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

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


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

Reply
Old 19th September 2018, 02:05 AM   #361
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
The Army CID is about as incompetent as the Portuguese police. Judge Fox should be charged with perverting the course of justice.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 02:27 AM   #362
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
After the "bad guys" left, he was okay, he was walking around, checking on things (in the dark, remember, no prints were found on the light switches and the lights were off when Henri's beau was on the couch). This wasn't one foot, this was both feet in his own mouth. And he put them there.
You seem to be under the impression that the apartment was in total darkness at the time of the MacDonald murders. The bathroom light was on for a start.

The matter is mentioned in the Rock report after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 if you scroll down to the bottom of the page:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...970-10-13.html

Quote:
Number seven, I simulated the lighting conditions as per the accused's testimony. From a prone position on the couch, the length of which I noted, I was able to discern the facial features of Captain Beale at the end of the couch.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th September 2018 at 02:29 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 19th September 2018, 08:54 AM   #363
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
There is a bit about the lighting conditions in MacDonald's testimony at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970:

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

Quote:
Q What did you do next after you pulled the knife out of your wife's chest?
A As I was walking towards my wife in the bedroom -- I don't know whether or not -- I must have. You just walk in the door; the light switch is on the right side of the door. Probably as I walked in I -- put it on, and I was -- and as I was looking at her I was taking off the pajama top that was around my hands, and I dropped it.
Q Let me ask you this about the lights. Were you aware of any change in the lights in your house when you became conscious and went back towards the master bedroom from the way it had been when you had gone to sleep on the sofa?
A No, I'm not aware of any changes.
Q As far as you can recall, was there a light on in the kitchen at that time?
A Right.
Q And was there a light on in the bathroom?
A Right.
Q So then describe what you did after you went into the master bedroom and turned the light on. Go on from there, please.
A I was taking this pajama top off my hands and I threw it away or something, dropped it, and I took the knife out of her chest, and I probably checked her pulse.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th September 2018 at 08:56 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2018, 01:31 PM   #364
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
This Is Too Easy

Kudos to Henriboy for including the following Article 32 testimony in a recent post.

Q So then describe what you did after you went into the master bedroom and turned the light on. Go on from there, please.

A I was taking this pajama top off my hands and I threw it away or something, dropped it, and I took the knife out of her chest, and I probably checked her pulse.

Gotta luv how a psychopath can lie with a straight face. Inmate admits that he took off his torn pajama top when he "found" Colette on the master bedroom floor, yet this lie is at odds with the fiber evidence found in all three bedrooms. Fibers sourced to the torn left seam/sleeve of his torn pajama top were found under Colette's body, on top of the master bed, under Kimmie's bedcovers, under Kimmie's pillow, under Kristen's bedcovers, and under Kristen's fingernail.

The ripples of this lie extend to the blood evidence (e.g., six Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, four Type A blood stains on the left side of the garment) found on the pajama top and pajama fibers found in other crucial locations (e.g., club, bathrobe, near the master bed headboard, bundled bedding, and entwined with Colette's bloody head hair) at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th September 2018 at 01:37 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 September 2018, 04:46 AM   #365
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Advocates Exposed By Case Documentation

The beauty of the Internet is that it provides MacDonald case researchers with the tools to separate fact from fiction. From 1983-2002, inmate's advocates were able to talk the talk, but the subsequent availability of case documentation destroyed their ability to walk the walk. This includes case issues both big and small. I ran across this little nugget about an hour ago.

SOURCE: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...f_murtagh.html

ISSUE: Response to a claim put forth in Ted Gunderson's 1980 MacDonald Case Report.

QUOTE: The Gunderson Report claimed at Volume I Page 196A that alleged murderer Mazerolle was not in custody at the time of the murders, but free on bail. The FBI investigation revealed that this was incorrect and that Gunderson and would-be author Bost, had both blundered. Mazerolle was in jail at the time of the murders.

Nice job, Brian. From now on, I will refer to Ted Gunderson and Fred Bost as the Blunder Twins.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th September 2018 at 04:51 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 20th September 2018, 05:03 AM   #366
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
ISSUE: Response to a claim put forth in Ted Gunderson's 1980 MacDonald Case Report.

QUOTE: The Gunderson Report claimed at Volume I Page 196A that alleged murderer Mazerolle was not in custody at the time of the murders, but free on bail. The FBI investigation revealed that this was incorrect and that Gunderson and would-be author Bost, had both blundered. Mazerolle was in jail at the time of the murders.
JTF - I seem to recall that it was investigator Ray Shedlick that first created this "ignorance" on the part of Gunderson and Bost. Not a direct quote, but he basically said that he'd requested the bail/bonds information for Mazzerolle and a co-defendant (not one of the 7 people Stoeckley named) and he received envelopes with bail paperwork inside. HOWEVER, he admitted that he didn't bother to read both packages, as he'd seen the co-defendant was bailed out prior to 2/17/70. The other envelope contained Mazzerolle's documentation that showed he had been unable to raise bail and he remained in jail on 2/17/70. Shedlick admitted that he ASSUMED both men were bailed out at the same time. It was apparently some time later that he opened the second set of documentation and realized his error.

Of course, all these years later the conspiracy theorists stick with the reports that were made in error.....ignorance to the nth degree!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 08:39 AM   #367
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
yet this lie is at odds with the fiber evidence found in all three bedrooms. Fibers sourced to the torn left seam/sleeve of his torn pajama top were found under Colette's body, on top of the master bed, under Kimmie's bedcovers, under Kimmie's pillow, under Kristen's bedcovers, and under Kristen's fingernail.

The ripples of this lie extend to the blood evidence (e.g., six Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, four Type A blood stains on the left side of the garment) found on the pajama top and pajama fibers found in other crucial locations (e.g., club, bathrobe, near the master bed headboard, bundled bedding, and entwined with Colette's bloody head hair) at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Detective Beasley saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. He said he thought Mazerolle was on bail. Mazerolle just forged false documentation, like a false passport, to give him a cast iron alibi, probably with the help of some corrupt people at the local jail. That's what so confused Gunderson and Fred Bost later on.

What may I ask is the significance of the pajama fibers and blood stains which JTF always says is conclusive evidence of guilt? The prosecution never had a qualified serologist, apart from Glisson of the army CID lab, and she was in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI about it. Still she kept her trap shut about it.

Browning of the CID lab had two months training in fibers. This matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 with the textile expert Professor Wofgang:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-wolfgang.html

Quote:
Q Professor Wolfgang, assuming that certain fibers from a garment such as men's pajamas were found, some on a rug, some on bed sheets, some in other places in contact with the house, is there ways of determining from an examination of the fibers themselves, how they came to be on the rug and sheet and other places?
A No.
Q Is there any way of determining from the examination of the fibers as to whether they were torn from the garment or they had fallen from the garment, or had merely just disintegrated after considerable wear?
A No. There are some extenuating circumstances in which it might be possible. In general, however, no.
Q Was there anything in the report prepared by Mr. Browning that you examined, or in his testimony that you read, that indicated that such extenuating circumstances were present and that he testified to in his examinations?
A Not that I noticed.
Q Is there any way of telling from the examination of fibers that there were found, again in the same places as I described a moment ago, how long those fibers had lain, or been in the position that they were prior to being collected?
A By examination of the fibers, no.
Q Professor Wolfgang, again based upon your examination of the materials that we have submitted to you in writing, did you find that there was any basis upon which Mr. Browning could testify to reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the fibers and threads being definitely from the tops of the pair of pajamas that he had submitted to him?
A No. There are -- perhaps, I don't know whether you want this qualified or not --
Q Go right ahead.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th September 2018 at 08:42 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 12:19 PM   #368
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Detective Beasley saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders.
No he did not.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He said he thought Mazerolle was on bail.
He did not see him out on bail, he had a brain disease and by the time he was asked about the situation he had already been confabulating. I know you hate it when we insist on clouding your prejudices with FACTS but FACTS are FACTS Mazzerolle did not make bail until March 10, 1970 period.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle just forged false documentation, like a false passport, to give him a cast iron alibi, probably with the help of some corrupt people at the local jail.
No, Mazzerolle would not have had the ability to "forge" his bail papers to show that he was IN JAIL when he was not. The bail records are "insurance" based and records are meticulously kept. As I stated earlier, Ray Shedlick, an investigator hired by inmate ADMITTED that he had ASSUMED that Mazzerolle got bailed out at the same time as his co-defendant BUT THAT HE WAS IN ERROR. That means he was wrong henri. the official documentation is correct that Mazzerolle was in jail locked up by PEB himself and was not in any way involved in the murders.

inmate is the sole perp. period.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's what so confused Gunderson and Fred Bost later on.
Gunderson was an idiotic conspiracy theorist he wasn't confused he CHOSE to ignore the admission by Ray Shedlick. that doesn't mean he was confused it means he ignored things that he didn't want to believe. FACTS are FACTS and Allen Mazzerolle was in jail and NOT involved in the murders. PERIOD.

JTF - you can take on henri's other ridiculous comments about serologist and fiber examiners etc.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2018, 03:40 PM   #369
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Crazy Town

BYN: It would be my pleasure. I found it somewhat disturbing that Henriboy is asking a question to which he already knows the answer. Welcome to Crazy Town.

Inmate's fabricated story about fighting 3 armed men in his living room laid the groundwork for the significance of the pajama fiber and bloodstain evidence. For his story to have any forensic significance, fibers from his torn pajama top would have been present in the living room and not under bodies, bedcovers, pillows, wrapped around bloody head hairs, and under fingernails.

His wife's blood would not be present on his pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn, Kimmie's blood would not be present on his pajama top, and bloody cuff impressions from his left and right pajama sleeves would not have been present on the blue bedsheet. Inmate's bloody bare footprints would also not have been present on Kristen's bedroom floor/hallway floor.

This is just a bare bones presentation of the inculpatory pajama fiber/bloodstain evidence in this case, but 99 percent of the posters on this thread have a clear understanding of why inmate was convicted in less than 7 hours.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th September 2018 at 03:41 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 September 2018, 07:26 PM   #370
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 443
Henri: Your boy Beasley also thought that the CID would violate their authority and invade the jurisdiction of the Fayetteville PD without a warrant and come and get his "bad guys". Unfortunately, the CID, not being the Keystone Cops you think they are, very properly stayed on post, where they had jurisdiction. Have you tried a reading for comprehension course, because this has been pointed out to you before - the CID, being the Army's investigation unit, cannot operate off post without the presence of a local police officer. What part of this is eluding you?

Last edited by desmirelle; 20th September 2018 at 07:28 PM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 02:30 AM   #371
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Gunderson was an idiotic conspiracy theorist he wasn't confused he CHOSE to ignore the admission by Ray Shedlick. that doesn't mean he was confused it means he ignored things that he didn't want to believe. FACTS are FACTS and Allen Mazzerolle was in jail and NOT involved in the murders. PERIOD.

JTF - you can take on henri's other ridiculous comments about serologist and fiber examiners etc.
I appreciate that the Army CID felt the MacDonald murders were their jurisdiction, but the local police, which included Detective Beasley and the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation obviously felt they were involved in any high profile murder case like that.

What about Mazerolle not turning up for his drugs court case on the day after the murders then, and then he promptly went on the run? He was required to attend court that day at the request of the majesty of American law. Was he sick, or far more likely he jumped bail? Mazerolle never finally attended court on that drugs charge until about a year later when most people had forgotten about it. The Article 32 proceedings were over then, by which time he had been in and out of jail in other parts of the country on other charges.
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 September 2018, 02:41 AM   #372
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
There is an interesting posting on the internet about the MacDonald case, with which I agree:

Quote:
The belief that Dr. MacDonald, (or anyone) would stab himself in the chest is a bogus one set forth by army investigators. It’s funny how being a doctor is another reason that would point to his being guilty (the army would want you to believe.) It is not “universally accepted”, Dr. MacDonald had to have two operations on his chest and spent 9 days in ICU. There was never a motive for him to commit this crime no matter what the army, Joe McGinniss or Bob Stevenson would like you to think. The crime scene was a complete mess and the investigation was botched. Prosecutors Jim Blackburn and Brian Murtagh withheld evidence that could have cleared Dr. MacDonald of this crime. The army illegally pursued Dr. MacDonald when he was released from the army and told Freddy Kassab untruthful stories to get him to change his mind about Dr. MacDonald. I look forward to the day when he will be cleared like Michael Morton and hope the prosecutors in his trial will also have to pay.
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 September 2018, 02:58 AM   #373
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
His wife's blood would not be present on his pajama top in 10 locations before it was torn, Kimmie's blood would not be present on his pajama top, and bloody cuff impressions from his left and right pajama sleeves would not have been present on the blue bedsheet. Inmate's bloody bare footprints would also not have been present on Kristen's bedroom floor/hallway floor.

This is just a bare bones presentation of the inculpatory pajama fiber/bloodstain evidence in this case, but 99 percent of the posters on this thread have a clear understanding of why inmate was convicted in less than 7 hours.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The footprints are a load of crap. There was disagreement between the various CID forensic technicians about those footprints and MacDonald himself never denied that his footprints could have been at the crime scene.

It looks like the MacDonald defense recruited a real blood expert to help out Dr. Thornton with the blood evidence, called Charles Morton. Stombaugh of the FBI was never a real blood expert and Laber and Chamberlain of the CID lab were very inexperienced at the time.

Morton's trial testimony is at:

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

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Morton, were you present -- you don't even look alike -- just the beards. That's all. Were you present in this court during the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh -- Mr. Paul Stombaugh -- formerly of the FBI?
A Yes; I was.
Q Did you hear his testimony in regard to the sheet taken from the master bedroom of the MacDonald house?
A Yes; I did.
Q And I want to hand you this sheet again -- 211 -- and just let me leave this here for a few minutes and take these other things away. Were you present when Mr. Stombaugh testified that in the area he has marked "G" he found an impression in blood that he described as one which conforms to the right cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top?
A Yes; I was.
Q Now, based upon your own knowledge, information, experience, and your own examination in this matter, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the impression that Mr. Stombaugh identified as "G" was made or could have been made by the pajama cuff of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes; I do.
Q And what is your opinion, sir?
A That it was not.
Q It was not.
A That is correct.
Q By the way, I perhaps presumed something I hadn't fully stated. Had you examined that sheet you have in front of you prior to my handing it to you today?
A Yes; I have.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st September 2018 at 03:00 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 21st September 2018, 04:13 AM   #374
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I appreciate that the Army CID felt the MacDonald murders were their jurisdiction, but the local police, which included Detective Beasley and the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation obviously felt they were involved in any high profile murder case like that.
Nope, NCBI and the Fayetteville police did not repeat DID NOT have jurisdiction. EVEN IF PEB's claims were true the CID would not and could not have "come and get 'em" because THAT would have been outside their jurisdiction. HOWEVER, PEB did not ever collect the "suspects" nor did he call the CID to say he had them and for the CID to come get them. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
What about Mazerolle not turning up for his drugs court case on the day after the murders then,
First, other than from YOU I have never heard that he was due in court on 2/18/70. Second, if he really was due in court his lawyer would have known that, he would have shown up in court and reported that his client was in jail. The court would then have either directed the police to bring him to court or he/she would have taken some other action i.e, reschedule the hearing, or make the judgement without AM being present.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and then he promptly went on the run?
He did not go on the run because HE WAS IN JAIL UNTIL MARCH 10, 1970. What part of he didn't make bail do you NOT understand. HE WAS IN CUSTODY, THERE IS PLENTY OF CERTIFIED/VERIFIED documentation proving this to be the case. YOUR RIDICULOUS REPETITION OF THE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY TO DO NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS FACTUAL. Even the defense does not believe that Allen M was involved.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He was required to attend court that day at the request of the majesty of American law.
When someone has a criminal court appearance but is in jail there lawyer/public defender appears for them and reports the jailed status to Court. The court then makes the determination on whether or not to have the jail bring the defendant, reschedule the hearing, or make the judgement without the defendant present. Nothing odd or unusual about that, happens all the time. THE FACT IS THAT ALLEN M WAS IN JAIL HAVING NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO BAIL HIMSELF OUT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Was he sick, or far more likely he jumped bail?
He may or may not have been unwell, BUT HE WAS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOVER IN CUSTODY. HE WAS SITTING IN A JAIL CELL AND HAD BEEN SINCE JANUARY. AM had been unable to raise enough money to get bailed out. IN FACT, it was almost another month before he was able to secure bail.

Allen had not yet been bailed out so therefore he could not have jumped bail. He was sitting in the jail cell that he was placed in by PEB for drugs in January 1970. He did not get bailed out until March 10, 1970. The defense KNOWS this is FACT. YOU KNOW it is FACT because I have told you so at least a hundred times. you are being ignorant and refusing to accept the facts and it is long past time that you knock it off. your man crush is guilty - he has been PROVEN guilty.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle never finally attended court on that drugs charge until about a year later when most people had forgotten about it.
So what? there are often long periods of time between the arrest on drug charges and the court date. there are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for this circumstance. HOWEVER, it is of no concern of yours or of any value to inmate to probe these causes because ALLEN MAZZEROLE WAS IN JAIL ON 2/17/70 AND COULD NOT REPEAT COULD NOT AND WAS NOT REPEAT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS.

Inmate was the one who brutally and savagely slaughtered Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy and his unborn son. That has been proven and that is why he is in prison.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Article 32 proceedings were over then, by which time he had been in and out of jail in other parts of the country on other charges.
What does the Article 32 have to do with anything? Allen M may or may not have continued to have legal issues over the years and all over the US, but it is irrelevant to the discussions at hand. He was not involved in the murders, you know that, it has been proven beyond all doubt. FACT FACT FACT
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 04:27 AM   #375
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The footprints are a load of crap. There was disagreement between the various CID forensic technicians about those footprints
No the BLOODY FOOTPRINTS were not/are not "crap". they are valid forensic evidence.

Only 1 print examiner was able to examine the prints "in situ" and he compared them to Colette, inmate, and Ron Harrison exemplars. He stated they were inmate's prints and that you could tell he was carrying something of significant weight.

The other print examiner had to try and make the comparison using photos because when they attempted to remove the floor with the bloody footprints the prints were damaged. The 2nd examiner could not see sufficient ridge detail to be certain. Thus at trial, as is SOP the terms used were "appears to be".....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and MacDonald himself never denied that his footprints could have been at the crime scene.
It would have been incredibly ridiculous for him to claim otherwise. HOWEVER, the real issues were:

1. the only bloody footprints found in the house were exiting kristen's room
2. the only bloody footprints were of bare feet AND inmate himself put all the alleged intruders in either shoes or boots.

The fact that the only bloody footprints were made exiting a room AND in a blood type that was not on the floor in the rest of the room is quite telling. This shows that inmate moved Colette (the significant weight he was carrying), thus proving that he staged the crime scene.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It looks like the MacDonald defense recruited a real blood expert to help out Dr. Thornton with the blood evidence, called Charles Morton.
roflmao! that didn't work out so well him. Drs Thorton and Morton did not help inmate at all at trial. The majority of what they testified to only supported the government's case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh of the FBI was never a real blood expert
Yes he was, Judge Dupree accepted him as an expert witness therefore HE WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS. Also, this was not his first or last appearance at a trial as an expert. Just because YOU don't want him to be an expert doesn't mean he was not. AND, Drs. T and M agreed with a large amount of Stombaugh's testimony - so if THEY are experts then so is Stombaugh.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Laber and Chamberlain of the CID lab were very inexperienced at the time.
I don't know if they were really inexperienced or not, BUT it has no bearing on their testimony. Terry Laber's testimony was so strong that Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine him. Do you know why? When a defense attorney does not cross-examine it is usually because to do so would only strengthen the testimony. Bernie knew that he could not discount TL's findings and therefore chose to not cross-examine in hopes the jury would not look too closely. IT DIDN'T WORK, THE JURY WAS IMPRESSED WITH LABER'S TESTIMONY. FOUND IT HIGHLY VALUABLE TOO!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 06:07 AM   #376
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 946
Quote:
request of the majesty of American law.
there is no such thing. please stop making stuff up.
Whip 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 September 2018, 07:12 AM   #377
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
there is no such thing. please stop making stuff up.
Uh, good luck with this; at least three of us have been dealing with him (under at least two other aliases) for a decade or more. He ignores anything that doesn't fit with his delusion (see Darlie Routier thread and I'm worried for Burke Ramsey because Henri is supporting him). The only thing I can credit him with is consistency: he is consistently WRONG, hence the "majesty" nonsense.

Mazzerolle is a perfect example of this: it's been proven that the lad was in jail that night, but because ONE person (with brain disease) THINKS he saw him, Henri goes on as if it's truth. Sad, really.

You'll notice that he rarely addresses anything pointed out to him, except with strawman excuses: the bathroom light was on, so apparently Mac could examine and perform CPR on his daughters from that light alone. The lights in the bedrooms where the bodies were are off, but that bathroom light provided enough light for everything Mac did before the MPs arrived. Henri ignores the fact that there were no fingerprints on the light switches, and instead focuses on the "bathroom light was on".
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 07:27 AM   #378
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Nope, NCBI and the Fayetteville police did not repeat DID NOT have jurisdiction. EVEN IF PEB's claims were true the CID would not and could not have "come and get 'em" because THAT would have been outside their jurisdiction. HOWEVER, PEB did not ever collect the "suspects" nor did he call the CID to say he had them and for the CID to come get them. IT DID NOT HAPPEN

You are inventing it all
Edited by Agatha:  Removed rule breach
Detective Beasley explained exactly what happened in a 1984 affidavit. His daughter has since written that he knew what happened, but he was not believed, and that everything he said up to the trial is true despite his later health problems:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...984-03-27.html

Quote:
I radioed the police department and advised them to call the Army CID. I told them I had found suspects in the murders. Over an hour passed and no assistance arrived, so I was forced to release them because they became threatening to me.

Last edited by Agatha; 21st September 2018 at 01:00 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 21st September 2018, 07:44 AM   #379
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I don't know if they were really inexperienced or not, BUT it has no bearing on their testimony. Terry Laber's testimony was so strong that Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine him. Do you know why? When a defense attorney does not cross-examine it is usually because to do so would only strengthen the testimony. Bernie knew that he could not discount TL's findings and therefore chose to not cross-examine in hopes the jury would not look too closely. IT DIDN'T WORK, THE JURY WAS IMPRESSED WITH LABER'S TESTIMONY. FOUND IT HIGHLY VALUABLE TOO!
This is how very inexperienced Laber was at the time. it looks like a few months to me:

Quote:
A I was assigned to the United States Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Q When was that, if you know, sir?
A I believe that was in September of 1969.
Q Now, what training did you receive at the laboratory upon arrival?
A I received on-the-job training at the laboratory, and I received training in the field of drug analysis and blood stain analysis.
Q Okay; and from whom did you receive your training in blood stain analysis?
A From Janice Glisson.
Q Okay; and approximately when did you start your blood training and when did you complete it?
A I started blood training approximately the 2nd of November, 1969, and completed the training approximately the 1st of January.
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 September 2018, 07:51 AM   #380
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Henri ignores the fact that there were no fingerprints on the light switches, and instead focuses on the "bathroom light was on".
This matter of fingerprints on the light switches was discussed at the MacDonald trial with fingerprint expert Osterberg who was "totally mystified" by the CID fingerprint investigation:

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

Quote:
But first of all, to repeat my general question: based upon the information that was given in the briefing by the CID lab team, including Mr. Medlin and Mr. Turbyfill, concerning the events that they knew had taken place February 17, 1970, in your opinion, based upon your experience and your expertise, do you have an opinion as to whether the crime scene was fully processed for fingerprints as would be required by good crime scene processing practices?
A I do have such an opinion.
Q And what is your opinion in regard to the adequacy of the crime scene fingerprint processing in this case?
A The crime scene was grossly under processed.
Q When you say "grossly under processed," what do you mean?
A Well, there are obvious areas where anyone trained in fingerprint processing of a crime scene would have processed. And there is no evidence, based on my examination Saturday, that those areas were indeed processed.
Q And are you basing that statement not only on your observations but on reading Mr. Medlin's testimony in these proceedings here?
A Mr. Medlin said he processed everything that didn't move, as I recall.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: Well, I will SUSTAIN that. Don't consider that, members of the jury.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Osterburg, would you take, for instance, the first example of what you think is an instance of gross under processing of the crime scene for fingerprints?
A Well, upon entering from the rear door into the utility room, immediately to the left is a light switch.
Q Can you hold on for one second. Let's see if we can get our model, which has been neglected for a few days, back into position.

(Pause.)

Q May I ask, Mr. Osterburg, if you would come down, please, and indicate if you would--there is a pointer right back of your chair there--if you would indicate to the members of the jury the first of these areas that you are referring to?
A Yes. There was a light switch in this area, and so when the door was opened if the lights were on or off it is possible someone would, in moving, in touch to see the wall--what's present. There was no evidence of processing of that area around the light switch whatsoever.
Q Is that a usual or unusual place for a fingerprint processor to be looking for fingerprints?
A Well, of course, that's where you would look for fingerprints.
Q Now, proceeding past that, were there any other places in that area that you found were neglected for processing fingerprints?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st September 2018 at 07:53 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 September 2018, 08:20 AM   #381
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Mazzerolle is a perfect example of this: it's been proven that the lad was in jail that night, but because ONE person (with brain disease) THINKS he saw him, Henri goes on as if it's truth. Sad, really.
This is what Detective Beasley said about Mazerolle from a previous posting of mine on this forum in 2015, which I think is true. Beasley once described Mazerolle as a "hard cookie" which I also think is true. The annoying thing is somebody once posted that Mazerolle is now prospering in New Jersey. I suppose crime can pay and there are murderers who never get caught or punished:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...php?p=10891246

Quote:
It is interesting to note that Mazerolle claims he was in jail the night of the MacDonald murders. He claims he can prove this from Superior Court records in Cumberland County. I have been told there is a slip of paper in the court records that shows Mazerolle was in jail the night of 2/16-17/70. These records are available to the public.

[page 7]

I know Mazerolle was not in jail 2/16-17/70 because I arrested him in January 1970 and recall that the trial was set for Mazerolle the day of 2/17/70. If Mazerolle had been in Jail that date (2/16-17/70) he would have been available for trial on 2/17/70, and I would have appeared in court as a witness. John De Carter of the Sheriff's office was with me in the arrest of Rizzo and Mazerolle and he would have also had to appear in court 2/17/70. I specifically recall that I did not appear in court on any case at the Cumberland County Court House on 2/17/70. I was on the street all day looking for suspects on the MacDonald murders.

I don't recall that Mazerolle was out on bail, but I believe he was, or he would have appeared in court 2/17/70.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st September 2018 at 08:27 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 September 2018, 10:25 AM   #382
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Two Finger Diet

How do you know when you have shaken Henriboy's fixed delusional system? Well, he produces several consecutive posts, and the content of those posts are word for word regurgitations from prior posts on this and other forums.

The landlord of MacFantasy Island probably isn't up to speed on inmate's 2005 parole hearing, the 2006 DNA test results, and/or the 2012 evidentiary hearing. Why bother with updated case data when you can repeat debunked defense claims from the 1970's?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 11:25 AM   #383
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Removed rule breach
Edited by Agatha:  Removed response to rule breach


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Detective Beasley explained exactly what happened in a 1984 affidavit.
What part of CONFABULATION do you NOT understand?

CONFABULATE (psychiatric meaning) to replace FACT with FANTASY in memory.

By the time PEB "created" his 1984 affidavit he was seriously ill with the inorganic brain disease that he suffered. there were serious gaps in his memory and he "made up" what in his mind seemed like his reasonable behavior. THE PROBLEM is that despite his years of keeping detailed notes of all his "stops", "arrests", or even "contact cards" there WERE NONE of these to support his story of gathering up the "suspects and calling CID". Another ISSUE as several us of pointed out....CID would not have "gone to get 'em" even if he had called them to say he had them all corralled. That would have been outside the jurisdiction of the CID. On base CID off base PEB and the twain do not meet.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
His daughter has since written that he knew what happened, but he was not believed, and that everything he said up to the trial is true despite his later health problems:
the daughter can say whatever she wants, doesn't make it true. it is just like what you write henri....just because you write it doesn't make it true. As for the "later" health problems....they WERE NOT LATER he was already seriously ill by the time of the murders, and he became increasingly symptomatic. sad but true....

Last edited by Agatha; 21st September 2018 at 01:01 PM.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 11:28 AM   #384
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is how very inexperienced Laber was at the time. it looks like a few months to me:
I don't know if they were really inexperienced or not, BUT it has no bearing on their testimony.

I don't care if it looks like "a matter of days" to you.

The FACT is that Terry Laber's testimony was so strong that Bernie Segal didn't even cross-examine him. Do you know why? When a defense attorney does not cross-examine it is usually because to do so would only strengthen the testimony. Bernie knew that he could not discount TL's findings and therefore chose to not cross-examine in hopes the jury would not look too closely. IT DIDN'T WORK, THE JURY WAS IMPRESSED WITH LABER'S TESTIMONY. FOUND IT HIGHLY VALUABLE TOO!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2018, 01:58 PM   #385
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Irrelevancies

Once more, all Henri's rantings are irrelevant sideshows designed to pretend there's some type of confusion here.

Who cares if Mazzerolle was standing outside MacD's dwelling that night! There is ZERO evidence that he was inside that apartment, and that is ALL that matters.
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 September 2018, 02:49 AM   #386
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Bernie knew that he could not discount TL's findings and therefore chose to not cross-examine in hopes the jury would not look too closely. IT DIDN'T WORK, THE JURY WAS IMPRESSED WITH LABER'S TESTIMONY. FOUND IT HIGHLY VALUABLE TOO!
Mazerolle is very proud of what he considers to be his superiority in brains over the police and FBI and Army CID, and of his categorical and vehement denials, and his fake cast-iron alibi.

The point is that only real experts can give their opinions in a federal case under the federal rules of evidence. Laber of the CID lab was very inexperienced. Stombaugh of the FBI was never a blood man. Neither of them should have been pontificating in a murder case about pajama pockets or fabric impression bloodstains. Glisson of the Army CID lab was a qualified serologist and she should have testified about things like the pajama pocket. A qualified serologist from the FBI should have testified about the pajama top and bedsheet blood evidence. Glisson was in disagreement with Stombaugh about the fabric impressions.

It's what is known technically as bending the rules, like the Brady violations and secret evidence against Helena Stoeckley, and refusal by Dupree to allow the jury to hear psychiatric testimony which supported MacDonald because he didn't want a battle of the experts.

The Laber testimony at the MacDonald trial was a farce. Much of it was taken up with Judge Dupree discussing parking arrangements for journalists and a future visit by the jury to the crime scene. This did not leave much time for Segal to cross-examine Laber even if he knew what Laber was talking about at the time. The disastrous result for MacDonald is that the simple-minded jury and 4th Circuit judges got it into their heads that Laber and Stombaugh were somehow proving MacDonald guilt with their "only said it could be" testimony, as Murtagh put it at the trial to Judge Dupree.

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

Quote:
MR. CRAWLEY: One of the members of the press had inquired as to whether they would be able to go through the place after the jury had seen it.

THE COURT: Just say absolutely not. I see no point in contaminating a place with a whole bevy of people going in and out. Tell them when the case is over they can see it if they want to.

MR. SEGAL: We will probably want to look at it afterwards for Defense purposes while it is opened up, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Another thing I mention to you, too: a visiting judge, a friend of mine from West Virginia, who is going to be holding court the week of the 13th in Fayetteville, I thought that while he was down there it would be a nice thing to run down there and take him to dinner some night or show some kind of appreciation for his helping us out.
I might just ask that the thing be made available to me and perhaps him, too, more to say that "I have seen it all," and that we would run out there; but I would not think that that would require the presence of Counsel or press or anybody else. In fact, it shouldn't even be advertised.

MR. SEGAL: Agreeable.

THE COURT: I don't know that I will do that but it is just a thought that occurred to me.

MR. SMITH: As the jurors are walking through the house, are they to be instructed not to touch or can they touch -- for example, I can imagine if I were on a jury, I would want to walk over to where the dishes were and touch the dishes -- you know, touch --

THE COURT: Well, these are details that I wanted counsel to express themselves on.

MR. SEGAL: We filed a Memorandum on it, Your Honor. I don't know whether you received it. We filed a Memorandum in this regard this morning.

THE COURT: I haven't seen it.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd September 2018 at 02:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2018, 11:23 AM   #387
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 443
Hmmmm. "I don't recall that Mazerolle was out on bail...…."

And it's on this hill Henri choses to die re the matter of Mazerolle's involvement...."I think" from a man with inorganic brain disease. Why, Henri's even imagining how Mazerolle feels about outwitting the police (apparently by getting out of jail, committing murder and getting back into jail without anyone noticing).

Last edited by desmirelle; 22nd September 2018 at 11:24 AM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2018, 09:40 PM   #388
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Still Waiting

HENRIBOY: Still waiting (e.g., 15 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Knowing that this was their last shot at garnering a new trial for inmate, the MacDonald Defense Team had to present such an item at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. This was the only way they could meet their "daunting burden," yet they couldn't walk the walk. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2018, 02:50 AM   #389
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
No the BLOODY FOOTPRINTS were not/are not "crap". they are valid forensic evidence.

Only 1 print examiner was able to examine the prints "in situ" and he compared them to Colette, inmate, and Ron Harrison exemplars. He stated they were inmate's prints and that you could tell he was carrying something of significant weight.

The other print examiner had to try and make the comparison using photos because when they attempted to remove the floor with the bloody footprints the prints were damaged. The 2nd examiner could not see sufficient ridge detail to be certain. Thus at trial, as is SOP the terms used were "appears to be".....



It would have been incredibly ridiculous for him to claim otherwise. HOWEVER, the real issues were:

1. the only bloody footprints found in the house were exiting kristen's room
2. the only bloody footprints were of bare feet AND inmate himself put all the alleged intruders in either shoes or boots.

The fact that the only bloody footprints were made exiting a room AND in a blood type that was not on the floor in the rest of the room is quite telling. This shows that inmate moved Colette (the significant weight he was carrying), thus proving that he staged the crime scene.
The footprint evidence in the MacDonald case is typical "only said it could be" stuff and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. Dr. Thornton always maintained that he had heard that the Army CID lab had made mistakes before with read to blood typing. There was a very heated exchange between Segal and the very inexperienced Army CID lab man Craig Chamberlain about it at the trial asking him if he had ever made mistakes.

There used to be correspondence between the various CID lab forensic technicians about the footprints, on the internet, in which they were skeptical about the footprint conclusions, and about Turbyfill in particular which I now can't find. Helena Stoeckley never said Colette was moved from room to room.

There is a bit about the matter at this website which makes sense to me:

http://dingeengoete.blogspot.com/201...macdonald.html

Quote:
The bloody footprints on the bedspread
The government asserted that MacDonald left two bloody footprints on a blood-soaked bedspread as he transported Colette's body from one room to another. Well after the trial the defense team learned that the FBI laboratory had repeatedly tested the bedspread looking for footprints and found none. Of course, this information had been withheld from the defense and the prosecution continued to press its claim at the trial.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd September 2018 at 03:03 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 September 2018, 08:39 AM   #390
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Still waiting (e.g., 15 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Knowing that this was their last shot at garnering a new trial for inmate, the MacDonald Defense Team had to present such an item at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. This was the only way they could meet their "daunting burden," yet they couldn't walk the walk. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
You don't catch thieves and murderers or fraudsters or shady lawyers if you don't investigate them. The MacDonald Defense Team are not professional detectives and neither are the Army CID.
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 September 2018, 08:48 AM   #391
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
MacDonald lawyer Eisman made the sensible remark to my mind at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 that the wooden club murder weapon would have been dripping with blood of the various victims and that could easily caused contamination on floors and ceilings of different rooms. That made the Army CID apt to jump to conclusions about moving bodies. Army CID agent Shaw had the ridiculous theory without facts that Colette murdered one of the little girls which so enraged MacDonald that he then killed Colette and the other little girl to prevent having a witness. The matter is discussed with MacDonald lawyers here:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...pa32-shaw.html

Quote:
QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q In your opinion, then, Colette attacked the child in the north bedroom and again, you feel that Captain MacDonald possibly saw this or came in and became enraged because he saw this and thereupon attacked Mrs. MacDonald, is that correct?
A If you will bear in mind that I have no real basis for that opinion, just a thought. It is a theory I don't believe can be destroyed without -- with the evidence we have.
Q Did he attack her in the north bedroom or east bedroom, with the club?
A Initially, or with the club initally --
Q You say he attacked her with the club initially?
A I do not know.
Q Well, what instrument did he use?
A I think probably the club was used before the knives ever entered into it. I think he probably could find a club or piece of wood readily available in one of the children's bedrooms rather than in the master bedroom, if that be the case.
Q So the attack took place in the north bedroom?
A Yes, I think so.

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Would that be consistent with the theory that he had a domestic argument with his wife and the fact that the attack first took place in the north bedroom?
A It wouldn't be inconsistent.
Q What evidence shows that Mrs. MacDonald was first attacked in the north bedroom?
A Her blood in that bedroom.
Q How much blood?
A Quite a bit.

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q Where?
A On the sheet and on the spread and on the floor.
Q Any spattered on the wall?
A Yes, I believe there are some spots of A blood, a spattering of blood is a better term, on the wall.

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q If she were first attacked and beaten with that club in the north bedroom, how did she get from the north to the east bedroom or master bedroom?
A I don't know. Perhaps she was ambulatory.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd September 2018 at 08:52 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 23rd September 2018, 07:36 PM   #392
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Blah, Blah, Blah

I'm not a big fan of responding to rambling nonsense, but I repeat, the defense had their chance to provide proof of their claim that at least 4 hippie home invaders were inside 544 Castle Drive on 2/17/70. At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox provided the defense with the ability to throw the kitchen sink at the government, yet the only thing they produced were cricket noises.

They didn't call a single forensics expert to the stand. They didn't produce a single evidentiary item that was directly sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. They didn't come close to meeting their "daunting burden." Inmate's lawyers seemed bored and unprepared. They talked the talk, but couldn't walk the walk. Ballgame over.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2018, 05:24 AM   #393
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The footprint evidence in the MacDonald case is typical "only said it could be" stuff and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
SOP henri means "standard operating procedure" and that is why the footprints were listed as "appeared to be" vice "are" but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM unsatisfactory evidence and certainly not "ludicrously" so....

you take the "appear to be" footprints, the ONLY BLOODY footprints AND the ONLY BARE FOOTPRINTS and present them along with the FACT that inmate said all of the "alleged intruders" were wearing boots or shoes and you have circumstantial evidence that inmate made the bloody footprints while carrying Colette's body back to the master bedroom.

Circumstantial Evidence is perfectly acceptable evidence in a court of law.

An example of circumstantial evidence:

You have just finished baking and icing a chocolate cake. the doorbell rings, you leave the cake on the counter and your 3 year old in the same room and go answer the door. 2 minutes later you come back into the kitchen and a chunk of chocolate cake is missing and the 3 year old has chocolate smeared all over her hands and face.

You DID NOT SEE the child eat any of the cake but you have very strong circumstantial evidence that she did.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr. Thornton always maintained that he had heard that the Army CID lab had made mistakes before with read to blood typing.
does not matter what Thorton "maintained" and what does CID blood typing have to do with the bloody bare footprints?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was a very heated exchange between Segal and the very inexperienced Army CID lab man Craig Chamberlain about it at the trial asking him if he had ever made mistakes.
Whether Chamberlain was inexperienced or not is of no importance. Actually whether he and Segal had a heated exchange is irrelevant.

Oh, and what human being has ever lived their lives without making mistakes? NONE.....but Chamberlain was not in error on this case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There used to be correspondence between the various CID lab forensic technicians about the footprints, on the internet, in which they were skeptical about the footprint conclusions,
oh yes, the mysterious disappearance of correspondence on the footprints.....my BS meter is going off
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2018, 05:39 AM   #394
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Guilty Beyond All Doubt

This is one of those rare high profile murders that contains so much inculpatory evidence, one could take a fraction of the data and still convict inmate on three counts of murder. IMO, the only viable case comparisons would be Lee Harvey Oswald, O.J. Simpson, and Steven Avery.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2018, 09:00 AM   #395
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting posting on the internet about the MacDonald case, with which I agree:
An "interesting posting on the internet". Whoa. That's really great documentation there, Henri. Way to make easy for the reader to access the posting's credibility, neutrality, veracity....stop me when you understand.

And tell whoever posted it that MacDonald wouldn't make a good wart on Michael Morton's ass.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2018, 09:30 AM   #396
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
This is one of those rare high profile murders that contains so much inculpatory evidence, one could take a fraction of the data and still convict inmate on three counts of murder. IMO, the only viable case comparisons would be Lee Harvey Oswald, O.J. Simpson, and Steven Avery.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There are plenty of people who disagree with you, including somebody called Evan Hughes. This is part of what he wrote in December2012:

Quote:
How can Weingarten and McGinniss be so sure? This is a difficult case. There were no witnesses, no incriminating fingerprints, and no evident motive. The crime scene was badly compromised by inexperienced military police. Items were moved and even stolen; gawkers were allowed to wander through the house; more than 40 fingerprints and a footprint were destroyed. This is what Murtagh had to work with when he entered the case. Weingarten grants the shoddiness of the police work in an aside, as if it were barely relevant. For him it was a gotcha moment when a bloody hair found in MacDonald’s wife’s hand turned out to be Jeffrey MacDonald’s. He accuses Morris of slipping past this fact. But it is not actually revealing: When the police arrived, MacDonald was sprawled across his wife’s body, both of them covered in blood. No one disputes this.

An open-and-shut article like Weingarten’s may be comforting, but there are reasons this case has remained controversial for decades. Weingarten and McGinniss write as if only a deluded person could have any doubt—and they unfairly portray Errol Morris as a devious conspiracy theorist. Reasonable people can disagree here, and for 42 years they have. In the first inquiry into the case, the Army Colonel who presided over a month’s-long hearing found the charges against MacDonald to be “not true.” One circuit court judge, Francis Murnaghan, wrote in a 1982 opinion, “The case provokes a strong uneasiness in me. … I believe MacDonald would have had a fairer trial if the Stoeckley related testimony had been admitted.” Janet Malcolm has been cagey about her view, but in 1997 she said, “The more I read about the case, the more I move toward the view that he could very well be innocent.” All these people must be deluded too."
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 September 2018, 09:40 AM   #397
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
There is a bit of waffle about footprints in the MacDonald case at this website:

https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ0...0MacDonald.pdf

Quote:
Bloody Foot Print
At 4:50 am, when an investigator arrived, reported he saw a footprint still drying. It takes very little time for a thin layer of blood to dry on a hardwood floor.

It is unrealistic to believe the foot print was wet after 90 minutes, as the government claimed. A bloody footprint on the hardwood floor was lost as it was collected to take to the lab.

They claim the footprint fell apart when they sawed the wood out of the floor. Government documents described, a wet, Type A blood found on the floor in the master bedroom on and near the throw rug.

Shortly before MacDonald was taken from that room, he was seen standing on his feet in that bloody area. Three witnesses told how he struggled off the gurney in the hallway, attempting to enter his children’s rooms. To get off the gurney in its low position, 8" from the floor, MacDonald would have had to put his lower body into one of the doorways leading off the 3' wide hallway, such as the door where the bloody footprint was found just 10" inside the room.
Imbedded within the bloody foot print was a fiber matching a throw rug in the master bedroom where MacDonald stood earlier. Also if one’s foot is wet, there would be more than just one foot print.

Stepping once will not completely remove it. So the evidence suggests that MacDonald made the footprint when he struggled off the gurney, not before.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th September 2018 at 09:43 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 24th September 2018, 11:57 AM   #398
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,019
Who??

Evan Hughes must be a CID/FBI agent or a forensics expert? Oh, he's not? For fecal matter and giggles.

CLAIM: This is a difficult case.

RESPONSE: The trial jury convicted inmate in less than 7 hours.

CLAIM: The crime scene was badly compromised.

RESPONSE: Mr. Hughes' definition of "badly" is different than mine. None of the evidence that led to inmate's conviction was compromised in any way, shape, or form.

CLAIM: More than 40 fingerprints were destroyed.

RESPONSE: Ah, no. The actual count is more like 10-13.

CLAIM: For Weingarten, it was a gotcha moment when a bloody hair found in MacDonald’s wife’s hand turned out to be Jeffrey MacDonald’s.

RESPONSE: It was also a gotcha moment for the CID, FBI, and DOJ.

CLAIM: Weingarten accuses Morris of slipping past this fact.

RESPONSE: Morris does slip past this fact. On its back jacket, Morris provides an endorsement of the book Fatal Justice. The book calls this evidentiary item the "mystery hair," and surmises that the source of this bloody, broken limb hair is Greg Mitchell. In 1999, FJ co-author Fred Bost, told me that this hair was THE most important DNA exhibit in this case. When the hair matched inmate's DNA profile, the MacDonald Camp went in full spin mode and Bost never again spoke (e.g., publicly at least) of this inculpatory hair exhibit.

CLAIM: The hair is not revealing.

RESPONSE: Sorry to break it to you, Evan, but it is. The hair revealed that inmate wielded the club used to viciously beat his wife.

CLAIM: Morris is not a devious conspiracy theorist.

RESPONSE: No, he is a devious opportunist with no interest in the truth.

CLAIM: Janet Malcolm feels that inmate could very well be innocent.

RESPONSE: Malcolm is entitled to her opinion, but her opinion is not based on the documented record. Malcolm admitted that in the 80's, she couldn't bring herself to look at the case with a critical eye, so she focused on the unusual journalistic relationship between inmate and Joe McGinniss. Her 1997 claim that she "read" about the facts of this case is classic journalistic spin.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2018, 12:36 PM   #399
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
From Henri's reference:

Quote:
Government documents described, a wet, Type A blood found on the floor in the master bedroom on and near the throw rug.
No, the bloody footprint was in one the children's rooms. Which is much more significant and damaging to inmate: how did a type A footprint occur leaving a room of a victim who did not have type A blood? Because inmate carried Colette out of the the room -- which proves his story is false.
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 24th September 2018, 02:59 PM   #400
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,051
MacDonald never carried Colette anywhere, and Colette never hit MacDonald with a hairbrush, as Stombaugh insisted at the trial, and Colette never murdered one of the little girls as CID agent Shaw testified at the Article 32. You people are making it up. It's false evidence and obviously unfair.
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
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 07:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.