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 7th May 2018, 02:15 PM   #41
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
I'm willing to throw out the pajama fibers on the club as "not absolutely proven".

So what? That doesn't detract from the other overwhelming evidence ... and lack of evidence.

Much of it just common sense. For example, we have a minimum of 6 adults [by inmate's own testimony], and drug-addled in the bargain, barging into his quarters from a heavy rainstorm. Why isn't there water all over the place?

So, yeah, agents made coffee, threw out trash, etc., but they never sopped up water. Inmate never mentions water on the floor. There simply was none. But if six adults come from pouring rain into a house, there WILL be water, and lots of it. Particularly since these adults had no reason to worry about or avoid bringing water into the house.

Similarly, would hard-core druggies leave behind drugs and a nice stereo? Nope, just not plausible. Oh, And do no damage to the house? [contrast to the Manson murders. They left a mess (and, btw, the bodies where they fell, they didn't tuck Ms Folger back into bed).]

The only possible logical conclusion is that inmate himself, alone, is guilty. There's just no evidence of any intruders being there.
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 8th May 2018, 04:39 AM   #42
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
I am NOT willing to throw out the pajama fibers on the club as "proven" because the bench notes of the examiner clearly state in plain English:
(1)fibers matching the pj top were found adhering to the club in blood
(2)fibers were removed and placed in a separate container
(3)later examination found the pj matching fibers in a container as described in the original bench notes.
That is legally acceptable provenance - period.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2018, 09:35 AM   #43
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
I'm willing to throw out the pajama fibers on the club as "not absolutely proven".

Much of it just common sense. For example, we have a minimum of 6 adults [by inmate's own testimony], and drug-addled in the bargain, barging into his quarters from a heavy rainstorm. Why isn't there water all over the place?

So, yeah, agents made coffee, threw out trash, etc., but they never sopped up water. Inmate never mentions water on the floor. There simply was none. But if six adults come from pouring rain into a house, there WILL be water, and lots of it. Particularly since these adults had no reason to worry about or avoid bringing water into the house.
That's just the, 'no muddy footprints in the apartment', theory without facts which has been discussed endlessly on the MacDonald forums for years. The fact is that visitors or intruders to an apartment hardly ever leave muddy footprints, even if it is raining outside, and added to which the crime scene was chaotic and the police investigation idle and incompetent. The MacDonald case crime scene is discussed at this website:

https://medium.com/@lajp/the-botched...e-8e9cd3463736

Quote:
Fred Bost and I agreed, after reading the MP and CID statements, that the prosecutors’ claims of a protected crime scene were overstated, to say the least. In those first fifteen minutes, major errors had occurred.

We then addressed a more crucial question: Did the failure to guard the scene during that fifteen minutes lead to contamination of any key pieces of evidence, items which, specifically, led to Ivory’s theory, and to the army’s accusation?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th May 2018 at 09:41 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 9th May 2018, 04:37 AM   #44
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's just the, 'no muddy footprints in the apartment', theory without facts which has been discussed endlessly on the MacDonald forums for years.
That is a ridiculous statement. THE FACT is there were no muddy footprints, no wet footprints, no grassy edged footprints, no sandy footprints and only a couple of bloody footprints at the crime scene. THE FACT is that IF intruders had entered the apartment bent on creating havoc then there WOULD have been some type of footprints left behind them since it was pouring down rain and evil doers would not have stopped to wipe their feet. THAT is FACT.

Also a FACT is that the only footprints found were those of inmate himself. barefoot prints - inmate said all of the "alleged intruders" were in boots or shoes AND a print examiner found the prints matched inmate's exemplar.
Oh, AND the footprints were EXITING the room not entering the room.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that visitors or intruders to an apartment hardly ever leave muddy footprints, even if it is raining outside,
Most visitors to an apartment would have the courtesy to wipe their feet before entering. Intruders? No, they'd leave prints behind or attempt to wipe the prints up. There were not prints that had been wiped up, the only prints were inmate's own bloody footprints. FACT henri not your "I don't like that piece of evidence so I will ignore it or try to cheat the facts in an attempt to make my murderous bastard hero look less guilty".

Was the crime scene perfectly preserved - No, it was not. But the MPs were sent to a domestic situation, they operated within the SOP "preserve life first, crime scene second". Even with the difficulties there was still more than sufficient evidence to prove inmate guilty. and THAT IS FACT!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2018, 01:05 PM   #45
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I am NOT willing to throw out the pajama fibers on the club as "proven" because the bench notes of the examiner clearly state in plain English:
(1)fibers matching the pj top were found adhering to the club in blood
(2)fibers were removed and placed in a separate container
(3)later examination found the pj matching fibers in a container as described in the original bench notes.
That is legally acceptable provenance - period.
I wasn't quite clear enough. I meant that I am willing, for the sake of argument, to throw that out because the crime scene was not well preserved and we are, after all, dealing with a trial for a man's life. Easy to forget when it's MacDonald, but, for any presumed-innocent-to-begin-with person's life at stake, we must be sure of such potentially inculpating evidence.

But even throwing that out, there are still mountains of solid, realistic, scrutiny-worthy evidence to convict inmate 100%.
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 11th May 2018, 08:28 AM   #46
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
But even throwing that out, there are still mountains of solid, realistic, scrutiny-worthy evidence to convict inmate 100%.
Like what? MacDonald was convicted on bad police work and bad FBI work and manufactured evidence and very bad judges and disregarding leads and suspects and discrediting Detective Beasley and dishonest prosecutors.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 12th May 2018, 07:13 AM   #47
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Evidence Of Guilt

HENRIBOY: Like what, eh? You just love sticking your chin out, don't you?

1) Eighty one pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom. Twenty four pajama fibers were found under the body of Colette MacDonald. Twenty two pajama fibers were found on the bed in the master bedroom. Six pajama fibers were found on the pillowcase in the master bedroom and a pajama fiber was found near the headboard where the word PIG was written in Colette's blood. The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette and was stained with her blood in 6 locations before it was torn from the jacket.

2) Wood splinters from a club were found in Colette MacDonald's left hand, under her body, on top of the bed in the master bedroom, under the bedcovers in Kimberly MacDonald's room, and on top of the bed in Kristen MacDonald's room. No blood from Jeffrey MacDonald was found in the living room where MacDonald claimed he was attacked. No pajama fibers or wood splinters were found in the living room.

3) The DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald matched a limb hair found in Colette MacDonald's left hand, a body hair found on top of Kristen MacDonald's bed, and a body hair found on the multi-colored bedspread.

4) Jeffrey MacDonald claimed he entered the kitchen only as far as the telephone, but his blood is found on the floor in front of the kitchen sink. Blood was also found under the left kitchen sink, but could not be typed due to the paucity of the stain. Jeffrey MacDonald's blood was also found in the hallway bathroom on the front and right side of the sink, step ladder, and on the wicker material moved from the stool. Blood was also found on the sink faucets, top of the bath tub, left side of the sink, Midnight Sun shampoo box located in a waste basket by the north door, cloth toilet seat cover, and on top of the toilet tank. The blood on these items could not be typed due to the paucity of the stains.

5) A spot of Kristen MacDonald's blood was found on the outer lens of Jeffrey MacDonald's glasses which were located on the floor in the living room. A blood smear in the configuration of a finger was found on the outer edge of an Esquire magazine located in the living room. The blood smear was formed in the blood of either Colette or Kimberly MacDonald. The Esquire magazine was found under a box on the living room floor with the left portion of the top heavy coffee table resting on that box.

6) Little disarray found in the living room area where Jeffrey MacDonald said he struggled with 3 male intruders. A picture above the living room couch remained perfectly straight and in the adjacent dining area, plates balanced on edge in an unstable china cabinet. In the master bedroom where Colette and Kimberly MacDonald were first attacked, the only thing disturbed was a lamp shade which was crooked.

7) A suitcase located near the right corner of the footboard of the bed in the master bedroom bore no direct blood spatter from Colette, but her blood was found around and under the suitcase.

8) Jeffrey MacDonald claims his pajama top was pulled over his head and ended up around his wrists, yet the pajama top was ripped down the left front seam, left shoulder, and left sleeve down to the cuff. This indicated that it was grabbed in the V-neck section of the top and pulled down as Jeff spun to his right.

9) Terry Laber discovered that the pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was stained with Colette MacDonald's blood in 6 locations before it was torn from the jacket.

10) Paul Stombaugh discovered that Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was stained with Colette MacDonald's blood in 4 locations before it was torn. Stombaugh also felt that the absence of tearing around the 48 holes in Jeff's pajama top indicated that the holes were made while the top was stationary. Stombaugh testified that it was possible to align the 48 holes in the pajama top with the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. The autopsy report on Colette indicated that these wounds were inflicted while her body was stationary and the holes in her pajama top also contained no ragged edges indicating the garment was stationary when punctured with the ice pick. Crime scene photographs show the right sleeve of the pajama top folded inside out and the left panel, which contained no puncture holes, trailing off alongside Colette's body. The back of Jeff's pajama top also contained 17 holes, but Jeff received no stab wounds to his back.

11) Microscopic examinations found that the cuts in pajama tops of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen MacDonald were made with the straight, sharp Old Hickory knife. The 2 cuts in Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top were made with the dull, bent Geneva Forge knife. There were no cuts in Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top that corresponded with the stab wound that collapsed his right lung.

12) A body hair from Colette MacDonald was found on the blue bedsheet. The hair had a piece of skin attached to it indicating that it was forcibly removed.

13) The Hilton Hotel bathmat found on Colette MacDonald's abdomen bore multiple bloody handprints, bloody impressions which matched the shape of the Old Hickory knife and the ice pick, and several bloody streaks which indicated that the weapons were wiped down on the bathmat. The bloody handprints, impressions, and streaks were formed in the blood of Colette and Kimberly MacDonald.

14) Trace evidence found on the multi-colored bedspread included a bloody head hair from Kimberly MacDonald and a bloody head hair from Colette. The hair from Colette was found twisted around a blood soaked pajama seam thread.

15) The blue bedsheet found in the master bedroom bore blood stains and bloody head hairs from Kimberly MacDonald. The bedsheet also bore massive blood stains from Colette MacDonald. Paul Stombaugh concluded that the bedsheet bore bloody handprints, a chin imprint, and the outline of a bare human shoulder. Stombaugh also concluded that the bedsheet bore 2 bloody fabric impressions from the right pajama cuff and a single bloody fabric impression from the left pajama cuff of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. Stombaugh added that the bedsheet bore the bloody fabric impressions from both the left and right pajama cuff of Colette's pajama top.

16) Kimberly MacDonald's blood formed a 6 inch circle near the entrance to the master bedroom, and there was a trail of her blood that began in the master bedroom and extended into the hallway near the entrance to Kimberly's room.

17) Nineteen pajama fibers were found in Kimberly MacDonald's room with 14 of those fibers found under her bed covers. A pajama fiber was also found under her pillow. Kimberly's blood was found on the pajama top of Jeffrey MacDonald despite his assertion that he took the top off prior to finding Kimberly in her bed.

18) Kimberly MacDonald's urine was found on the bed in the master bedroom and no urine was found on Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top despite his claim that he carried Kristen MacDonald from the master bedroom to her room after she wet the bed.

19) Autopsy report indicates that if Kimberly MacDonald's stab wounds occurred in the same position as she was found, the person stabbing her was likely right handed. Jeffrey MacDonald is right handed.

20) Two pajama fibers were found under the bed covers on Kristen MacDonald's bed and a pajama fiber was also found under Kristen's fingernail. Two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood.

21) The bottom sheet on Kristen MacDonald's bed bore a blood stain from Colette MacDonald near the top corner of the bed next to the wall and the top sheet covering Kristen bore a massive blood stain from Colette at hip level. Kristen's bedspread also bore a transfer stain from a person's arm or the club which was formed in the blood of Kimberly MacDonald.

22) Blades of grass, pajama fibers, and blood were found on Jeffrey MacDonald's robe. The blood could not be typed due to the paucity of the stain.

23) Three bloody footprints from Jeffrey MacDonald were found exiting Kristen MacDonald's room. A partial right footprint formed in Colette's or Kimberly's blood and a left footprint formed in Colette's blood were found just inside Kristen's room, and a partial left footprint was found in the middle of the hallway. The footprint in the hallway could not be typed due to the paucity of the stain.

24) Microscopic examination of wooden slats found under the bed of Kimberly MacDonald proved that the club was sawed off the end of one of those slats. Ron Harrison testified that during a Thanksgiving visit, Jeffrey MacDonald asked, "where's the ice pick" and subsequently looked for the ice pick in the outside storage shed. Harrison added that Jeff, "came back without it because we finally had to use a screwdriver and the end of my knife---I had a pocketknife---to pry the ice apart and chip it away."

25) Jeffrey MacDonald stated he did not turn on the bedroom lights nor did he go to the neighbor's residence for help. The following is an exchange between William Ivory and Jeffrey MacDonald during a CID interview on April 6, 1970:

MacDonald: Well, I don't know — well, I really don't know if I checked the femorals on both sides of the kids, quite honestly. I probably checked here (pointing to the throat) and picked up their wrist and possibly checked the femoral, but I'm not sure. So, then I was standing in the middle — middle of the hallway after this kind of second trip, and I didn't know what to do. I kept saying to myself, you know, "What — what comes now?" And I remember I — it flashed through my mind to go next door to my idiot neighbor, but I realized that would be futile and —

Ivory: Why was that?

MacDonald: Well, our neighbors are — she's the kind of lady that sits in her window with binoculars and watches the girl across the street undress and stuff like that, you know. And she comes over and she says, "Now, don't leave your windows open because there's a lot of rapists and people around here." We were at a cocktail party one night, and — and she said that and everyone stopped. And I said to her — so I was kind of pulling her chain. So I said, "Well, how — how do you know that — that people look in windows?" I mean — you know, you see types of people and right away this woman had — so, she said, "Well, ‘cause I see her every night. The blonde across the street." And I say, "How do you see her every night?" She said, "I go in my window and watch." And I said, "Why do you do that?" And she said, I swear to God, she said, "Because," you know, "it's unatural for a girl to undress with the blinds up. And I just want to." — you know, "I just want to make sure I know what's going on in the neighborhood." But that's beside the point. So that's the type of person that — that, you know, I just — I said, "Shall I go next door or should I try to call again?" And I decided I should try to call again.

Four months later at the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald was asked why he didn't seek assistance from neighbors and he replied, "I didn't know them that well."

26) Colette MacDonald sustained fractures to her left forearm, right forearm, and skull after receiving multiple blows from a club. Colette was also hit 6 times in the face with the club resulting in severe lacerations to her left temple, right temple, and forehead. Colette's chest bore a pattern bruise from the end of the club, as if she had been struck at arm's length by a bayonet-type thrust. Colette was also stabbed 37 times in the chest, neck, and left arm with an ice pick and the Old Hickory knife. Kimberly MacDonald was unrecognizable due to at least 3 blows from the club which resulted in multiple fractures of her nose, left cheekbone, and skull. Kimberly was also stabbed 8 to 10 times in the neck with the Old Hickory knife. Kristen MacDonald was stabbed 33 times in the back, chest, and neck with an ice pick and the Old Hickory knife. Kristen also had multiple defensive wounds on her hands from the Old Hickory knife. Jeffrey MacDonald received 1 wound that was considered serious and that was a stab wound to the right chest which collapsed his lung. He did not require a single suture to close wounds to his left arm, left bicep, and abdomen. The wound to his abdomen was a slashing-type wound indicating that the source of the wound was the Geneva Forge knife. The source of the bruise over his left eye could have been the hairbrush found near Colette's body.

27) Jeffrey MacDonald's blood was found on the door to the hallway closet that contained a large stock of medical supplies such as prescription drugs, syringes, hypodermic needles, and disposable scalpel blades.

28) Jeffrey MacDonald stated that after attempting to revive his family, he went to his hands and knees as he walked down the hallway, yet no bloody handprints were found on the hallway floor.

29) A piece of skin was found under Colette MacDonald's fingernail. Bernie Segal asked Jeffrey MacDonald about injuries to his chest during the Article 32 hearing in 1970. MacDonald admitted to having, "some scratches on my left pectoral region, the upper left chest with some, again the same type of puncture wounds, two or three." Captain Clifford Somers asked MacDonald about his injuries during cross-examination. MacDonald described, "several, what appeared to me to be small, small puncture wounds on the left side of the chest and some scratches."

A similar exchange occurred in 1971 between Jeffrey MacDonald and Colonel Jack Pruett during the CID reinvestigation:

Pruett: Then your description of them is in conflict with what is in the medical record a bit?

MacDonald: In the number of wounds, right.

Pruett: The scratches then, you are saying are on the side, the left, in which direction? The left portion of the chest?

MacDonald: Yes, but it wasn't on the outside. It was on the inside of the nipple.

30) Jeffrey MacDonald told Fatal Vision author Joe McGinniss, that results of a polygraph exam administered by John Reid in 1970 were deemed inconclusive, and admitted that during the exam he was, "frantic with worry." Several months later, Bernie Segal hired polygraph expert Cleve Backster. During the 1987 MacDonald vs. McGinniss civil trial, Backster testified that Jeffrey MacDonald failed the polygraph exam.

31) Jeffrey MacDonald concocted a story about killing one of the intruders and communicated it to family friend Bob Stern near the end of the Article 32 hearing. MacDonald repeated this story 3 months later to Freddy Kassab in 2 separate phone conversations, in a handwritten letter to Kassab, and to Mildred Kassab during a visit to the Kassab home. The phone conversations were secretly recorded by Freddy Kassab.

32) Jeffrey MacDonald told CID investigators that Ron Harrison brought champagne to MacDonald's hospital room because everyone was "down" and Harrison thought it might cheer them up. Harrison, however, told CID investigators that MacDonald asked him to purchase a bottle of champagne for him. Harrison subsequently obliged and delivered the champagne to MacDonald's hospital room.

33) Jeffrey MacDonald was first advised of his rights prior to the April 6, 1970 CID interview and he replied, "It's sounding very ominous." Later in the interview, MacDonald admitted to telling Dr. Robert Sadoff that he felt "relief" that his family was gone, but was ashamed of that feeling. MacDonald also told investigators that, "When I woke up, the first thing I thought of was, you know, I'm ashamed to say — myself."

34) Jeffrey MacDonald was interviewed on February 17, 18, and 20 by the CID, with each interview session either contradicting prior statements or containing new details. MacDonald admitted to the CID that details of what occurred the night of the murders would change even among family members and friends. The following is an exchange between Robert Shaw and Jeffrey MacDonald during the April 6, 1970 interview:

MacDonald: Everyone — everyone — I mean I've talked — well, only — really, only two people, but in telling them, some things, you know, sound funny after a while; and I'm not sure what — you know, whether — like one time I remember, Ron Harrison, who got involved with this thing and was around all the time, he — he heard most of it, and he asked me a couple of things about it. I remember when I told him, that my mother said it wasn't exactly what I, you know —

Shaw: Might have said to her?

MacDonald: Right. And I, you know — she — in other words, they reacted a little different.

35) Law enforcement officers arrested Kenneth Barnett, Annette Cullity, Gary Burnett, and Joseph Lee in Suffolk County, New York on May 9, 1970. The Suffolk County Police subsequently contacted CID agent Bennie Hawkins due to the fact that these 4 individuals matched the physical descriptions of the intruder suspects provided by Jeffrey MacDonald. The following is an excerpt from the July 24, 1970 testimony of Bennie Hawkins at the Article 32 hearing:

Somers: Can you describe this group?

Hawkins: Yes, sir, it was a group of four. There were three males and one female in the group. The one male, Negro, approximately 5-9 in height, 170 pounds in weight, black hair, brown eyes. There were two Caucasian males, one of them approximately 5-10 in height with dark brown hair, hazel eyes, of about medium build. The other Caucasian male was approximately 5-6 in height, blond hair, and blue eyes. The female approximately 5-5 to 5-6 in height, 110 pounds in weight. She had blond hair and blue eyes.

Somers: Did you obtain any information about the wearing apparel of these people?

Hawkins: Yes, sir, I did.

Somers: What was that?

Hawkins: They all dressed with the hippie type clothing. They — the colored male was seen wearing an army field jacket or fatigue shirt. The female was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots.

Somers: Did this group you are speaking about have any connection or association with Captain MacDonald or his family?

Hawkins: They associated with Captain MacDonald's brother.

Segal: That's objected to and move to strike. There's no evidence that Captain MacDonald's brother is involved in this case in any fashion whatsoever. In fact, there's no evidence that he even has a brother, sir.

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 13th May 2018, 08:43 AM   #48
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
That's very weak evidence and it's hotly disputed by the Macdonald defense lawyers and defense forensic experts including the so-called blood evidence. You are making it up. What about the pajama bottoms then?

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove rule breach and to remove imported argument from another forum.

Last edited by Agatha; 14th May 2018 at 03:07 PM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 14th May 2018, 05:07 AM   #49
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
roflmao! henri it is NOT weak evidence. it is strong DAMNING evidence of inmate's guilt. forensic evidence AND consciousness of guilt. inmate was convicted at a trial where over 1,100 pieces of evidence was presented via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. the jury convicted in just over 6 hours. FACT FACT FACT not your "I think" or "I believe" rambling that has absolutely no evidence to back it up.
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 14th May 2018, 08:09 AM   #50
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
If you believe all that crap you must be a very bad judge.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 14th May 2018, 09:36 AM   #51
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Thirty-Seven Years And Counting

Jeffrey MacDonald has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison for the brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two daughters. He has received more chances at freedom than any convicted murderer in legal history. His rotating band of lawyers have been unable to produce a single evidentiary item that could be sourced to a known intruder suspect. This includes DNA, hair, fiber, print, and bloody fabric impression evidence. That is in stark contrast to the over 1,000 pieces of evidence that links inmate to this horrific crime. This includes DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, and bloody fabric impression evidence. Despite all the hand waving/carnival barking from famous/not so famous advocates, the physical evidence proved beyond ALL doubt that Jeffrey MacDonald is a cold-blooded killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th May 2018 at 09:39 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 15th May 2018, 04:10 AM   #52
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Jeffrey MacDonald has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison for the brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two daughters. He has received more chances at freedom than any convicted murderer in legal history. His rotating band of lawyers have been unable to produce a single evidentiary item that could be sourced to a known intruder suspect. This includes DNA, hair, fiber, print, and bloody fabric impression evidence. That is in stark contrast to the over 1,000 pieces of evidence that links inmate to this horrific crime. This includes DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, and bloody fabric impression evidence. Despite all the hand waving/carnival barking from famous/not so famous advocates, the physical evidence proved beyond ALL doubt that Jeffrey MacDonald is a cold-blooded killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I couldn't have stated it better myself! Carnival barking....roflmao! perfect description!
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 30th May 2018, 08:14 AM   #53
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Jeffrey Macdonald is innocent and always has been innocent.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 30th May 2018, 10:26 AM   #54
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
inmate is guilty, has been proven guilty, will remain guilty. he is in prison where he belongs, he will not get out because he is guilty and his story is so full of BS that anyone with at least 2 functional brain cells can see that it is BS. inmate is a narcissistic, sociopathic, familial slaughterer who in reality belongs UNDER the jail.
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 June 2018, 02:13 AM   #55
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
There is a fair and just article about the Jeffrey MacDonald case from The Detroit News newspaper in 2017:

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/new...sion/97086104/

Quote:
“He’s going to keep fighting and will continue to maintain his innocence until the end of his days,” Hart Miles, said after the hearing at the 4th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th June 2018 at 02:15 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 June 2018, 03:54 AM   #56
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,349
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a fair and just article about the Jeffrey MacDonald case from The Detroit News newspaper in 2017:

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/new...sion/97086104/
An 18 month old article? Oh well I'm convinced.......
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2018, 06:08 AM   #57
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
An 18 month old article? Oh well I'm convinced.......
logger is getting too much attention
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 25th June 2018, 02:10 PM   #58
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Quote:
“He’s going to keep fighting and will continue to maintain his innocence until the end of his days”
As did Charles Manson, but that didn't make Manson any less guilty either. Inmate's attorneys get paid to believe him, and, frankly, I couldn't believe it even if I got paid to, because his story's just too ridiculously implausible.
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 26th June 2018, 04:15 AM   #59
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
As did Charles Manson, but that didn't make Manson any less guilty either. Inmate's attorneys get paid to believe him, and, frankly, I couldn't believe it even if I got paid to, because his story's just too ridiculously implausible.
I agree, I would not be able to believe inmate's story no matter how much they paid me. The fact is that not all of inmate's attorney's have claimed him innocent, some say he did not receive a fair trial. However, he has received his fair trial and then some, and he is not innocent.
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 26th June 2018, 01:21 PM   #60
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I agree, I would not be able to believe inmate's story no matter how much they paid me. The fact is that not all of inmate's attorney's have claimed him innocent, some say he did not receive a fair trial. However, he has received his fair trial and then some, and he is not innocent.
That's a good point about some of his attorneys. His trial wasn't absolutely perfect -- no trial is -- but it was certainly fair enough.

I was absolutely convinced of his guilt by the pajama top and its holes vs. the wounds on Colette's chest. The patterns are a chilling, and unmistakable, match.
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 26th June 2018, 05:30 PM   #61
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Bloody Impressions

IMO, the most underrated evidence of inmate's guilt involved bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet.

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

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

Stombaugh also found a bloody chin impression on the blue bedsheet and a bloody head hair from Colette MacDonald twisted with a bloody pajama seam thread from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top on the multi-colored bedspread. To Stombaugh, the entwining of the head hair and pajama seam thread, indicated direct contact between Jeffrey and Colette MacDonald.

The MacDonald defense team hired two respected forensics experts. John Thornton and Charles Morton both looked at specific impressions on the blue bedsheet. Their conclusions were as follows:

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

Paul Stombaugh's analysis of the pajama cuff impressions included a theory on how Colette was transported in the bedding. Stombaugh concluded that Colette was placed face-down on the multi-colored bedspread in Kristen's room, that the blue bedsheet was placed over her back, and that the back of her pajama cuffs left bloody impressions on the blue bedsheet. Stombaugh states that in the process of adjusting and lifting Colette's body in the blue bedsheet, Jeffrey MacDonald left bloody cuff, shoulder, and chin impressions on the blue bedsheet.

Finally, in the process of placing Colette's body on the master bedroom floor, one of the two surgeon's gloves came apart and a finger section remained inside the bedding. The Type AB blood stain on the lower left panel of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top, the two Type AB blood stains on the blue bedsheet, and the trail of Type AB blood leading to Kimberley's room, combined to convince investigators that Jeffrey MacDonald carried Kimberley to her room in the blue bedsheet.

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 28th June 2018, 02:08 AM   #62
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Stombaugh was never qualified to testify in court with regard to fabric impressions. The MacDonald case was a gross miscarriage of justice. Leads and suspects were disregarded. You decide according to the evidence without fear or favour.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 30th June 2018, 12:19 PM   #63
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh was never qualified to testify in court with regard to fabric impressions. The MacDonald case was a gross miscarriage of justice. Leads and suspects were disregarded. You decide according to the evidence without fear or favour.
And you are not qualified to determine expertise in a courtroom. That leaves us with your opinion of Stombaugh's expertise, your opinion of the case outcome and your opinion on what happened in an investigation you've only read about that happened an ocean away from you.
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 2nd July 2018, 05:27 AM   #64
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
Judge Dupree decided that Paul Stombaugh was a QUALIFIED WITNESS therefore he was qualified. You see, it is the Presiding Judge who makes the determination of qualification. AND the DEFENSE experts agree with a great deal of Paul Stombaugh's testimony and conclusions.....
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 4th July 2018, 02:15 AM   #65
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
I repeat the facts about Stombaugh's qualifications and credentials about fabric impressions from the 1979 MacDonald trial:

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you recall how many cases, if any, that you were found qualified as an expert by a court somewhere on the matter of fabric impressions as distinguished from fabric damage?
A No, sir; I was qualified as an expert in many courts and in many cases throughout this country in that field.
Q What I asked was can you tell us how many cases were you qualified as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Here again, sir, you are asking for a number which I cannot give you. I don't keep records like that.
Q All right, could you tell me, please, the name of one case and what court that was that you were qualified, as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Sir, I couldn't even tell you the cases that I have just testified in Greenville recently. It's just something you don't remember. I don't.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A I'm finished.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you are unable to name any specific case or any specific court in which you were found to be a qualified expert in fabric impressions?
A That is correct, sir. I would have to go back to Washington, D.C., and go through all kinds of records just to try to find the cases I testified in.
Q On fabric impression. I am only asking you about one subject now.
A I know.
Q Well, how about -- you say you have been in Greenville since 1976, up to now. How many cases have you testified in Greenville as an expert on fabric impressions?
A I can't recall having one down there, sir. Most of these cases are in hairs and fibers.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 5th July 2018, 05:31 PM   #66
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I repeat the facts about Stombaugh's qualifications and credentials about fabric impressions from the 1979 MacDonald trial:
Wrong again (at least you're consistent); what you cut-and-pasted (without a link) is TESTIMONY on Stombaugh's qualifications and credentials and only part of it.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2018, 05:00 PM   #67
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Thornton's Admission

As Brian Murtagh would say, Henriboy is presenting the better without the bitter. Paul Stombaugh labeled each bloody fabric impression found on the blue bedsheet with a letter designation. The following are the impressions that Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial.

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

Henriboy consistently touts John Thornton as a "qualified expert," yet Thornton agreed with Stombaugh's unqualified analysis of Areas A, B, and F. Classic.

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 9th July 2018, 02:11 AM   #68
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
That's a good point about some of his attorneys. His trial wasn't absolutely perfect -- no trial is -- but it was certainly fair enough.

I was absolutely convinced of his guilt by the pajama top and its holes vs. the wounds on Colette's chest. The patterns are a chilling, and unmistakable, match.
That pajama folding experiment has been discussed endlessly in detail on this forum in the past. Dr. Thornton proved in court that it was contrived and scientifically unreliable but it seems to be beyond the understanding of an average juror, or very bad judge. This is a sensible opinion from the Google Groups forum in 2012 which may not be too academic for the average reader:

Quote:
Indeed, the pajama top folding experiment was a complete fraud by FBI Lab Agent Paul Stombaugh.

They managed to get the "different" sizes of holes lined up, but they knew that there was no scientific basis at all to that ludicrous theory and prevented the defense from seeing their lab notes at the time of trial that even stated that fact. The only way they know now, is that many years after they were finally allowed to see them after filing numerous "Freedom of Information Act" FOIA requests. However, the jury was only presented the side that the prosecution chose for them to see....that of twisted and misrepresented evidence.

I too, would like to discuss the "evidence" in this case with anyone. Not the
fanciful notions that people love to embrace.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 9th July 2018, 05:17 AM   #69
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Wrong At Every Level

Relying on opinions put forth in blogs and forums has been Henriboy's forte for the past 16 years. Despite assertions to the contrary by this 2012 forum advocate, Brian Murtagh provided Bernie Segal with Stombaugh's lab notes during the trial. In terms of the significance of the Pajama Top Theory...

Stombaugh then instructed Green to attempt a series of experiments to determine whether or not the puncture hole pattern in Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top matched the ice pick wound pattern in Colette MacDonald's chest. Shirley Green's attempt to align the 48 puncture holes in the pajama top with the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest was akin to fitting a broken piece of headlight glass found at a hit and run scene back into the light on the suspect's car. Green was subsequently able to find a matching pattern using three different techniques. Green's techniques included a graph paper overlay, a numbering system using push pins, and the insertion of steel rods into the puncture holes in order to duplicate the hole patterns. Several weeks before the 1979 trial, Green was able to replicate the results of her experiments using the same three techniques.

At trial, Brian Murtagh began his direct examination of Shirley Green by asking her about the significance of the steel rods that were inserted into each puncture hole in MacDonald's blue pajama top. Green stated that the rods or probes were used to "demonstrate the alignment of the holes" in the pajama top with the wound pattern on Colette's chest. Green admitted that some of the probes went through several layers of fabric and that a singular probe could encompass a grouping of puncture holes. For example, Green discovered that puncture holes one through 12 could be aligned with five separate probes. Murtagh then asked Green whether she was able to align all 48 puncture holes in MacDonald's pajama top with 21 probes going through any other holes. Green stated that her painstaking analysis, "took over a week just to find one solution, to find this solution."

Green then described how she was able to replicate this pattern using a completely different technique. Green began by folding MacDonald's pajama top in the manner in which it was found on Colette's chest. Green pointed to several crime scene photographs which depicted the "inside of the pajama top facing upward, the right collar area over to the right, to the victim's left, right shoulder seam over to the right." Green then placed a piece of graph paper over a box, she put the folded pajama top down on the box, and inserted 21 push pins through the pajama top. Green discovered that the puncture hole pattern in the graph paper and the box matched the puncture wound pattern in Colette's chest.

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 9th July 2018, 06:20 AM   #70
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
you cannot force a pattern to exist - it either does or it does not. In the case of the holes in the pj top the pattern exists...it matches the wounds to Colette's chest. period, end of discussion.
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 10th July 2018, 11:37 AM   #71
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
you cannot force a pattern to exist - it either does or it does not. In the case of the holes in the pj top the pattern exists...it matches the wounds to Colette's chest. period, end of discussion.
Exactly. Just look at a picture of the pajama top next to a drawing of the wounds in Colette's chest. As even one of inmate's defense witnesses stated, "it's like a fingerprint." It's simply undeniable: the wounds were made after the pajama top was on her chest. And that, by itself, convinces me 100% that inmate killed her, and, from there, it's easy to know he killed the others as well.
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 11th July 2018, 02:08 AM   #72
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Mistakes are made and serious ones. That pajama folding experiment was impossible, if not a fraud. The matter is explained at this website:

https://www.crimetraveller.org/2017/...e-of-the-case/

Quote:
So, even by the time of the trial four years later, the defense and jurors were still unaware that alignment and directionality were incompatible – since the prosecutors did not disclose the opposing findings of the (FBI and CID). They were told only that the 48 holes were made to align over the 21 wounds. Had the defense and jury been privy to hear this irreconcilable information, the outcome of the trial may have been very different.

Nonetheless, Doctor John Thornton, a forensic scientist (now Emeritus Professor – the highest standing) from the University of Berkeley, California, was retained by trial defense attorney Bernard Segal. Thornton pointed out to the jurors that Stombaugh and Green had failed to account for the number of other ways there might be to fold a garment, so that 48 puncture holes might align over 21 stab wounds. He also pointed out to the jurors that the prosecutors had not accounted for the holes made in Colette’s own pink pajama top, which lay between the blue pajama top and her bare chest. This garment, worn by the murder victim, amounts to a missing piece of a jigsaw. By not accounting for this garment, the experiment, lacks any scientific validity.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th July 2018 at 02:11 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 11th July 2018, 02:55 AM   #73
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Yawn

Henriboy is not even trying anymore. Putting forth a source that has literally copied and pasted from inmate's website is evidence of Henriboy's cognitive laziness. All of the defense issues regarding the Pajama Top Theory were addressed at the 1979 trial and that piece of evidence continues to hold strong.

For the past 39 years, MacDonald's advocates have been unable to formulate a salient rebuttal to the following issues.

- The pajama top had been handled to the point where the yarns in each hole had returned to their original position. This made it impossible to determine whether a specific hole was created from the outside in or the inside out.

- All 48 holes were perfectly round with no torn edges indicating the top was stationary when punctured.

- All of the holes in Colette's pajama top were in the same condition and the pathologist reported that her body was inert when the holes were created.

- In 1974, Shirley Green was able to find a singular pattern using 3 different techniques. Five years later, Green was able to replicate that same pattern using the same 3 techniques.

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 14th July 2018, 03:14 AM   #74
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
- All of the holes in Colette's pajama top were in the same condition and the pathologist reported that her body was inert when the holes were created.

- In 1974, Shirley Green was able to find a singular pattern using 3 different techniques. Five years later, Green was able to replicate that same pattern using the same 3 techniques.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

You must speak only as to facts in a court case and not to opinions by people like those FBI agents who were not real experts. There is a great big question mark for a start as to whether the fabric was stationary when the holes were made. I agree with Dr. Thornton that the whole thing was conceptually unsound and probably forensic fraud by the FBI lab. The matter was discussed in detail by Dr. Thornton at the 1979 MacDonald trial:

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

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Any further basis for your opinion in that regard?
A No. I think that is sufficient. With respect to hole number 48, Mr. Stombaugh hasn't designated that as being one way or the other or whether he cannot determine that. So, I can't properly evaluate that particular hole in the pajama top.
But on the basis of the six foregoing discrepancies, I think that this is impossible.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th July 2018 at 03:17 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 15th July 2018, 02:39 PM   #75
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Not Even Trying Anymore Part Duh

Henriboy either purposely left out or had no earthly idea that Bernie Segal didn't put up much of a fuss regarding the qualifications of Shirley Green. Her reputation within the offices of the FBI was of a HIGHLY qualified lab technician who could take on any task required of her.

Green was the Physical Science Technician in the Microscopic Analysis Unit of the FBI laboratory during the 1979 trial. She lectured at Quantico and Segal was unable to put forth a salient rebuttal to her analysis of the puncture hole pattern in MacDonald's blue pajama top.

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 16th July 2018, 03:45 AM   #76
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,055
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Henriboy either purposely left out or had no earthly idea that Bernie Segal didn't put up much of a fuss regarding the qualifications of Shirley Green. Her reputation within the offices of the FBI was of a HIGHLY qualified lab technician who could take on any task required of her.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF has an unjustified high opinion of Shirley Green of the FBI, and her credentials and qualifications. The matter was discussed at a Bench Conference, where the jury were not informed, during the MacDonald trial in 1979:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-10_green.html

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

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, Ms. Green, although she probably is qualified based on her education and experience --

THE COURT: (Interposing) You did not undertake to qualify her --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) No, sir.

THE COURT: -- as an expert in anything. You told what her educational qualifications were. But I was not asked for any ruling on that.

MR. MURTAGH: No, sir. And I merely asked her what she did and whether the photographs accurately depicted what she did. I asked her no opinions on anything.

MR. SEGAL: As a matter of fact, she said, Your Honor, "This is the way it could be on the body."

THE COURT: Let me ask you this now: just in all fairness, can't you ask your questions without interjecting stuff like "pseudo-expert" and "purported expert" and so forth? I don't think that is fair.
And let me tell you something else, too: I don't say this because I am trying to run your lawsuit -- I am not sure that you are helping your own case when you do that. This is just an observation from this Bench which you may or may not give any weight to at all.
But it just occurred to me that you can ask questions of a witness who is not qualified as an expert without incorporating that kind of language in your questions.

MR. SEGAL: I don't believe I referred to this lady in this regard, Your Honor. I must say the only time that I have said that was in reference to Mr. Stombaugh.

THE COURT: Well, you said -- you asked "purported."

MR. SEGAL: I don't think -- it may be ill chosen.

THE COURT: That is not as strong as "pseudo."

MR. SEGAL: I agree.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th July 2018 at 03:53 AM.
Henri McPhee is online now   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 16th July 2018, 05:08 AM   #77
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
roflmao! No JTF has a rightly justified high opinion of Shirley Green and her qualifications. henri has a penchant for ignoring fact simply because it interferes with his prejudicial and nonsensical beliefs. FACTS are that Shirley Green was highly qualified and Bernie Segal was unable to show that she was not qualified. FACTS are that Shirley Green was able to replicate her work multiple times including for the court. FACT is that you cannot FORCE a pattern to exist. A PATTERN EITHER EXISTS OR IT DOES NOT EXIST. 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 17th July 2018, 10:41 PM   #78
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
Not Even Trying Anymore Part Three

Henriboy's comprehension skills are slim and Slim left town. As I clearly stated in a prior post, "Her reputation within the offices of the FBI was of a HIGHLY qualified lab technician who could take on any task required of her." I have never worked for the FBI, but those who were familiar with Green's work had nothing but praise for her prodigious skill set.

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 18th July 2018, 04:35 AM   #79
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 714
I don't think henri has ever truly tried to comprehend the FACTS of this case. I cannot remember a single salient argument from him (or any of his other aliases) on a single board where this case is discussed.
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 19th July 2018, 08:58 PM   #80
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,020
They Can Run, But They Can't Hide

BYN: A few weeks ago, I was contacted by a producer of an upcoming docu-series on the MacDonald Case, and he inquired about the most underrated aspect of this case. I processed the FACT that for the past 38 years, the burden of proof has been on the defense, not the government.

I added that in those 38 years, the defense has been unable to source a single piece of evidence to a known intruder suspect. No DNA, no hairs, no fibers, and no bloody or non-bloody fingerprints and/or footprints. I stressed the fact that in this particular time frame, at least half of the media coverage of this case has failed to address this important issue.

The producer then asked for a concrete example of this important issue, so my Exhibit A was the 1999 DNA protocol hearing. I pointed out that the defense could have asked for DNA exemplars from every viable intruder suspect, but they only asked for exemplars from Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell.

I expressed that there was only one salient explanation for this request. The defense had NO confidence in any of the remaining Stoeckley Seven being involved in this case. They made this decision knowing that they were contradicting their client's story of 4 intruders being in the living room and at least 1 additional intruder in Colette's AND Kimmie's room.

I ended the story by pointing out the stark contrast between the arguments presented at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The prosecution relied on the physical evidence collected at the crime scene whereas the defense focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony. 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
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 02:24 PM.
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.