relationship to the clear challenge put before you. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim.
The proof is that MacDonald is innocent. You take everything on the evidence and not on opinions, unless those opinions come from a real expert. Stombaugh was not a real expert.

As far as I can remember, the two little murdered girls did have their bodies raised at some stage, presumably by the Army CID, or FBI, in order to extract their hair samples. I suppose there must have been some sort of subpoena there, or due legal process, possibly involving a judge. It looks like MacDonald's hair samples were eventually obtained, but I can't now remember how that was eventually achieved. I don't trust the honesty of the FBI hair and fiber department. The MacDonald defense were never allowed to double check all that.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 09:49 AM   #3638
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,425
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The proof is that MacDonald is innocent. You take everything on the evidence and not on opinions, unless those opinions come from a real expert.
You do realize that the evidence presented by the prosecution and NOT refuted by the defence is the proof that MacDonald is GUILTY.

Your opinion that he is not guilty is worth less than the electrons used in preparing this statement.
__________________
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 15th February 2018, 02:14 PM   #3639
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,031
What Is The Color Of The Sky In Your World

HENRIBOY: Your special brand of half-baked logic is both amusing and pathetic. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim. Unlike inmate's rotating band of lawyers, the government walked the walk and provided concrete proof of inmate's guilt. This included hairs, fibers, bloody footprints, bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions, and DNA evidence. If you want to end your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden, all you have to do is...

1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.

2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.

3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.

4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

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 15th February 2018, 05:54 PM   #3640
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The proof is that MacDonald is innocent. You take everything on the evidence and not on opinions, unless those opinions come from a real expert. Stombaugh was not a real expert.

snipped
Asserting a falsehood and going on about how opinions can only come from an expert is a hilarious juxtaposition.

By your own standard your opinion can't be considered because you're not an expert in any discipline involved in this or any other criminal case.

Is the above your farewell message?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 07:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.