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

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


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

Reply
Old 20th December 2020, 03:18 AM   #2161
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Not surprisingly, both Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit Court ruled that this claim lacked merit.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Judge Fox or the 4th Circuit Court didn't know the first thing about Murtagh and Stombaugh tampering with the evidence. They may know by now that Malone was a total liar.

There is a bit about this sort of thing in that English Justice book published in 1932 by an anonymous police court solicitor:

"The judge and jury know only what is brought forward in court. However capable a judge may be, and however great his experience, he very seldom has the opportunity of verifying his conclusions. And without this opportunity he may be steadily going wrong in his judgement of character throughout his judicial life.

A solicitor in a busy practice, apart from what he is told in confidence by his client and the witnesses, usually has many opportunities of checking the facts of a case from other people whom he meets professionally.

If the solicitor has a taste for, say, racing or boxing, and mixes with the sporting fraternity on equal terms, he can almost always learn the truth if he wishes to do so. Not that racing and boxing men are themselves criminals, but they are in touch with all classes, go everywhere , and know know what is going on."

MacDonald had blonde hair and Mitchell had brown hair. I may not be scientifically correct about this but I believe that is some kind of scientific difference whatever Stombaugh and Murtagh said about the matter. There is a bit about this at this website:

https://themacdonalddefense.wordpress.com/case-facts/

"CASE FACT
Colette MacDonald’s attacker is believed by experts to have been left-handed. Jeffrey MacDonald is right-handed.

Two of the nation’s foremost forensic pathologists, Dr. Thomas Noguchi
of Los Angeles County, CA, and Dr. Ronald Wright of Broward County,
Florida, researched the fatal blows suffered by Colette and concluded
that they were inflicted by a left-handed person. Greg Mitchell, the man
the defense believes to have been Colette’s killer, was left-handed.
Greg Mitchell’s blood type (O) was also found on Colette’s hands,
but no type B (Jeffrey’s type). A brown hair, has found clutched in
Colette’s hand. Greg Mitchell had brown hair (Jeffrey’s was blonde).
Despite the discrepancy in color, the CID lab tried to source the hair
to Jeffrey anyway, but failed."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th December 2020 at 03:22 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 08:13 AM   #2162
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,025
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald had blonde hair and Mitchell had brown hair.
Oh, really: https://deadline.com/wp-content/uplo...9&h=383&crop=1

Collette's hair is blonde. The inmate's hair looks nothing like that and is considerably darker.

In fact, Kimberley's hair on the autopsy report is described as "auburn" here:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...topsy-kim.html

Auburn is described as "reddish-brown" here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_hair

The inmate's hair is darker than reddish-brown.

MacDonald had brown hair.

I guess a reminder is in order:
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 20th December 2020 at 08:21 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 10:33 AM   #2163
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Oh, really: https://deadline.com/wp-content/uplo...9&h=383&crop=1

Collette's hair is blonde. The inmate's hair looks nothing like that and is considerably darker.

In fact, Kimberley's hair on the autopsy report is described as "auburn" here:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...topsy-kim.html

Auburn is described as "reddish-brown" here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_hair

The inmate's hair is darker than reddish-brown.

MacDonald had brown hair.

I guess a reminder is in order:
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Hank
You may be right about that. I don't know why websites say he had blonde hair. All I know is that the hair in Colette's left hand was definitely considered to be dissimilar to MacDonald's hair right from the start. MacDonald was then forced to provide all kinds of hair samples to somehow prove that it was a MacDonald hair. Why was it considered dissimilar? I have never seen these hairs and neither did the judges or juries.

This is a sensible website about all this:

https://top-papers.com/essays/analys...rey-macdonald/

"Police crimes can be organized, occupational, and corruptional. Police crime is characterized by violation of rights, excessive use of power, illegal acts, etc. Torts committed by police officers are also supposed to be an excessive use of power. So, it is obvious that ethical principles are violated and ignored very often that is why there is so much violence in the contemporary society. MacDonald’s case was the example of violation of rules. It was strange that policemen did not want to investigate the murder till the end. It was easier for them to charge MacDonald with it."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th December 2020 at 10:36 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 10:50 AM   #2164
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

The inmate's hair is darker than reddish-brown.

MacDonald had brown hair.

I guess a reminder is in order:
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Hank
This is what the anti-MacDonald biased Magical Mystery Tour website thinks about this hair in the left hand business. It seems like a convoluted explanation to me. I still think that hair could have been DNA tested as soon as a DNA test became technically available. In my opinion, the judges were in bed with the prosecution and they delayed doing that by more than ten years to avoid any political embarrassment. Murtagh and Malone worked out that they could tamper with the MacDonald case forensic evidence so that the right decision for them was made public and it was difficult then if not impossible to detect:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

"Although this hair was initially found not to match MacDonald, it was not tested against hairs from the children's heads, nor was it tested against hairs from all parts of MacDonald's body.

The unidentified hair was classified by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh as the distal portion or the tip of a limb hair. Limb hairs are microscopically uncomparable, so there was no forensic basis for MacDonald's claim that the hair was Greg Mitchell's.

This hair was known to the defense as early as the 1970 Article 32 hearing where it was reported.

Jeffrey MacDonald was described as having brown hair in the Criminal Investigation Division report: "MacDonald: 12 Oct 43; Jamaica, NY; M; Cauc; 71 in; 175 lbs; brown
hair; green eyes; medium build; discharged from US Army 4 Dec 70 . . . "

DNA test results showed that this hair was Jeffrey MacDonald’s own."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th December 2020 at 10:52 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 04:21 PM   #2165
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Meaningless

HENRI: In 1970, the color of the broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand was essentially meaningless. Again, the only hairs that can be compared under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. Again, DNA technology allowed investigators to source that broken, bloody limb hair and that broken, bloody limb hair matched inmate's DNA profile. Inmate's advocates argued that the source of this broken, bloody limb hair was the person who assaulted Colette with the club and several of his advocates predicted that the broken, bloody limb hair would match the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. Whoops. Well, at least they got the first part of the argument right.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th December 2020 at 04:25 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 04:50 PM   #2166
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
It was Macdonld's lawyers Cormier and Good who succeeded Silverglate after he retired who insisted on just investigating Mitchell and Stoeckley. That was a mistake because it prevented a more complete investigation. The more DNA tests of the crime scene the merrier and that would make it more likely to come up with the real culprits.
.
You can't deny that there were grave doubts about that hair in Colette's left hand from the start, as well as her right hand. The passage of time gave Murtagh and Malone easy opportunity to just say it was MacDonald DNA without any real scientific supporting evidence or proof of chain of custody. It was just the same with the wig hair.

This is what MacDonald himself said about those controversial hairs at the grand jury in 1974-75 and it's true but highly technical for a North Carolina grand jury to understand:

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

"Now, there are three attachments. One is a report; a lab report which I think is made under the date of 29 July 1970. It lists as exhibits pill vials, two of which contain hairs found in the right and left hands of Mrs. MacDonald. And eleven of which refer to pill vials containing hair removed from various points of then Capt. MacDonald's body. The concluding statement is, "Comparative examinations of the hairs from Exhibits E-4 and E-5 revealed same to be dissimilar to the hairs from E-305 through E-313." The report is signed by Janice S. Glisson, Arthur Boyd Conners, Joel L. Leson....

The second attachment is a letter or a memorandum -- well, memo or a letter. It is dated 25, August 1970. It's captioned. "Subject: Clarification of Lab Report." Referring to the report by its number. It is addressed to the chief chemist of the criminal investigation division laboratory at Fort Gordon, Georgia.

The first paragraph refers to the report that I just read to you. The second paragraph reads as follows:
"It is of critical importance to the government to know and be able to show the meaning of the language." That is the comparative examinations of the hair from exhibits E-4 and E-5 revealed same to be dissimilar to the hairs from exhibits E-305 through E-313.

Second sentence of second paragraph:
"Does this mean that the hair in E-305 through E-313 is so dissimilar to that in E-4 and E-5 that the source of the hair in E-305 through E-313 is positively eliminated as a possible source of the hair in E-4 and E-5? Or alternatively, does it mean that the source of the hair in E-305 through E-313 can neither be identified nor eliminated as the source of the hair in E-4 and E-5?"

Final paragraph:
"If possible, I request that a written reply be afforded directly to me clarifying this point. Thank you for your time and consideration."
And the letter went out with the signature of Clifford L. Somers, Capt. JAGC, Government Counsel.

The final attachment is a memo responding to the letter that I just read. It's signed by Janice S. Glisson, Arthur B. Conners, and James P. Ryan.
The first paragraph refers to the preceding letter.
Paragraph 2: "The following statements are to be added to page 2 of subject report for clarification:
"a. Therefore, it is the opinion of the examiners that the hairs of exhibits E-4 and E-5 probably did not originate from the same point" and the words "same point" are underscored, "sources" -- I'll read it in context -- "did not originate from the same point sources as the hairs of E-305 through E-313.
"b. However, it must be pointed out that the requested opinion regarding positively eliminating the subject as a possible source of the hair cannot be given without first examining numerous other point sources of body hair from the subject."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th December 2020 at 04:59 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2020, 08:01 PM   #2167
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Keep Up

HENRI: Breaking news, 29 years prior to the defense team's request for DNA exemplars of Stoeckley and Mitchell, the CID began a massive 2 year investigation of this case.The CID reinvestigation began in the latter part of 1970 and was completed in 1972. Colonel Jack Pruett and warrant officer Peter Kearns were provided with office space in the Federal Building in downtown Fayetteville. They assembled a team of eight agents and went over the original investigation with a fine-tooth comb. Pruett and Kearns concluded that while mistakes were made, the evidence collected at the crime scene was not contaminated by the MP's and medics that arrived at 544 Castle Drive the morning of February 17, 1970.

The first order of business for Pruett and Kearns was to interview Jeffrey MacDonald. This interview took place in the library of the Philadelphia Bar Association, on March 20, 1971. MacDonald's lawyer, Bernie Segal, was present at this interview and some important information was culled from MacDonald by Pruett and Kearns. MacDonald was shown photographs of Helena Stoeckley, Cathy Perry, and the New York Four. MacDonald stated that he did not recognize any of these individuals. MacDonald also admitted that he had scratch marks on his upper left chest. This was consistent with his admission at the Article 32 hearings that he had "some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest with some, again the same type of puncture wounds, two or three."

Pruett and Kearns then got the FBI to look at the evidence in this case for the first time. CID agent William Ivory delivered several evidentiary items to the chief of the FBI's chemistry division, Paul Stombaugh. Stombaugh analyzed all of the cuts and puncture holes in the pajamas worn by the MacDonald family, as well as the blood stain patterns on MacDonald's pajama top. Stombaugh found that all the puncture holes in the pajamas worn by Jeffrey, Colette, and Kristen MacDonald were perfectly round with no ragged edges. To Stombaugh, this indicated that the garments were stationary when punctured. Stombaugh also concluded that the Old Hickory knife was responsible for all of the cuts in Colette's and Kristen's pajamas, while the source of the two cuts in MacDonald's pajama top was probably the Geneva Forge knife. Most of the blood found on MacDonald's pajama top was Colette's and Stombaugh found four stains from Colette that were bisected. Stombaugh concluded that the four stains were on the pajama top before it was torn. William Ivory also removed a bed slat from under Kimberley's bed and subsequent microscopic examinations determined that the murder club was once part of this bed slat.

Pruett and Kearns then instructed their staff to investigate any individuals who could be deemed as suspects. CID agents eventually interviewed suspects Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, and Cathy Perry. Mitchell, Fowler, and Perry denied any involvement in the murders, and Stoeckley waffled between being present when the murders took place, and having no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970. Head hair and fingerprint exemplars were obtained from each individual, and none of the exemplars matched any of the head hairs or prints found at the crime scene. A CID polygraph examiner and CID Hall of Famer, Robert Brisentine, administered exams to Mitchell, Fowler, and Stoeckley. Mitchell and Fowler passed their exams, while Stoeckley's exam was deemed inconclusive due to her history of severe drug use.

Interviews were also conducted with MacDonald's family, friends, and female liaisons. The conclusions drawn from these interviews were as follows:

•MacDonald was a respected doctor and well-liked by his co-workers.

•MacDonald's best friend at Fort Bragg, Ron Harrison, confirmed that MacDonald owned an ice pick.

•MacDonald had a vast social network and he often threw parties at his home.

•MacDonald appeared to be a loving father to his two children.

•MacDonald had at least eight affairs when he was married to Colette. Pruett and Kearns suspected that MacDonald may have had up to 15 affairs from 1963-1969.

•MacDonald, while confined to Bachelor Officers' Quarters, had an ongoing sexual relationship with a civilian woman. During this same time period, the Article 32 hearings were underway, and the Kassabs were lodged at an army facility that was within shouting distance of MacDonald's quarters.

On June 1, 1972, the 10,000-page reinvestigation report was submitted to the Department of Justice. The report was authored by Peter Kearns and it recommended that Jeffrey MacDonald be prosecuted for the murder of his family. The reinvestigation report was beyond thorough as evidenced by the fact that 699 people were interviewed, leads were pursued in 32 states, and the evidence was reanalyzed by both the CID and the FBI. Kearns also narrated and produced a film on this case which was eventually presented to the Department of Justice. The CID reinvestigation report is an ominous cloud which continues to hover over the MacDonald defense team. Since 1982, they've hailed the Article 32 hearings as the ultimate truth and called the 1979 trial a travesty of justice, but nary a word is uttered about the CID reinvestigation. Their silence speaks volumes.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th December 2020 at 08:04 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 09:29 AM   #2168
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
H MacDonald also admitted that he had scratch marks on his upper left chest. This was consistent with his admission at the Article 32 hearings that he had "some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest with some, again the same type of puncture wounds, two or three."

On June 1, 1972, the 10,000-page reinvestigation report was submitted to the Department of Justice. The report was authored by Peter Kearns and it recommended that Jeffrey MacDonald be prosecuted for the murder of his family. The reinvestigation report was beyond thorough as evidenced by the fact that 699 people were interviewed, leads were pursued in 32 states, and the evidence was reanalyzed by both the CID and the FBI. Kearns also narrated and produced a film on this case which was eventually presented to the Department of Justice. The CID reinvestigation report is an ominous cloud which continues to hover over the MacDonald defense team. Since 1982, they've hailed the Article 32 hearings as the ultimate truth and called the 1979 trial a travesty of justice, but nary a word is uttered about the CID reinvestigation. Their silence speaks volumes.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Kearns just knew MacDonald did it because of a urine stain which he ordered to be reinvestigated after ninety weeks! That was never mentioned in the subsequent grand jury, or 1979 MacDonald trial, or in the Judge Dupree appeals. It seems to be the pajama pocket and the pajama -like fibers on the murder club, and the so-called blood evidence and autopsy photos, and even the suitcase, which seem to be the conclusive prosecution evidence nowadays. Go by the evidence not by appearance. It's a pity in a way that MacDonald is not as photogenic or telegenic as he used to be which is understandable.

MacDonald was never found guilty because he was good at entertaining the ladies. That is a different matter and not really relevant. Hoover at the FBI never wanted the FBI to get involved in the MacDonald case. Stombaugh and Shirley Green of the FBI became involved and they were definitely not serology experts, or real experts, as is required by the federal rules of evidence in a murder trial. It was an FBI mistake, like the Atlanta Olympic bombing mistake.

The Army CID and FBI only investigated Stoeckley and Mitchell and their pals to eliminate them from their inquiries. The New York four were just an Army CID diversion. They never even found out the name of the man MacDonald had hit in a New York bar which could have resulted in a gruesome revenge.

As a qualified and expert emergency doctor himself MacDonald considered the medical investigation into his injuries to be sloppy. This is part of what he said about the matter at that Pruett and Kearns interview which JTF has quoted:

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

A I never said that. Who is the guy, the first guy in the emergency room? Jacobson is an emergency room evaluator. He treated what he thought was the most threatening thing. I never said what he did was incorrect. He never tested my range of motion or stuff in my arms, but he wrote it in. That's a minor point. The question is that he is wrong.

Second of all, that should have been--I then should have had a complete work-up. You know, you start at head to toe. It isn't in there. It was never done. No one ever tested my reflexes for instance. No one ever came in every two hours to shine a light in my eyes to check my pupils for size. I am not saying that I had, you know a fractured skull. All I am saying is I was never evaluated for it. I seen people die with absolutely nothing wrong on the exterior of their head, or they have fractured skulls or bleeding inside the skull from a head wound.
Q Then you sustained three or four blows, possibly more?
A Right.
Q Most probably from the wooden weapon that was utilized?
A Correct.

BY COLONEL PRUETT:
Q How about the other injuries, doctor?
A What about them?
Q The stabbing and so on. There was only one, correct?
A Only one what?
Q One stab wound that penetrated?
A Only one stab wound?
Q I am asking you. Is there only one or were there more? Are those records incorrect?
A Yes, but I am sure you know that.
Q That's why we are asking you. Do you say those other records are incorrect? We would like to know actually what were the injuries.
A There was a puncture wound on the right chest, not where Dr. Fisher thought it was. It was in the mid-clavicular line of the anterior part of the chest, on inch below where my liver begins. That's a little significant.

I had some puncture wounds in the left upper chest which appeared to be ice pick wounds. I can't say they were ice pick. I would say off the cuff they are ice pick, but physicians never say that. They say a penetrating wound. There was a scratch on my left upper chest.

There was one, what I would guess to be a knife stab wound, two or three ice pick wounds in the left bicep. There was an ice pick wound in the right bicep. There was an incision type wound in the left rectus muscle, left quadrant, which is not the same quadrant that is listed in the medical record. Just another example of how sloppy it was.

In an assault case, you can't possibly have the wrong part of the abdomen diagnosed for a wound. He had the one quadrant on my abdomen. There were a series of small puncture wounds. Ice pick wounds don't bleed much. So this they overlooked and the nurses already had bandaged it, he never picked up my bandage and looked at it. I had a series--I don't know how many--eight or ten. I think I counted nine or ten. The day after, when Manson and McGann were in there and asked me, I looked down and counted. There were eight or ten on the abdomen."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st December 2020 at 09:59 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 09:45 AM   #2169
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
•MacDonald's best friend at Fort Bragg, Ron Harrison, confirmed that MacDonald owned an ice pick.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's not true at all. I hate to say it's a lie. This is what Ron Harrison said about the ice pick and it's not a confirmation that MacDonald owned an ice pick. The babysitter and Colette's mother lied about the ice pick at the MacDonald trial, probably on the instructions of Murtagh, or else they were bribed:

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

Q: Are you sure that MacDONALD left the house to look for the ice pick on that occasion you've mentioned and if so how can you be sure?

A: As I recall he went out the back door to look with the barbeque equipment or perhaps with some other cooking utensils that may have been stored in the shed. I didn't see him do anymore than go out the back door and after a suitable length of time when he could have been looking in the shed he returned and by then we had a screw driver we were using. I think it was discussed there in the house, about an ice pick, there were at least three of us looking but as for exactly what was said I couldn't tell you.

Q: What he say when he returned?

A: Again there I can't recall the conversation and we had a screw driver by then and I was chipping at the ice and he said he would do it and then he started to chip away the ice.

Q: Why do you think he left the house specifically to look for an ice pick?

A: I couldn't say unless they had a possible location, there were barbeque forks and (illegible) party implements out there. Perhaps they had thrown a party where they chopped some ice and there was such an implement out there.

Q: Did he or anyone else specifically ask for an ice pick?

A: He said when we were inside the house, because we tried to break the ice or pull it apart and he said "Where's the ice pick?", I remember that was mentioned. And that's when we all split up looking for the ice pick.

Q: Who did he ask for the ice pick?

A: Just in general. I can't recall if Colette answered or not. The ice was on some appliance just to the right as you enter the kitchen. It was crushed ice or cubes that were really frozen solid and I hit it a couple of time with my hand and Jeff said "Where's the ice pick?", he had followed behind me. Colette or Mrs. MacDONALD, Jeff's mother, were looking through the kitchen drawers and I pulled out this Boy Scout type knife and I picked the ice about three or four times and Jeff had left to look outside. Someone then came up with the screw driver and we started using that and Jeff came back into the house.

Q: Where was the ice pick normally kept in the house?

A: I don't know, I never knew that they ever had one except this reference to it that at one time they may have had one.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st December 2020 at 09:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 09:51 AM   #2170
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
More about Ron Harrison from the grand jury:

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

Q All right. On this Thanksgiving occasion, do you remember that drinks were served and there was a problem with the ice? Tell us about that.
A Well, as I recall there was a plastic bag of ice which was on a washing machine in the kitchen -- I think it was a washing machine. Or, it might have been a dishwasher. I don't really remember. But anyway this ice was all melted together. And, as I recall, Jeff asked somebody -- Colette, maybe -- "Where is the ice pick?" He was the host and couldn't find it right away. So I went out in the kitchen and looked at the ice and the top couple of cubes seemed to me could be knocked loose and the bottom of it looked to be pretty frozen. So I slammed it a couple of times around and hit it with my hand a couple of times and did knock a few of the looser cubes off of the top. And I think I used -- I had a pocket knife which I think I picked a few times at it with my pocket knife. And still the ice pick was I don't know where. And then we opened a drawer, as I recall, and got a screwdriver out and used the screwdriver to pry the ice apart, chip it away.
Q So apparently someone had mislaid the ice pick at that time and a search was made and it didn't turn up.
A Sir, I don't remember if they ever found the pick or not.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st December 2020 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 04:54 PM   #2171
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
More about Ron Harrison from the grand jury:

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

Q All right. On this Thanksgiving occasion, do you remember that drinks were served and there was a problem with the ice? Tell us about that.
A Well, as I recall there was a plastic bag of ice which was on a washing machine in the kitchen -- I think it was a washing machine. Or, it might have been a dishwasher. I don't really remember. But anyway this ice was all melted together. And, as I recall, Jeff asked somebody -- Colette, maybe -- "Where is the ice pick?" He was the host and couldn't find it right away. So I went out in the kitchen and looked at the ice and the top couple of cubes seemed to me could be knocked loose and the bottom of it looked to be pretty frozen. So I slammed it a couple of times around and hit it with my hand a couple of times and did knock a few of the looser cubes off of the top. And I think I used -- I had a pocket knife which I think I picked a few times at it with my pocket knife. And still the ice pick was I don't know where. And then we opened a drawer, as I recall, and got a screwdriver out and used the screwdriver to pry the ice apart, chip it away.
Q So apparently someone had mislaid the ice pick at that time and a search was made and it didn't turn up.
A Sir, I don't remember if they ever found the pick or not.
Inmate is hosting a party at his residence and asks Colette or another guest, "Where is the ice pick?" yet the CID's conclusion that inmate owned an ice pick is a lie? Hilarious. Again, on June 1, 1972, the 10,000-page reinvestigation report was submitted to the Department of Justice. The report was authored by Peter Kearns and it recommended that Jeffrey MacDonald be prosecuted for the murder of his family. The reinvestigation report was beyond thorough as evidenced by the fact that 699 people were interviewed, leads were pursued in 32 states, and the evidence was reanalyzed by both the CID and the FBI. Kearns also narrated and produced a film on this case which was eventually presented to the Department of Justice. The CID reinvestigation report is an ominous cloud which continues to hover over the MacDonald defense team. Since 1982, they've hailed the Article 32 hearings as the ultimate truth and called the 1979 trial a travesty of justice, but nary a word is uttered about the CID reinvestigation. Their silence speaks volumes.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 11:05 PM   #2172
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
My main issue with the “Helena Stoeckley” defense is that her story (virtually any version of her numerous variations) never matches up with MacDonald’s version.

I wish I had the transcripts of her CBS interview. But as I recall Helena relays that several things happened:

- There were more than four intruders.
- The intruders had a discussion with MacDonald before the violence broke out.
- In the midst of this discussion with MacDonald, there was a phone call that was answered by Helena.

This version of Helena’s is all well and good. The issue is, MacDonald’s story never meshes with it. At all.

- He states there were only four intruders, although he adjusts this later.
- He said he was awoken by the cries for help and the violence. He never states there was any discussion.
- He never mentions a phone call.

If there was a discussion with the intruders that included Helena, you’d think he would have recognized Helena when he say a picture of her in 1970.

So if you want to believe MacDonald, how to you come to grips with this list of huge contradictions? How do you just wave them away?
To be fair to MacDonald on this issue, he says he only personally saw 4 people. But he stated that Colette was shouting "Jeff, Jeff, why are they doig this to me?" Meaning that at least two more people must have present in MacDonald's story (and story is the right word ).
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2020, 11:12 PM   #2173
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 95
If somehow you are unsure if MacDonald is guilty, look at the pattern of the wounds in the pajama top and the pattern of the wounds on Colette's chest. They're like a photocopy of each other. Add in the round, smooth holes the icepick made in the pajama top. 100% proof of guilt. No chance that could all be coincidence, NONE.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 02:37 AM   #2174
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
If somehow you are unsure if MacDonald is guilty, look at the pattern of the wounds in the pajama top and the pattern of the wounds on Colette's chest. They're like a photocopy of each other. Add in the round, smooth holes the icepick made in the pajama top. 100% proof of guilt. No chance that could all be coincidence, NONE.
Segal cross-examined Shirley Green and elicited from her that she didn't use a scientific method with that pajama folding experiment and that she was not a real expert anyway. Judge Dupree seemed to rather lose his temper with Murtagh when Murthagh said the pajama top could be folded in several different ways. That was probably to prevent a mistrial challenge when it was appealed later on.

Personally, I think MacDonald and his pajama top was attacked by an icepick when he was unconscious on the ground, probably by Helena Stoeckley:

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

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Next, Ms. Green, I want to ask you: can you state whether you would be able to put 48 probes through 21 holes in a pajama top [sic] if you also had to accommodate two knives and the pink pajama top of Mrs. MacDonald all at the same time?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd December 2020 at 02:40 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 04:37 AM   #2175
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Inmate is hosting a party at his residence and asks Colette or another guest, "Where is the ice pick?" yet the CID's conclusion that inmate owned an ice pick is a lie? Hilarious.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Colette's mother tried to sway the jury that there was an ice pick in the MacDonald apartment, I wonder why? Could it be that it was coaching to her from Murtagh? I still maintain that there were grave doubts about whether there was any ice pick in the MacDonald apartment. If there was no ice pick how could he be guilty? Colette's mother didn't seem quite so sure after she was cross-examined:

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

Q All right, thank you, Mrs. Kassab. I want to proceed to one last subject matter with you if I can. You were asked by the Government on direct examination about using an ice pick in Jeff and Colette's home when you were there, and you described such as incident, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, when you testified in this case before the grand jury in September of 1974, do you recall being shown a photograph by the Government's attorney which had an ice pick and a knife in it? Do you recall that?
A At the grand jury?
Q Yes, ma'am.
A Yes.
Q And do you recall when you were shown the ice pick and knife that you answered in regard to whether you knew that to be from Jeff's house or Colette's house as follows:
"I would say," referring to the photo, "that this could be the ice pick, but I would say that it could not be this one, because I've never seen one with that type of heavy handle. This type of ice pick is all over -- you see them all over, and I would say theirs would have been that kind."
Is that your testimony?
A That's right. I used an ice pick, but I didn't know which one it was.
Q Is that what you think you testified to the grand jury?
A Well, one, as I remember, was a big bulbous one, and I have never seen of those around, I didn't think. I said it wouldn't -- it may have been the other one, but I don't think it was this one. I used an ice pick; I didn't note what type of ice pick it was.
I believe I said I didn't recognize the knife.
Q Did you not also tell the grand jury at that time, Mrs. Kassab, when you looked at the picture of the ice pick, that the handle -- the big, bulbous handle of the ice pick -- did not look familiar to you?
A I may have. I used an ice pick. I said I don't know what it looked like; I used an ice pick.
Q Mrs. Kassab, you were also shown a little paring knife with had the name "Old Hickory" on it, weren't you?
A I replied -- you want the answer?
Q You were asked whether you knew whether that knife had been in Jeff and Colette's home. Do you recall that?
A Uh-huh (yes).
Q Again, please, "yes" or "no" for the stenographer.
A Yes, I'm sorry.
Q And you said that you didn't know whether or not the Old Hickory knife came from Jeff and Colette's house.
A And added, "because there are several in every house."
Q Several what in every house, paring knives?
A Paring knives. Everyone has a half a dozen.
Q You had given Jeff and Colette some kitchen knives -- paring knives and other knives -- yourself, hadn't you?
A I doubt it. I gave them anything they needed, but most of their things came from -- they would move from one house to the next. They didn't have money to go out and buy things, and if they found a knife in a drawer or anything else -- I bought them many things, vacuum cleaners, big things like that, but I don't think I bought knives.
Q Well, let me suggest to you that it was page 24, lines 24 and 25 of the grand jury testimony, you said -- the question was referring to whether you recognized the knives, "And no one of them would necessarily stick in your memory at this time?" Your answer was, "No, only any one that I happened to give them myself, but their cutlery was gathered here and there. If they moved some place and there was a can opener in a drawer, they owned a can opener. If somebody had something that they were throwing out, they had a knife. It was rather a catch as catch can furnishing."
But in the first part of it, you did refer to giving them some cutlery, didn't you?
A If I gave them a knife, I said. I believe I gave them a carving knife that belonged to a set of ours, a large carving knife. I may have been referring to that. But I am sure I didn't bother to give Colette little five and dime things. They could buy those."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd December 2020 at 05:00 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 04:52 AM   #2176
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Inmate is hosting a party at his residence and asks Colette or another guest, "Where is the ice pick?" yet the CID's conclusion that inmate owned an ice pick is a lie? Hilarious.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I can't quite see how the babysitter, Kalin, can be considered a reliable witness in the MacDonald case. She changed her mind and she was being coached by Murtagh:

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


Q Do you remember being interviewed by any Government lawyer before you testified before the grand jury?
A I was interviewed by them.
Q Before you testified?
A I don't remember before. I just remember talking with them.
Q Were you interviewed at any time during the grand jury proceedings by lawyers -- not about any specific thing but generally about the case?
A No.
Q Have you had conversations with lawyers for the Government and lawyers for Dr. MacDonald after the grand jury?
A Yes.
Q Say, within the past month or two or three?
A Yes.
Q So, the truth is, Mrs. Cochran, you have been interviewed about this case many times more than four; haven't you?
A I don't remember.
Q You have no recollection --
A (Interposing) I'm counting the first time in '70, the second time -- the grand jury -- your lawyers talked to me and their lawyers talked to me. I'm counting those four. Other than that, I really don't recollect.
Q You don't have a recollection, then, about the specific number of times that you have talked with them?
A No.
Q Do you remember whether during the grand jury proceedings you had lunch with any lawyers?
A No.
Q You did not?
A No.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, let me ask you to refresh your recollection and state whether or not it isn't true that in February of 1970 you were interviewed by the CID and told them that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick anywhere in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q Do you remember that?
A No; I had no recollection of any of the weapons -- not just the ice pick.
Q You had no recollection at all on February 19, 1970, of ever seeing an ice pick in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q And then you were interviewed -- weren't you -- by the FBI and told them a few days after this event occurred that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick in the house; do you remember that?
A No.
Q But you do remember telling the CID that you had never seen an ice pick?
A I believe they came over to our house.
Q Do you remember now talking with them?
A Yes.
Q You remember?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember telling any of the lawyers for Dr. MacDonald, for example, a Mr. Malley, that you had never seen an ice pick at their house?
A I don't remember.
Q But you do recall that you had said on a number of occasions that you never saw an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, do you remember testifying before the grand jury here in Raleigh -- do you remember your testimony?
A Yeah.
Q Mrs. Cochran, I ask you to listen to my reading of a part of the typed transcript of your testimony before the grand jury and ask you if it refreshes your recollection with respect to anything about the ice pick.
On page 23 of the transcript of the grand jury, I will read you the question and then read you your answer, Mrs. Cochran, and ask you if you recall it. The questioner asked you this question.
"Question: Now, how about the ice pick? Do you recognize it? Answer: No."
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you stated further that you thought the MacDonalds had an ice pick; is that true?
A Yes.
Q You were shown the ice pick on that occasion and you said that you did not remember ever seeing that ice pick; didn't you?
A Right.
Q Now, it was only later -- it was later, after lunch, that you remembered seeing an ice pick; would that be correct?
A It was in the afternoon.
Q In the afternoon; now, Mrs. Cochran, let me read you a portion again of the transcript of the testimony at the grand jury and ask you if it refreshes your recollection as to the questions were asked you and the answers. I'm reading now on page 37. The questioner asked you this:
"Question: Now, it is my understanding at this point that you have some further recollection which came to you today with regard to the ice pick which I earlier asked you about in the day; is that right? Answer: Right."
You recall that?
A Yes.
Q And then the questioner said this:
"Question: Would you go ahead and state for the grand jury what that recollection is, please? Answer: I remember using the ice pick that was on top of the refrigerator to get Popsicles and ice cream out of the freezer which was always very full, and I needed to break the ice away in order to get the Popsicles out or whatever."
Do you remember making that statement?
A Yeah.
Q Now, then the questioner asked you this, I believe:
"Question: Is there anything in particular that jogged your memory about that -- about the Popsicles and the ice pick? Answer: Just -- no, I was just relaxed after being here and all of a sudden I just remembered it. I thought I recognized the ice pick but it never really occurred to me."
Is that correct?
A Yeah.
Q In other words, Mrs. Cochran, is it your testimony that you could not recall ever seeing the ice pick in the MacDonald house when you were questioned by the CID a day or two after this occurred?
A Right.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd December 2020 at 04:55 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 03:05 PM   #2177
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Ice Pick Baby Killer

HENRI: Again, your interpretation of Harrison's Grand Jury testimony is flat-out hilarious. Inmate is hosting a party at his residence and asks Colette or a house guest, "Where is the ice pick?" I guess the ice pick that inmate was referring to was a rental. I agree that Kalin's 1979 trial testimony about this same ice pick is questionable, but Mildred Kassab's trial testimony on this issue was consistent. For example, 8 years before the trial, Freddy Kassab made a list of dubious assertions made by inmate at the Article 32 hearing. Freddy made the following notation next to inmate's claim that he did not own an ice pick.

"Mildred saw an ice pick and used it during our Christmas visit." Again, this notation was written in 1971, a full 8 years before Mildred testified about seeing AND using an ice pick at inmate's residence. Harrison states that inmate was asking Colette or a house guest about an ice pick and Mildred Kassab admits to seeing AND using an ice pick at inmate's residence, so yeah, inmate owned an ice pick.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd December 2020 at 03:13 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 03:55 PM   #2178
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: Again, your interpretation of Harrison's Grand Jury testimony is flat-out hilarious. Inmate is hosting a party at his residence and asks Colette or a house guest, "Where is the ice pick?" I guess the ice pick that inmate was referring to was a rental. I agree that Kalin's 1979 trial testimony about this same ice pick is questionable, but Mildred Kassab's trial testimony on this issue was consistent.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't know about the interpretation being hilarious. More like hysterical. Perhaps Muriel Kassab should have faked some photos of an ice-pick to be more convincing, like the Shirley Green and Stombaugh pajama folding experiment? I say again that if there is no firm evidence of an ice-pick, or even those knives being in the apartment at the time of the MacDonald murders then how can MacDonald possibly be convicted? Surely there must be at least one judge in America who can work that out for himself?

This is a website about the matter with which I entirely agree:

https://www.karisable.com/mac6.htm

"In 1974, Mildred Kassab, MacDonald’s mother in law, who had turned against him 3 years earlier, told the grand jury of seeing an ice pick in the MacDonald home. No CID or FBI interview prior to 1974, and there were several, did she recall an ice pick in the MacDonald house. The CID’s final report in 1972, relied in part, on information from the Kassabs, made no mention of Mildred seeing an ice pick."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd December 2020 at 03:57 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2020, 04:59 PM   #2179
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know about the interpretation being hilarious. More like hysterical. Perhaps Muriel Kassab should have faked some photos of an ice-pick to be more convincing, like the Shirley Green and Stombaugh pajama folding experiment? I say again that if there is no firm evidence of an ice-pick, or even those knives being in the apartment at the time of the MacDonald murders then how can MacDonald possibly be convicted? Surely there must be at least one judge in America who can work that out for himself?

This is a website about the matter with which I entirely agree:

https://www.karisable.com/mac6.htm

"In 1974, Mildred Kassab, MacDonald’s mother in law, who had turned against him 3 years earlier, told the grand jury of seeing an ice pick in the MacDonald home. No CID or FBI interview prior to 1974, and there were several, did she recall an ice pick in the MacDonald house. The CID’s final report in 1972, relied in part, on information from the Kassabs, made no mention of Mildred seeing an ice pick."
There were four weapons found at the crime scene. A Geneva Forge knife was found in the master bedroom and a wooden club was found on the ground just outside the back door. An ice pick and an Old Hickory knife were found 20 feet from the back door, lying side by side beneath a bush.

Geneva Forge knife

The Geneva Forge knife was a paring knife with a dull, bent blade. Analysis of the blade by FBI forensics expert, Paul Stombaugh, demonstrated that this knife made the two cuts in Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. In 1970, Pamela Kalin told CID investigators that when she was babysitting the MacDonald children, she remembered seeing this knife in the kitchen. In subsequent years, Kalin waffled on her identification. There was a minute trace of Colette MacDonald's Type A blood on the handle of the knife.

Old Hickory knife

The Old Hickory knife was also a paring knife with an extremely sharp, straight blade. Analysis of the blade by Stombaugh demonstrated that this knife made the cuts in the pajamas worn by Colette and Kristen MacDonald. CID investigators traced the knife to either the Post Exchange on Fort Bragg or Pope Air Force Base. The knife appeared to have been wiped clean of blood.

Ice pick

The ice pick also appeared to have been wiped clean of blood. Analysis of the blade by Stombaugh demonstrated that this weapon made the puncture holes in the pajamas worn by Jeffrey, Colette, and Kristen MacDonald. Three individuals came forward to state that they either saw the ice pick in the MacDonald residence or heard Jeffrey MacDonald mention that he owned an ice pick. During the 1979 trial, Mildred Kassab and Pamela Kalin testified to having seen an ice pick at the MacDonald residence. Ron Harrison was Jeffrey MacDonald's best friend at Fort Bragg, and he told both CID investigators and the Grand Jury that Jeffrey MacDonald was looking for an pick during a Thanksgiving visit. Harrison added that he used his own pocketknife to pry some ice apart after Jeffrey MacDonald couldn't locate the ice pick.

Club

The club was a weathered piece of wood measuring 31 inches in length. In 1970, Fort Gordon labs matched paint found on the club to paint found on the sidewalk in the back of the MacDonald residence. In 1971, CID investigator William Ivory removed a wooden slat underneath Kimberley MacDonald's bed. Grain pattern analysis proved conclusively that the club had been sawed from one end of a piece of wood that had been used to make the bed slat. The club itself bore traces of Colette's Type A blood and Kimberley's Type AB blood. Two pajama seam threads were found stuck to the club in Colette's blood. Additional trace evidence found on the club included two unsourced dark woolen fibers, multiple fibers sourced to a throw rug in the master bedroom, and several unsourced animal hairs. Autospy records concluded that the blunt trauma injuries to Colette and Kimberley were the result of blows from the club. Wooden splinters from the club were found in Colette's left hand, under her body, on top of the master bed, under the bedcovers in Kimberley's room, and on top of the bed in Kristen's room. No wood splinters were found in the living room where Jeffrey MacDonald claimed he was struck with the club.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd December 2020 at 05:02 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 02:46 AM   #2180
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
No wood splinters were found in the living room where Jeffrey MacDonald claimed he was struck with the club.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I think it's strained logic and judicial illusion to insist that MacDonald was struck by the wooden club murder weapon which killed his wife and daughters. That's just assumption. MacDonald himself always said he was struck by a BASEBALL BAT which is not quite the same thing even though the attack only lasted a few seconds. There is no guarantee that this baseball bat, if it was different, would have been left behind at the crime scene. It might have had some interesting forensic evidence on it.

There is a bit about the matter at this website:

https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...cdonald/crimes

"Later, while being questioned by the Army Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI, a distraught MacDonald described how he had been attacked by a black man wielding a baseball bat while he slept on the sofa. Two white men also attacked him and MacDonald had used his pyjama top as a shield to fend off the blows. He also recalled a blond woman, with a floppy hat, standing by and holding a candle. She was heard to say “Kill the pigs” and “acid is groovy”.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd December 2020 at 02:50 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 04:44 AM   #2181
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think it's strained logic and judicial illusion to insist that MacDonald was struck by the wooden club murder weapon which killed his wife and daughters. That's just assumption. MacDonald himself always said he was struck by a BASEBALL BAT which is not quite the same thing even though the attack only lasted a few seconds. There is no guarantee that this baseball bat, if it was different, would have been left behind at the crime scene. It might have had some interesting forensic evidence on it.

There is a bit about the matter at this website:

https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...cdonald/crimes

"Later, while being questioned by the Army Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI, a distraught MacDonald described how he had been attacked by a black man wielding a baseball bat while he slept on the sofa. Two white men also attacked him and MacDonald had used his pyjama top as a shield to fend off the blows. He also recalled a blond woman, with a floppy hat, standing by and holding a candle. She was heard to say “Kill the pigs” and “acid is groovy”.
The only evidence of "strained logic and judicial illusion" is inmate's mythical tale of hippie home invaders who have a bloodlust for pregnant women and small children, but take pity on a healthy adult man. In your world, hippie home invaders bring a lone weapon (e.g., baseball bat) with them, but take the time to gather other weapons from inside the residence, slaughter the weaker victims with those weapons, and give love taps to the strongest "victim" with the, ahem, baseball bat.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 10:23 AM   #2182
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In your world, hippie home invaders bring a lone weapon (e.g., baseball bat) with them, but take the time to gather other weapons from inside the residence, slaughter the weaker victims with those weapons, and give love taps to the strongest "victim" with the, ahem, baseball bat.
In your world MacDonald is guilty because he smiled on the Dick Cavett show and cracked a joke about the Army technicians and investigators being awarded Hall of Fame status after screwing things up. Personally, I do find that hilarious, though I suppose grinning like a Cheshire cat about, it as Bobby Stevenson, Colette's brother, once said, may not be good public relations.

MacDonald was given more than love taps by the man of color Dwight Smith. MacDonald should have been checked for a fractured skull, which could have resulted in brain damage if the doctors at the military hospital had not been so sloppy.. Nowadays he would have been checked for concussion.

There is no solid evidence that any of the murder weapons came from the MacDonald apartment, apart perhaps from the wooden club murder weapon, which looks as though it was picked up as they entered the apartment, or perhaps on a previous recce visit, and which seems at one time to have been part of a MacDonald bed at one time.

There is a bit about all this at this website:

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


"Even more mysterious, this same knife, was later proven not to be one of the weapons used!

Despite extensive efforts, neither knife found was traced to the MacDonald house."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd December 2020 at 10:31 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 11:28 AM   #2183
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
In your world MacDonald is guilty because he smiled on the Dick Cavett show and cracked a joke about the Army technicians and investigators being awarded Hall of Fame status after screwing things up. Personally, I do find that hilarious, though I suppose grinning like a Cheshire cat about, it as Bobby Stevenson, Colette's brother, once said, may not be good public relations.

MacDonald was given more than love taps by the man of color Dwight Smith. MacDonald should have been checked for a fractured skull, which could have resulted in brain damage if the doctors at the military hospital had not been so sloppy.. Nowadays he would have been checked for concussion.

There is no solid evidence that any of the murder weapons came from the MacDonald apartment, apart perhaps from the wooden club murder weapon, which looks as though it was picked up as they entered the apartment, or perhaps on a previous recce visit, and which seems at one time to have been part of a MacDonald bed at one time.

There is a bit about all this at this website:

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


"Even more mysterious, this same knife, was later proven not to be one of the weapons used!

Despite extensive efforts, neither knife found was traced to the MacDonald house."
Nope. In the real world, inmate's conviction was the result of over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at the 1979 trial. This evidence convinced a jury to convict inmate of 3 counts of murder in less than 7 hours. In 2006, DNA test results further inculpated inmate and exculpated both Stoeckley and Mitchell. You appear to be the only person on the planet who claims that Smith, Mazzerolle, Perry, and Fowler took part in this horrific crime. In terms of the weapons used to slaughter Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen, there is ample evidence linking ALL 4 weapons to 544 Castle Drive.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2020, 03:20 PM   #2184
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Nope. In the real world, inmate's conviction was the result of over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at the 1979 trial. This evidence convinced a jury to convict inmate of 3 counts of murder in less than 7 hours.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's not including the 1200 evidentiary items that prove MacDonald's innocence. How a valentine card and a urine stain and a suitcase and a flower pot and knives and ice picks that nobody knows exactly where they came from are supposed to prove MacDonald guilty I just don't know.

MacDonald was considered not guilty until Stombaugh and Shirley Green and Malone of the FBI came along with their manufactured evidence. They just decide who did it and then 'find' the evidence afterwards. It was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. The FBI needs to get it right.

There is a bit about this at this website:

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

"More disturbing was the amount of evidence that cleared MacDonald of suspicion that was simply not presented to the defence team. In other cases, uncorroborated evidence against MacDonald was held back and only presented during the trial, therefore preventing the defence from being able to address the issues.
What the jury also never heard was that no hairs from any of the victims were found entwined with fibres from MacDonald’s pyjamas."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd December 2020 at 03:23 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 12:27 AM   #2185
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not including the 1200 evidentiary items that prove MacDonald's innocence. How a valentine card and a urine stain and a suitcase and a flower pot and knives and ice picks that nobody knows exactly where they came from are supposed to prove MacDonald guilty I just don't know.

MacDonald was considered not guilty until Stombaugh and Shirley Green and Malone of the FBI came along with their manufactured evidence. They just decide who did it and then 'find' the evidence afterwards. It was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. The FBI needs to get it right.

There is a bit about this at this website:

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

"More disturbing was the amount of evidence that cleared MacDonald of suspicion that was simply not presented to the defence team. In other cases, uncorroborated evidence against MacDonald was held back and only presented during the trial, therefore preventing the defence from being able to address the issues.
What the jury also never heard was that no hairs from any of the victims were found entwined with fibres from MacDonald’s pyjamas."
It appears that your lone man on an island persona has no bounds. To my knowledge, this is the first time in 17 years that you've pitched the laughable claim that there are 1200 exculpatory evidentiary items in this case. Heck, you've NEVER presented a SINGLE evidentiary item that was DEFINITVELY sourced to a known intruder suspect. I'm sure that inmate and his advocates (e.g., 24 lawyers, Bost/Potter/Morris) would have loved to have had access to this truckload of exculpatory evidence.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 24th December 2020 at 12:39 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2020, 03:11 AM   #2186
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Classic

The following are excerpts from a NY Times article written by the late, great Joe McGinniss. This article was written shortly after the completion of the 2012 evidentiary hearing and is a reminder of why McGinniss' Fatal Vision is the best true crime book ever written.

Because of the notoriety of the case, the first day of the hearing was widely covered by the press. ABC, NBC, CNN and Fox had cameras and crews stationed at the entrance to the courthouse, and reporters for The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times joined North Carolina journalists inside the courtroom to hear testimony. I appeared on the “Today” show, on “Inside Edition” on CBS, and on Fox News, and I gave interviews to CNN.com and to The Washington Post.

But to what was this attention paid? To the fact that, with much media fanfare, a hearing had begun. Much less attention was paid over the next seven days to what actually happened at the hearing. The media hyped the sensational claims made by Mr. MacDonald’s lawyers and by Mr. Morris in advance of the hearing, but the cameras and reporters went elsewhere once witnesses began serving up factual meat and potatoes. It takes effort to chew, swallow and digest a complex hunk of fact, while speculation, accusation and innuendo melt in the mouth like cotton candy.

By the time I left the courthouse after completing my testimony on the sixth day of the hearing, not a single television camera remained on the sidewalk out front. The corollary of “attention must be paid” is “interest will be lost, once you get into the facts.”

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 24th December 2020 at 03:17 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 02:37 AM   #2187
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
By the time I left the courthouse after completing my testimony on the sixth day of the hearing, not a single television camera remained on the sidewalk out front. The corollary of “attention must be paid” is “interest will be lost, once you get into the facts.”

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
McGinniss wa a drunken Irish son of a bitch who betrayed MacDonald. McGinniss was cross-examined about it at the 1987 breach of contract case. The problem with that lack of interest is that the Murtagh and Malone and Judge Fox DNA fraud of the hair in Colette''s left hand had just about unjustly closed the case as far as the mass media was concerned.

There is a bit about this sort of thing in that English Justice book by an anonymous police court solicitor published in 1932:

"The result of the detachment of the mass of the people from the administration of the law is that there is no healthy opinion to prevent the existence of abuses. The Press is not much help. Very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and, unless someone makes makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed.
Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter. The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part."

There is a bit about DNA fraud which looks as though it happened in the MacDonald case at this website. I first became aware of DNA fraud when I heard car thieves were placing cigarette butts of other people in stolen cars to confuse the police:

http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/polic...ror-and-fraud/

"The FBI acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th December 2020 at 02:46 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 07:34 AM   #2188
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Those Pesky Fibers

HENRI: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. You keep digging and I will continue to tout the over 1,000 evidentiary items that proved beyond ALL doubt that inmate is a mass murderer. Heck, you could only have access to a singular evidentiary issue and STILL convict inmate of slaughtering his family. For example, the fiber evidence alone proves that inmate's hippie home invader story is a fairy tale.

- Inmate claims he took off his torn pajama top after he "found" Colette dead in the master bedroom.

- He claims he was bare chested when he "found" Kimmie and Kristen dead in their beds.

- He claims that he never saw the club in the master bedroom nor outside in the backyard.

- He claims he never touched the bundled bedding found in the master bedroom.

The fiber evidence in this case proves otherwise.

- Fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Colette's body, under the throw rug in the master bedroom, on top of the master bed, under Kimmie's bedcovers, on top of and under Kimmie's pillow, under Kristen's bedcovers, and under Kristen's fingernail.

- Fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found in the bundled bedding and a bloody fiber sourced to that same pajama top was found entwined with a bloody head hair from Colette.

- Fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found stuck to the club in Colette's blood.

- Rayon fibers from the throw rug in the master bedroom were found stuck to the club in Colette's blood. Rayon fibers were also found mixed with pajama fibers under the throw rug.

- A fiber from the multi-colored rug in Kristen's room was found in Colette's hand and inside the bundled bedding.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th December 2020 at 07:46 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 10:32 AM   #2189
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
For example, the fiber evidence alone proves that inmate's hippie home invader story is a fairy tale.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I have always considered the fiber evidence in the MacDonald case to be extremely unsatisfactory. JTF has always seemed to have pajama-like fibers on the brain. The prosecution case was always that no fibers were found in the living room and so by strained logic nothing was supposed to have happened in the living room. Then Shaw and Stombaugh and Kearns made up the theory without facts that bodies were moved in the sheet because of a urine stain which MacDonald was supposed to have lied about.

All of this crap was refuted in Segal's closing speech at the 1979 trial. The trouble is it was too turgid and lengthy, and beyond the comprehension of a North Carolina judge and jury. He should have cut, cut, and cut. The foreman of the jury was overheard in public saying he was going to convict MacDonald before the trial even started. That's a mistrial in my book even though Judge Dupree agreed with the foreman.

From Segal's closing argument at the trial:

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

"Why is it unreasonable to accept Dr. MacDonald's explanation? He tore it off, he moved his wife's body. There are a handful of fibers under her body. The majority of fibers in that room are found where? Of the fibers that were collected by the CID, three quarters of them are found outside of the body outline. Remember, Ivory said that there were many, many more fibers that were not even collected. Doesn't that sound exactly like what Jeffrey MacDonald said? He ripped off the pajamas from his arms around the binding and he tossed them away. In that act, if he tore the seams, that would be the only way and only time it could happen -- at that time, there is a profusion and a large number of fibers are deposited on the floor.
The Government says there is only one explanation because they have to prove this to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the fibers were all there and the body was placed on top of it. If you do not find that singular fact proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, what has happened to the Government's theory of this case?"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th December 2020 at 10:36 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2020, 08:58 PM   #2190
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have always considered the fiber evidence in the MacDonald case to be extremely unsatisfactory. JTF has always seemed to have pajama-like fibers on the brain. The prosecution case was always that no fibers were found in the living room and so by strained logic nothing was supposed to have happened in the living room. Then Shaw and Stombaugh and Kearns made up the theory without facts that bodies were moved in the sheet because of a urine stain which MacDonald was supposed to have lied about.

All of this crap was refuted in Segal's closing speech at the 1979 trial. The trouble is it was too turgid and lengthy, and beyond the comprehension of a North Carolina judge and jury. He should have cut, cut, and cut. The foreman of the jury was overheard in public saying he was going to convict MacDonald before the trial even started. That's a mistrial in my book even though Judge Dupree agreed with the foreman.

From Segal's closing argument at the trial:

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

"Why is it unreasonable to accept Dr. MacDonald's explanation? He tore it off, he moved his wife's body. There are a handful of fibers under her body. The majority of fibers in that room are found where? Of the fibers that were collected by the CID, three quarters of them are found outside of the body outline. Remember, Ivory said that there were many, many more fibers that were not even collected. Doesn't that sound exactly like what Jeffrey MacDonald said? He ripped off the pajamas from his arms around the binding and he tossed them away. In that act, if he tore the seams, that would be the only way and only time it could happen -- at that time, there is a profusion and a large number of fibers are deposited on the floor.
The Government says there is only one explanation because they have to prove this to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the fibers were all there and the body was placed on top of it. If you do not find that singular fact proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, what has happened to the Government's theory of this case?"
Again, still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. You keep digging and I will continue to tout the over 1,000 evidentiary items that proved beyond ALL doubt that inmate is a mass murderer. The fiber evidence may be "unsatisfactory" to you, but it certainly helped to convince a 1975 Grand Jury, 1979 trial jurors, 2 District Court judges, and 9 Fourth Circuit Court judges that inmate's hippie home invader story was bogus from start to finish.

In regards to the excerpt from Segal's closing argument...not only does Segal ignore the damning fiber evidence from BOTH the throw rug (e.g., rayon fibers) in the master bedroom AND the multi-colored rug in Kristen's room, he literally lies about there only being a "handful" of pajama fibers found under Colette's body. The reality is that there was a PROFUSION of pajama fibers found under Colette's body, under the throw rug in the master bedroom, and on top of the master bed. Segal also argues that inmate tossed his torn pajama top in the master bedroom, yet ignores the fact that fibers sourced to that pajama top were found under Kimmie's bedcovers, under and on top of her pillows, under Kristen's bedcovers, and under Kristen's fingernail.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th December 2020 at 09:12 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 02:46 AM   #2191
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
I still think there is no guarantee that any pajama fibers found at the crime scene were not there before the MacDonald murders happened. It was his bedroom and he carried his kids around with him. The whole attitude of the prosecution was that the crime scene was staged by MacDonald which to my mind is nonsense and a great big assumption.

The Army CID and FBI need to learn how to elicit more information from people like Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell instead of just eliminating them from the investigation.

The FBI hair and fiber department of Stombaugh and Malone and Shirley Green has attracted recent bad publicity, as well as bad publicity in regard to the MacDonald case:

https://thenewamerican.com/good-cop-bad-cop/

'But there is trouble a-plenty in the celebrated Bureau today, as well as many recent developments in its practices and ever-expanding jurisdiction that every thoughtful citizen will find troubling.

Among the numerous body blows to the FBI, of late, are:

• The recently released investigation of the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department into the FBI’s once-vaunted crime lab which found, among other things, "scientifically flawed testimony," "substandard analytical work," and "deficient practices" which could affect hundreds of past and current cases.

• The disclosure on April 15th by the Los Angeles Times that a study of the FBI crime lab conducted by a team of outside scientists from the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors in 1991 revealed widespread problems in the lab.

• Calls from a senior U.S. senator for a criminal investigation into the FBI crime lab since the Inspector General’s (IG) report was "only a management study" and did not "investigate for criminal actions."

• Revelations from a study by the Wall Street Journal that an FBI agent criticized in the IG report had provided false testimony that proved to be crucial in the celebrated convictions of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald and Federal Judge Alcee Hastings.'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th December 2020 at 02:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 03:12 AM   #2192
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

In regards to the excerpt from Segal's closing argument...not only does Segal ignore the damning fiber evidence from BOTH the throw rug (e.g., rayon fibers) in the master bedroom AND the multi-colored rug in Kristen's room, he literally lies about there only being a "handful" of pajama fibers found under Colette's body. The reality is that there was a PROFUSION of pajama fibers found under Colette's body, under the throw rug in the master bedroom, and on top of the master bed. S

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There were fibers found under Colette's body which were not pajama fibers and which illegally were never revealed to Segal at the trial. JTF is just revealing the 'in bed with the prosecution' version. From a Segal affidavit in 1990: Any pajama fibers in the other rooms 'could have' come from the pajama bottoms which were carelessly lost :

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

'42. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of Army CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of fibers within the debris taken from underneath the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-303) that did not have the blue pajama top as their source. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 32) I have carefully reviewed these hand written notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.'

'43. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes that were provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Dr. MacDonald's attorney, Anthony P. Bisceglie, by former FBI lab technician Paul M. Stombaugh. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 33) These handwritten notes indicate that the FBI's lab examiner discovered within FBI exhibit Q-79, which was the debris taken from underneath the trunk of Colette MacDonald's body, the existence of fibers that did not have the blue pajama top (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-12) as their source. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th December 2020 at 03:25 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 10:40 AM   #2193
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were fibers found under Colette's body which were not pajama fibers and which illegally were never revealed to Segal at the trial. JTF is just revealing the 'in bed with the prosecution' version. From a Segal affidavit in 1990: Any pajama fibers in the other rooms 'could have' come from the pajama bottoms which were carelessly lost :

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

'42. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of Army CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of fibers within the debris taken from underneath the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-303) that did not have the blue pajama top as their source. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 32) I have carefully reviewed these hand written notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.'

'43. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes that were provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Dr. MacDonald's attorney, Anthony P. Bisceglie, by former FBI lab technician Paul M. Stombaugh. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 33) These handwritten notes indicate that the FBI's lab examiner discovered within FBI exhibit Q-79, which was the debris taken from underneath the trunk of Colette MacDonald's body, the existence of fibers that did not have the blue pajama top (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-12) as their source. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.'
Again, still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. Food for thought...before making erroneous claims (e.g., conspiracy narratives, intruder suspects not "properly" investigated), access the documented record. You will thank me later. Speaking of the documented record, none of the debris (e.g., hairs, fibers) found under Colette's body was sourced to a known intruder suspect. For example, the naturally shed pubic hair found under Colette's body did not match the DNA profile of Stoeckley or Mitchell. The government effectively argued that the pubic hair and unsourced fibers found under Colette's body were nothing more than household debris. At trial, the prosecution did not hide the fact that unsourced household debris was found at the crime scene. For example, there were numerous unsourced fibers, dog hairs, and cat hairs found on top of Kristen's bed. The MacDonald family owned a cat, but not a dog, so I guess your next post will accuse the "Killer Stoeckley Gang" of bringing their dog with them to 544 Castle Drive.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th December 2020 at 10:49 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 12:07 PM   #2194
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Speaking of the documented record, none of the debris (e.g., hairs, fibers) found under Colette's body was sourced to a known intruder suspect. For example, the naturally shed pubic hair found under Colette's body did not match the DNA profile of Stoeckley or Mitchell. The government effectively argued that the pubic hair and unsourced fibers found under Colette's body were nothing more than household debris. At trial, the prosecution did not hide the fact that unsourced household debris was found at the crime scene. For example, there were numerous unsourced fibers, dog hairs, and cat hairs found on top of Kristen's bed. The MacDonald family owned a cat, but not a dog, so I guess your next post will accuse the "Killer Stoeckley Gang" of bringing their dog with them to 544 Castle Drive.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I still maintain that there are grave doubts about the identification of those fibers found under Colette's body. Without questioning the integrity of Ivory he just says he found something like 32 pajama fibers under Colette's body even though he is not a fiber expert. As I have said previously, even if they were pajama fibers, and as Segal said in his closing speech, that would not necessarily contradict what MacDonald said happened anyway.

I was interested to read in that Rock report that MacDonald said he left out some rubber gloves around the kitchen sink the previous evening from washing up which were gone when the crime scene was analysed. That's suspicious.

Part of the trouble is that all this so--called evidence is so complex and complicated and a juror just wants to keep it simple. From the Rock report 1970:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...rt32_rock.html

'Professor William G. Wolfgang, Philadelphia College of Textiles, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, testified by conference telephone call that he is a member of the faculty with his pervious duty being the Director of Textile Apparel Research. He had the opportunity to examine the testimony of witness Browning, the forensic chemist from the CID Lab, as well as the CID Lab Reports relative to thread (yarns) and fibers.

Wolfgang stated that in order to properly compare fibers of a mixed variety (cotton polyester, for example) the chemist needs at least a gram of the material; for yarns, he needs a piece at least a yard long. "In textile identification we can actually say a lot more about where things didn't come from than where they did." (p 1174) Also, in identifying fibers, he said "you could say it could have come from a particular source, but you cannot say with any degree of certainty that it did come from it." (p 1175)

(IO's note - CID Chemist Browning used the same identification terminology, "could have", reference fibers in paragraph 26 of Exhibit G-7. (p 1154-1176)'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th December 2020 at 12:11 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2020, 09:35 PM   #2195
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still maintain that there are grave doubts about the identification of those fibers found under Colette's body. Without questioning the integrity of Ivory he just says he found something like 32 pajama fibers under Colette's body even though he is not a fiber expert. As I have said previously, even if they were pajama fibers, and as Segal said in his closing speech, that would not necessarily contradict what MacDonald said happened anyway.

I was interested to read in that Rock report that MacDonald said he left out some rubber gloves around the kitchen sink the previous evening from washing up which were gone when the crime scene was analysed. That's suspicious.

Part of the trouble is that all this so--called evidence is so complex and complicated and a juror just wants to keep it simple. From the Rock report 1970:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...rt32_rock.html

'Professor William G. Wolfgang, Philadelphia College of Textiles, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, testified by conference telephone call that he is a member of the faculty with his pervious duty being the Director of Textile Apparel Research. He had the opportunity to examine the testimony of witness Browning, the forensic chemist from the CID Lab, as well as the CID Lab Reports relative to thread (yarns) and fibers.

Wolfgang stated that in order to properly compare fibers of a mixed variety (cotton polyester, for example) the chemist needs at least a gram of the material; for yarns, he needs a piece at least a yard long. "In textile identification we can actually say a lot more about where things didn't come from than where they did." (p 1174) Also, in identifying fibers, he said "you could say it could have come from a particular source, but you cannot say with any degree of certainty that it did come from it." (p 1175)

(IO's note - CID Chemist Browning used the same identification terminology, "could have", reference fibers in paragraph 26 of Exhibit G-7. (p 1154-1176)'
None of your "grave doubts" about the fiber evidence found under Colette's body are included in the CID or FBI lab reports. Ivory collected 24, not 32, pajama fibers under Colette's body. In his closing arguments, Segal wisely avoided the inculpatory nature of the rayon fibers found on the club; the fiber from Kristen's multi-colored rug found in Colette's hand; the pajama fibers found under Colette's body; under the throw rug in the master bedroom; on top of the master bed; under Kimmie's bedcovers; under and on top of her pillows; under Kristen's bedcovers; and under Kristen's fingernail.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th December 2020 at 09:39 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 02:27 AM   #2196
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
There is documentation from Frier's assistant Kathy Bond that Murtagh asked for fibers to be identified prior to the trial. This never happened because Frier just said the black wool fibers were from an unknown source, so Murtagh just made it up at trial. It's just the same with the supposed rayon fibers from the throw rug which JTF seems so interested in and which I can't see have great forensic value.

JTF should lobby for Stombaugh and Malone and Shirley Green to be inducted into the Hall of Fame for their services to miscarriages of justice. Lawyers and journalists have no right to privacy.

MacDonalld himself explained the situation accurately and clearly to his own defense lawyers once:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...r-defense.html

'10. The crucial deception: See page 4,612. Murtaugh, [sic] the only person besides Frier who knew of the black wool, lies to the court and Bernie Segal. We stipulate that we agree Frier would testify to the other fibers, i.e. the rayon fibers matching the throw rug. No mention is made of Frier's crucial finding of two black wool fibers! Since we stipulate, Frier does not go on the stand; we can't cross-examine him, and we can't discover the crucial notes. Murtaugh [sic] has, as a safety valve, made the FBI typed report, but no mention is made of Frier's crucial finding in it (in addition, we do not believe the defense received the typed report anyway).

Thus, through clever slight-of-hand, Murtaugh [sic] has intentionally and knowingly suppressed the single most crucial piece of exculpatory material in the case other then the (also hidden) loss of skin from Colette's hand on which the blood type of Greg Mitchell was found!

The black wool fibers put assailants at the scene because the black wool on the club (and in Colette's mouth and on her pajama top) is not from a source in the house.

11. Then almost unbelievably, the government asks me on cross-examination (page 6791, Friday, August 24, 1979) to explain "two purple sewing threads identical to those from the pajama top". My answer: "I cannot".

But, the fibers were known by Murtaugh [sic] to be black wool from outside the house.

page 3

12. The final blow is in the closing argument. On August 28, 1979, Brian Murtaugh [sic] tells the jury that the government took two purple cotton sewing threads from the club. Then, Blackburn takes over and states they would throw out the whole shooting match except for two things: the pajama top and the club because two purple threads on the club matched the pajama top and I can't explain it.

And so, the crux of the government case is a knowing lie. The fibers on the club not only weren't blue cotton or purple cotton (they were black wool), but they also were from outside the house. And, when I couldn't answer the government's query based on a lie, I was convicted. The government had subverted discovery for so long we could never do our own testing, and Murtaugh [sic] ingeniously had us stipulate to the one witness most dangerous to the government cover-up and lie, James Frier. If he testified, his cross examination and notes would have provided the defense with knowledge of the real, exculpatory facts, and, would have implicated Frier, Clark and Murtaugh [sic] in the obstruction of justice (and probably Murtaugh [sic] perjury).

Attachment 1: Excerpt from trial transcript August 10, 1979'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th December 2020 at 02:31 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 05:04 AM   #2197
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
Rinse And Repeat

HENRI: Rinse and repeat away, but this well worn tactic of yours changes nothing about the inculpatory nature of the evidence in this case. This same evidence convinced a 1975 Grand Jury, a 1979 trial jury, 2 District Court judges, and 9 Fourth Circuit Court judges that inmate is guilty of slaughtering his family. Your penchant for distorting the documented record also turns your points of emphasis into worthless babble.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th December 2020 at 05:06 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 09:32 AM   #2198
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: Rinse and repeat away, but this well worn tactic of yours changes nothing about the inculpatory nature of the evidence in this case. This same evidence convinced a 1975 Grand Jury, a 1979 trial jury, 2 District Court judges, and 9 Fourth Circuit Court judges that inmate is guilty of slaughtering his family. Your penchant for distorting the documented record also turns your points of emphasis into worthless babble.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Juries are very likely to be wrong, particularly when they are never given the full facts of a case, and North Carolina judges like Judge Bryan and Judge King and Judge Fox are very bad judges. Judge Dupree was a classic case of judicial corruption.

This is a silly remark from Judge Dupree after an appeal by MacDonald as quoted by JTF's hero the drunken Irish son of a bitch McGinniss in his last book about the case Final Vision. No wonder the public scandals with regard to Irish nuns and the mysterious death of Irish babies. and Christian Brothers and their schools have never been made public until recently. What about black wool fibers with no known source then described as pajama fibers by the prosecution?:

https://www.bookscool.com/en/Final-V...ingle-391109/4

'MacDonald claimed that the allegedly suppressed evidence—in particular, handwritten lab notes referring to certain fibers—would have corroborated his story of drug-crazed hippies bursting into his home. Dupree found, however, that “close analysis of the factual fiber evidence at issue reveals that the fibers provide little, if any support for MacDonald’s account of the crimes.”

In short, the newly discovered notes about hairs and fibers not presented at trial did not provide evidence of intruders. They could have come from anyone who had ever been inside 544 Castle Drive, even before the MacDonald family had moved in. As Dupree put it, “The allegedly suppressed evidence would simply mirror other evidence of unexplained household debris that was presented to the jury.”

“In the end,” Dupree concluded, “the additional evidence has not changed the court’s opinion.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th December 2020 at 10:05 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 10:03 AM   #2199
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,988
Justice Marshall with two of his Supreme Court colleagues spoke sense about the MacDonald case in the 1982 court case which landed him in prison for the rest of his life. The trouble is they were in a minority. Not all judges in America are cretins, but not many, as far as I can judge, are good judges of character:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/456/1

'MacDonald was painfully aware of the ongoing Army and Justice Department investigations. He was interviewed again by military authorities soon after his honorable discharge. He repeatedly inquired about the progress of the investigations. He even proposed to submit to further interviews in order to speed final resolution of his case. MacDonald "realized that the favorable conclusion of the [military] proceedings was not the end of the government's efforts to convict him. Prudence obliged him to retain attorneys at his own expense for his continuing defense. He remained under suspicion and was subjected to the anxiety of the threat of another prosecution." MacDonald I, 531 F.2d, at 204 (footnote omitted). It is simply absurd to suggest that he has suffered no greater anxiety, disruption of employment, financial strain, or public obloquy than if the military charges had never been brought.

42
The majority's insistence that the dismissal of an indictment eliminates speedy trial protections is not only inconsistent with the language and policies of the Speedy Trial Clause and with this Court's decisions. It is also senseless.'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th December 2020 at 10:12 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2020, 12:30 PM   #2200
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,488
It's Over

For the past 38 years, inmate's defense team has had ample time to research and pitch evidentiary arguments that would provide inmate with a key to a new trial or freedom. Unsourced household debris, selected confessions, and DNA testing have not come close to providing inmate with that all elusive key. Inmate's defense team has always known that it was their burden to prove a band of hippie home invaders slaughtered a pregnant woman and two children at Fort Bragg. The appellate courts consistently reminded them that the burden was "daunting," yet despite this constant reminder, inmate's defense team continued to pitch the SAME evidentiary arguments. Not surprisingly, this repackaging of evidentiary arguments that previous appellate judges had deemed to "lack merit," failed to free inmate from his concrete bunker. Their only hope was to trust that DNA technology would definitively link Stoeckley and/or Mitchell to the crime scene. When that didn't happen, they combined a brand new confession with the same old evidentiary arguments. This gigantic waste of taxpayer money finally came to a crashing halt when inmate's defense team brought a pillow to a 2012 evidentiary bazooka fight. In the past 8 years, this mass of inculpatory evidence has stood strong and even inmate knows that the legal phase of this case is finally over.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th December 2020 at 12:44 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.