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 16th August 2018, 07:17 AM   #201
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
there were no intruders, hence, they couldn't leave behind any evidence. period. bottom line. that's where it ends. to argue this just gives credence to trolls conspiracies.
to some degree you are correct that arguing with trolls doesn't make them go away. HOWEVER, for years the only side of this story that was heard was the cockamaimy nonsense that trolls continue to argue. This has lead to things like the PEOPLE magazine article that was never fact-checked and the ID channel show based of the article(s). Thus we now have a new generation of persons who believe the bs and have begun advocating for the mass murderer.

I cannot and do not let the nonsense go without countering with the FACTS. This is true here, and any place that I find people posting comments that are not based in fact. I will continue to do so until inmate is dead.

watch out trolls the fire brigade is still here!

There once was a wrinkled old gnome,
who called Federal Prison his home,
he whined and he moaned,
and he lied then he groaned,
for these murders I will not atone.


a classic ditty presented by bynthebard
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 16th August 2018, 09:28 AM   #202
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
I disagree. there is a fair and just article in MacDonald's own words about the matter at:

https://medium.com/@lajp/dr-jeffrey-...s-6f09003ac918

Quote:
And, what do you know, the
young woman just happens to have a cheap blond wig which she wore
that very night, and a floppy hat which she wore that night, and boots
she wore that night. And she had no alibi for, guess what, just
those few hours in question — hey, big surprise. And, poor thing, she even
thinks she was in my house that night, watching Colette struggling with
Greg Mitchell, and Mitchell’s a, guess what? A brown-haired, left-handed
guy and the experts say Colette was killed by a left-handed guy. And
Stoeckley’s neighbor sees her arrive home that morning in, guess what,
a blue Mustang like the one Prince Beasley saw her in the night before,
and like the Mustang my neighbor saw drive by my house the night of
the murders. And when this Helena Stoeckley’s neighbor presses her she
says she didn’t kill anybody, hey, she loves children, but she might have
held the light while someone else murdered them. Jesus!
“Then they find fresh candle wax, and not just anywhere, mind you.
They find it where? On the coffee table, and in Kimmie’s room. And,
guess what else? Another one of my neighbors saw people carrying candles
toward my house. Candles! A guy at Dunkin’ Donuts sees a woman and
a black man come in to wash blood off their hands that very morning.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th August 2018 at 09:35 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 16th August 2018, 10:59 AM   #203
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 460
Oh, geesh, there are two of you walking around with hard-ons for federal inmate macdonald?

So, your man crush lies to others who have crushes on him. And I want to know how these alleged people were walking around carrying candles in the rain? (Your beau left out that the neighbor said the candles were lit and it was raining, I noticed.) Half his (Macdonald's) lies do not make sense. A bunch of druggies come into his house and when he goes down in the fight, they lose interest in him (like giant tiger beetles that only react to motion) and walk away instead of what happens in real life fights: they kick the stuffing out of you. No broke ribs from these druggies, no, their mothers raise them to be polite and never kick a man when he's down. But.....they slaughter a pregnant woman and two small children they find. But they leave him be, leave the drugs and medical supplies (including syringes) he stole from the Army in the closet because it's rude to look through people's stuff, I guess - even if you're bent on killing them. And when they've gone and he's safe, he performs CPR on children in their beds, moves his wife back into the master bedroom where he removes an impaled object from her and he does all this in the dark.

Uh, that makes no sense. Medically, the CPR on a hard, flat surface and non-removal of the impaled object are things you learn in the Red Cross First Aid Course. I bet they also teach them in medical school. And Federal Inmate Macdonald had been to med school.

Sad, so sad. He's a nasty piece of work, your man crush. He's more interested in looking good than being good, his only goal for 47 years has been HIS gratification, HIS pleasure, HIS freedom and he doesn't give a damn about that beautiful woman Colette Stevenson who made the mistake of falling in love with him or the two beautiful children she had with him (or the one on the way). It's always about pathetic Jeff. And pathetic he is. He slaughtered four beautiful souls in a night of rage and to this day he will not face his crimes. He's not man enough to own what he did.
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 16th August 2018, 11:34 AM   #204
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I disagree.
What a shocker! I know you hate it when we insist on crowding out your delusions with FACTS. Too bad for you....I wonder what you see in this narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer to champion? I guess you think slaughtering a pregnant woman and 2 little girls (plus and unborn baby) is something to celebrate....I find it disgusting, sickening, gross, unthinkable, irrational, not to mention illegal.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
there is a fair and just article in MacDonald's own words
roflmao! there is nothing fair or just or even TRUE in statements made by inmate. he was a cheating b@$t@rd who didn't deserve the precious family he had and he IS the narcissistic sociopathic b@$t@rd that slaughtered those precious beings.

There once was a wrinkled old gnome,
who called Federal Prison his home,
he whined and he moaned,
and he lied then he groaned,
for these murders I will not atone.


a classic ditty presented by bynthebard
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 16th August 2018, 11:41 AM   #205
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I disagree. there is a fair and just article in MacDonald's own words about the matter at:

https://medium.com/@lajp/dr-jeffrey-...s-6f09003ac918
Murderer claims innocence.

No film at eleven.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2018, 11:57 AM   #206
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
As as been pointed out to (and ignored by) henri - inmate's story makes no sense. For example he claims he did CPR on his children yet BOTH children were found in their beds, Kimmie totally tucked in and on her back and Kristy partially covered and on her side. Ignoring the fact that Kimmie's injury would have made standard mouth to mouth breathing impossible one must consider the following from the Standard First Aid and Personal Safety Manual (page 84)

CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) is a combination of artificial respiration and artificial manual circulation that is recommended for use in cases of cardiac arrest.

Technique for External Cardiac Compression: Effective performance of external cardiac compression requires more than just pushing on the chest. There are numerous small details that make the difference between effective and ineffective, safe and unsafe, proper and improper, performance of external cardiac compression. Strict attention should be given to the details.

For external cardiac compression to be effective, the victim must be on a FIRM SURFACE, such as the ground, the floor, or a spine board on a wheeled litter.

As for a knife impaled in the chest: If the object is fixed OR it protrudes more than a few inches from the body, it should be left in place and be secured carefully to prevent movement that would cause further damage.

OF course, I only took Advanced First Aid and Emergency Care and CPR multiple times, and I learned these things. Maybe medical school was different...but I highly doubt it!
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 16th August 2018, 01:44 PM   #207
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Circular Logic

The link put forth by Henriboy is simply an excerpt taken from Fatal Justice where inmate is venting to the authors about how he was railroaded by the CID. Inmate's mixing and matching investigative timelines is a form of circular logic that has been adopted by most, if not all, of his advocates.

In regards to Paul Stombaugh's 1974 analysis of the saran fibers, Henriboy again plays dumb by intimating that Stombaugh never examined the fibers in question. All one has to do is read Stombaugh's handwritten lab notes to verify what Henriboy already knows.

FBI Exhibits Q46 and Q49. Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

For those interested in an accurate timeline...

1970 Janice Glisson was a CID chemist at Fort Gordon. Glisson performed a majority of the serological tests in this case and at the time of the murders, she was in training in regards to hair and fiber analysis. Dillard Browning asked her to assist him with specific hair and fiber comparisons. One of Glisson's responsibilities was to analyze the saran fibers and she concluded that the fibers were of different lengths, blonde in color, and synthetic. Due to his heavy workload, Browning was unable to analyze the saran fibers.

1974 Paul Stombaugh analyzed the saran fibers and determined that they were the type of filament "used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

1990 Robert Webb's chemical composition analysis determined that the 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition to the 24 and 9 inch saran fibers. This indicated that the 3 fibers came from 2 separate source materials.

1990 Michael Malone's fiber comparisons led to a match between the 24 inch saran fiber and doll hair in the FBI's massive exemplar collection.

Despite the conclusions leveled by Stombaugh/Webb/Malone, inmate and his advocates continued to argue that Stoeckley, and Stoeckley alone, wore a wig on 2/17/70 and was present at 544 Castle Drive during the commission of a triple homicide. Due to Stoeckley's testimony at trial that she wasn't wearing a wig on 2/17/70, and the defense being unable to produce a wig exemplar from Stoeckley and/or a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear, this argument fell flat before Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court.

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 August 2018, 02:01 PM   #208
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
The point is that we don't know if the FBI lab was inventing the forensic evidence. The defense experts were never allowed to test it. There have been scandals at the FBI lab, which are now being made public, and not just in the MacDonald case. I'm willing to admit there was saran in those mystery fibers but the defense were never allowed to double check that. All that stuff from Stombaugh and Malone about saran in dolls was guesswork. The doll manufacturers themselves never backed the FBI up about that. That story from Stoeckley that her boyfriend at the time, Mitchell, didn't like her wearing a blond wig was just some cock and bull story from Helena to cover her tracks.

There is a bit of advertising waffle on the internet from some forensic company which MacDonald might find useful if the MacDonald defense fund could run to the expense of it:

https://www.forensic-access.co.uk/im...of-re-testing/
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 16th August 2018, 02:24 PM   #209
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
For external cardiac compression to be effective, the victim must be on a FIRM SURFACE, such as the ground, the floor, or a spine board on a wheeled litter.

As for a knife impaled in the chest: If the object is fixed OR it protrudes more than a few inches from the body, it should be left in place and be secured carefully to prevent movement that would cause further damage.

OF course, I only took Advanced First Aid and Emergency Care and CPR multiple times, and I learned these things. Maybe medical school was different...but I highly doubt it!
Dr. MacDonald was a specialist accident and emergency doctor as we say in the UK. He knew what he was doing. This is his explanation for the knife impaled in the chest from the 1975 Grand Jury and it is not a lie:

Quote:
A I don't know, sir. If you told me I moved her four feet, you may be right. I don't know.
Q Well --
A Seems to me that the movement was not very much. We're talking about six inches or a foot to straighten her away from the chair, and then do some mouth to mouth.
Q Yeah. Now, you say you withdrew a knife from her chest.
A Yeah.
Q Do you have any idea what you did with the knife?
A I just --
Q Once you had it in your hand?
A I just threw it aside.
Q Which way?
A I believe -- I believe it was to the left, because I believe I pulled it out with my left hand.
Q Now, when you say to the left -- does that -- in which direction would it go?
A I don't have any ideas, sir. I honestly have no idea. I would say towards her feet.
Q From your experience in emergency rooms, do you have victims brought in who have knives or other things stuck in them?
A Infrequently, yeah.
Q What's the standard procedure?
A Depends on how bad they are. You take it out and you fix the wound; put in a chest tube if they're still alive, or open the chest and do a heart massage if they have cardiac arrest.
But if you mean take it out or leave it in, you take it out.
You leave it in in the field unless you have to do close chest massage.
Q Why is that?
A If you have to do closed chest massage, you're pumping up and down on the chest, right?, and the knife blade is going to puncture the organ each time you move it up and down.
Q Well, why is the procedure different in the field?
A Well, I'm assuming, when I say in the field, I mean with non medical personnel.
The trained personnel are trained to leave it in place so the doctor can see, for instance, how deep the blade is. Because every witness will tell you different.
Four policemen saw the stabbing, and one said it went in an inch, and the other ones said it went in eight inches. It's a big difference.
Q Well, I'm going to ask you again how deep was the knife thrust into her chest?
A Seems to me that it was -- it was -- all I saw was the handle.
Q You gave her mouth to mouth resuscitation, and the air escaped from her chest?
A Right.
Q And you checked her pulse?
A Right.
Q Now, how did you check her pulse?
A Well, you know, I'm just telling you what I would normally do. I remember holding her wrist, and I remember checking the left femoral area in the groin, and I think I checked her carotid. That's the usual check, is the carotid.
But, you know, it was pretty bloody.
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 16th August 2018, 04:41 PM   #210
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Trolling Tactics

HENRIBOY: For the past 15 years, you've derived pleasure from playing the circus troll on several true crime forums, but it must be frustrating to see your special brand of illogic being called out by posters who have taken the time to read the documented record. Your current cognitive instability is demonstrated by your reliance on conspiracy narratives and your penchant for refusing to provide proof of your absurd claims.

Stating that "we don't know if the FBI lab was inventing the forensic evidence," speaks to your inherent laziness and the fact that you have nothing tangible to bring to the case discussion. Hate to break it to ya, but the CID collected and processed the physical evidence BEFORE the FBI analyzed the SAME data. If you had bothered to read the documented record, you would know that every single evidentiary item in this case had a CID and FBI exhibit number.

According to your conspiracy narrative, the men and women at the CID/FBI must be top-flight magicians for they were able to invent (e.g., whatever the hell that means) the same type and number of evidentiary exhibits in this case. In terms of the analysis of the saran fibers, chemical composition analysis is hardly "guesswork" and the defense did not formulate a rebuttal to Malone's conclusion that the 24 inch saran fiber microscopically matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

The only salient explanation for the saran fibers is that the MacDonald children used their mother's hairbrush to brush the hair of two of the dolls in their respective collections. Microscopic comparisons, chemical composition analysis, and a lack of alternative matching exemplars verify this position whereas the defense couldn't even produce a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 16th August 2018 at 04:45 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 17th August 2018, 02:56 AM   #211
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Stating that "we don't know if the FBI lab was inventing the forensic evidence," speaks to your inherent laziness and the fact that you have nothing tangible to bring to the case discussion. Hate to break it to ya, but the CID collected and processed the physical evidence BEFORE the FBI analyzed the SAME data. If you had bothered to read the documented record, you would know that every single evidentiary item in this case had a CID and FBI exhibit number.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The CID presented their so-called evidence to the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 and MacDonald was cleared, or there was insufficient evidence as Byn keeps saying. The FBI then took over and invented their arithmetically lunatic pajama folding experiment, and their inventions for fibers with no known source, supported by biased and awful judges.

There is criticism of judges mainly in America at this website:

www.uglyjudge.com/judges-2/
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 17th August 2018, 06:24 AM   #212
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
blah blah snipped...

There is criticism of judges mainly in America at this website:

www.uglyjudge.com/judges-2/
How is that more germane to the conversation than the criticism of your assertions on this website?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2018, 08:40 AM   #213
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
How is that more germane to the conversation than the criticism of your assertions on this website?
Judicial corruption is relevant to the MacDonald case and it's the reason he was wrongly convicted and is still in prison. You don't prosecute and imprison an innocent man in a civilised country. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/....Fatal_Justice

Quote:
Feb 14, 2016
Mark Moore rated it
really liked it

This book features tons of research in the FOIA documents on the case. Regardless of whether MacDonald is innocent or guilty, this much is certain: the crime scene was badly mismanaged, evidence was lost, and—even worse—evidence was purposely withheld from trial. The judge was corrupt and was the father-in-law of the Assistant U.S. Attorney who pressed the Justice Department to prosecute MacDonald after he was acquitted by the army. The book also provides in-depth coverage of the Helena Stoeckly ...more

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th August 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 17th August 2018, 09:59 AM   #214
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judicial corruption is relevant to the MacDonald case and it's the reason he was wrongly convicted and is still in prison. You don't prosecute and imprison an innocent man in a civilised country. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/....Fatal_Justice
You can post this nonsense ad infinitum and it won't change the fact that your man crush murdered his family.

No amount of commentary from you or any other internet user will change that fact.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2018, 12:43 PM   #215
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Again, all this folderol over the "blonde wig hair" is pointless. Just for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the strand did in fact come from a human wig. So what? There's no evidence of when that strand was left or who left it. Therefore, it cannot in any way "prove" inmate's innocence. Besides, Stoeckley's always stated she didn't wear a wig that night (that's almost the only thing about that night that she was always consistent on).

And, yes, the scene was badly managed. But no one disputes that "pig" was written at the scene in blood (exactly replicating a Manson element). Why would Stoeckley or Mitchell do that? There's NO reason for THEM to do that. None. Neither of them ever evidenced any thoughts or motives in that direction. "pig" is there clearly ONLY to make it look like a cult killing, which is proof enough that inmate himself -- rather ham-handedly, really -- wrote it.

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 17th August 2018 at 12:44 PM.
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 17th August 2018, 01:03 PM   #216
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
Again, all this folderol over the "blonde wig hair" is pointless. Just for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the strand did in fact come from a human wig. So what? There's no evidence of when that strand was left or who left it. Therefore, it cannot in any way "prove" inmate's innocence. Besides, Stoeckley's always stated she didn't wear a wig that night (that's almost the only thing about that night that she was always consistent on).

And, yes, the scene was badly managed. But no one disputes that "pig" was written at the scene in blood (exactly replicating a Manson element). Why would Stoeckley or Mitchell do that? There's NO reason for THEM to do that. None. Neither of them ever evidenced any thoughts or motives in that direction. "pig" is there clearly ONLY to make it look like a cult killing, which is proof enough that inmate himself -- rather ham-handedly, really -- wrote it.
I agree.

The "drug crazed hippie" as bad actor was as popular with actual perps then as the non-existent "black man" was later.

When you murder and want to direct attention somewhere else stereotypes never go out of style.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2018, 01:17 PM   #217
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2018, 03:01 AM   #218
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Inmate Is A Legend In His Own Mind

After hitting his wife and 5 year old daughter with a 31 inch piece of lumber, inmate had two choices. He could either call Fort Bragg dispatch and fess up to assaulting his wife and daughter or concoct a story involving a band of murderous home invaders.

Inmate has always thought he was the smartest guy in the room, so on 2/17/70, inmate concocted a story that he believed would fool the CID. His confidence lay in his decision to conflate the physical descriptions of the following individuals with the details of the Manson murders.

New York Four

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 the CID due to the fact that these four individuals matched the physical descriptions of the intruder suspects in the MacDonald murders.

CID agent Bennie Hawkins subsequently traveled to Suffolk County to discuss the case with police officials. Hawkins discovered that these four individuals had rented a house in Fire Island with Jeffrey MacDonald's brother, Jay, in the summer of 1969. Jeffrey MacDonald had visited his brother during that summer and was seen conversing with people who matched the descriptions of the New York Four at the Shortstop Bar in Long Island.

Joseph Lee was an African-American male, Gary Burnett and Kenneth Barnett were Caucasian males, and Annette Cullity was a Caucasian female. Lee was seen wearing an army field jacket and Cullity was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots. The number of intruders, their racial make-up, and their clothing items all matched the descriptions provided by Jeffrey MacDonald. Hawkins obtained fingerprint exemplars of the New York Four and their prints did not match any of the prints found at 544 Castle Drive.

In December of 1970, Jeffrey MacDonald and his lawyer, Judge Rogers (William Rogers), went to the Suffolk County Police Department to read the May 9, 1970 arrest report. This trip occurred several months after the completion of the Article 32 hearings. Despite the New York Four matching the descriptions of the four intruders, MacDonald never publicly commented on this visit to the Suffolk County Police Department.

Inmate's story did not sway CID investigators who were convinced that he was the lone perp in this case. The FBI and DOJ concurred with the CID's position and the end result was that inmate was convicted of killing his pregnant wife and two daughters.

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 August 2018, 08:43 AM   #219
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
A few months before the MacDonald murders MacDonald went to the New York area, including the Suffolk County area, to help his brother Jay who was a drug addict. Jay was in with some bad characters who were never stopped and searched by the police because of racial problems. Unfortunately, it ended with MacDonald punching Jay's drug dealer in a bar room brawl. After the MacDonald murders MacDonald quite rightly suspected that that incident could be connected to the MacDonald murders. Mazerolle came from the New York area, though he was born in Maine, and Mazerolle could have arranged the hit on MacDonald's family using the Stoeckley group to do the dirty work.

Errol Morris quite rightly thinks it's a miscarriage of justice:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/o...is-served.html

Quote:
Four decades of accumulated evidence, including evidence once suppressed by prosecutors, has cast serious doubt on Mr. MacDonald’s guilt. Mr. MacDonald, who turned 69 on Friday, has always insisted on his innocence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th August 2018 at 08:46 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2018, 08:54 AM   #220
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
Which is exactly why the "drug crazed hippies" story told by your man crush failed in court.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2018, 09:01 AM   #221
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A few months before the MacDonald murders MacDonald went to the New York area, including the Suffolk County area, to help his brother Jay who was a drug addict. Jay was in with some bad characters who were never stopped and searched by the police because of racial problems. Unfortunately, it ended with MacDonald punching Jay's drug dealer in a bar room brawl. snipped...

Errol Morris quite rightly thinks it's a miscarriage of justice:

snipped
IIRC the sole source for the punching the drug dealer story is your man crush. I suspect he may have recycled a version of his "Me and my buddies killed the killers" ******** story he told his father-in-law.

Morriss can believe what he wants to believe, but it doesn't change the fact that your man crush murdered his family.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2018, 01:44 PM   #222
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
It was what MacDonald told the Grand Jury on oath in 1975 and it could have been verified if the matter had been thoroughly and properly investigated:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...3-gj-jmac.html

Quote:
Q Now, during the Article 32, you were asked a series of about four questions that opened up an area but they didn't close it. The matter was not resolved. I don't have the transcript here but you were asked, did you at that time go to a certain bar which was a bar that apparently your brother Jay frequented.
A The Shortstop Bar.
Q Shortstop Bar. Where is that bar located?
A I don't remember. I have been into a lot of bars to bail my brother out. It was either in New York, in Greenwich Village. I think that's where it is actually.
Q So while you were there you went down to New York, Greenwich Village, and you went to this bar?
A Right.
Q What was the purpose in going to this bar?
A To find out who had been selling by brother drugs.
Q What drugs was your brother using?
A He stated that he had been taking amphetamines, uppers; and then the night of this bad trip, he told me that someone had given him two capsules; typical drug abuser comment. And I said, "What were they?" And he said he didn't know. He presumed they were mescaline or LSD. Actually I presume that because he was in this tremendous hallucinatory state. He was having wild hallucinations, but when I questioned him, it was apparent that he had been speeding, taking amphetamines, for a long time that I hadn't been aware of. And on reflection then, some of his prior actions seemed a lot more in tune with his speeding.
For instance, he used to drive from New York to Chicago non-stop. And I use to wonder how the hell can anyone do that. It's a long drive. And he used to stay up all the time. He used to party day and night. It never occurred to me that my brother would be taking amphetamines.
Q All right, now you were asked this, when you were at the bar, you had seen certain people, referring to four people that your brother associated with?
A Right.
Q Tell us about that.
A I don't believe I was asked that. That was indirect. I am not, you know, disagreeing with you.
Q I say they opened a certain area but they didn't pursue it; and from reading the file, from reading the --
A The implication was that I may have seen these people.
Q Reading Article 32, I know they are referring to a group of four people who allegedly frequented that bar. Now tell us about it?
A Okay. The implication that was gotten through a lot of other testimony that was really third-hand and fourth-hand hearsay. It was unbelievable. My brother knew a group that corresponded roughly to this group of intruders that I had seen in my house on 17 February.
Q You went to this bar?
A Yes.
Q You saw people in the bar?
A Right.
Q Now, tell us about them.
A I spoke to a couple of individuals, Caucasian males. At that point, I had absolutely no reference to this other group until a CID agent, Bennie Hawkins, walks into the Article 32 with this wild bizarre story about another group of four people, including a black male and a blonde female. But at the Shortstop Bar I was unaware of this other group.
Q Well, tell us -- describe to us the people that you saw in the Shortstop Bar.
A They were just bums. A bunch of guys that don't work for a living. A lot of my brother's friends are that way. They live with girls or they live -- one of them goes on welfare and six or eight of them live together. One gets welfare; two gets welfare; one works construction. Construction is good money so they share the money. They are just bums. They sit and drink all night and now I find out are taking a lot of drugs.
Q All right, what did they look like? How old were they? How tall were they? Give us a physical description.
A I tell you the truth, Mr. Woerheide, I'm really dragging -- This is hazy stuff that I am trying to tell you now and make it sound positive. I had an argument in the Shortstop Bar with a couple of guys who said they knew Jay. And I had been told that the bartender was one of the guys supplying Jay with speed. So I guess I got a little pushy with them and there was a little scuffle thereon and I hit the guy or something like that. And I honestly don't -- He was a Caucasian male, brown hair. I'd say probably about six feet tall.
Q All right, you are referring to the bartender?
A I don't know if he was a bartender or not. He was sitting at the end of the bar. There was another bartender. But I was told he was a bartender. I don't know if he was a bartender at the Short -- you know. I come flying in from Puerto Rico and find my brother in a mental institution. Get him out. And I am really mad. And I went to New York City and spent about an hour talking to some people. "Where's Jay?" "Oh, he's out on the island." "I heard he had some trouble," type thing. So I got into sort of a shooting contest with this dope.
Q You say shooting contest. You were shooting off your mouth and he was shooting off your (sic) mouth.
A Yeah, I asked him --
Q There was a little pushing and shoving?...…...

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th August 2018 at 01:51 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 18th August 2018, 02:26 PM   #223
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 460
Henri, I thought you were on his side. And here you are, quoting him as having a nasty temper and that he thinks beating someone is a good way to resolve a conflict. Which is what he did to his pregnant wife and his daughters. Thanks for pointing out this out. However, it's only news to you and Cleo (his Queen of Denial second wife)….oh, and JP, a man after your own heart (man crushes on mac).
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 18th August 2018, 06:25 PM   #224
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was what MacDonald told the Grand Jury on oath in 1975 and it could have been verified if the matter had been thoroughly and properly investigated:

self serving man crush ******** snipped...
On the Isola di non fatti where you reign that might be enough, but in an actual courtroom with actual judges, juries and attorneys on both sides that "on oath" (actually the phrase in the U.S. is "under oath) statement isn't anything more than the hot air you push here.

As an side, is your man crush the only person on the Island of no facts that truthfully testifies under oath? It seems pretty clear that you reject out-of-hand any court testimony that properly identifies your man crush as the murderer that he is.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2018, 03:01 AM   #225
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
The FBI are total liars.
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 August 2018, 08:42 AM   #226
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
There is an interesting website about recent developments in the MacDonald case at:

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...128281484.html

Quote:
Prosecutors argued that despite MacDonald’s injuries – blunt-force trauma to the left side of his forehead, a bruised right forehead, stab wounds and a collapsed lung – he had snapped and killed his family in a rage.

Prosecutors never presented a clear motive for why a man with no signs of a violent past would snap, bludgeon his family, stage a crime scene and inflict wounds on himself. His case exposed extramarital affairs, but there was no testimony or evidence of one going on at the time of the murders.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th August 2018 at 08:44 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 August 2018, 11:35 PM   #227
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Old And Debunked Information

HENRIBOY: I see that your penchant for fashioning your own definitions is alive and well. Your link was NOT to a website, but to the Raleigh News Observer and that article did NOT cover "recent developments in the MacDonald case." The newspaper article was published several days prior to Oral Arguments before the 4th Circuit Court in January of 2017.

Despite the article's attempt to provide the case narratives of both the government and the defense, Anne Blythe couldn't help but print erroneous information. For example, inmate had a singular bump or contusion over his left eye just above the hairline, yet Anne attempted to beef up the defense narrative by claiming that inmate suffered blunt-force trauma injuries to the left and right side of his head.

Anne also states inmate suffered several stab wounds, but conveniently ignores the type and severity of those wounds. The medical record is easily accessible, but it appears that Anne didn't want to reveal to her readers that all but one of inmate's wounds were superficial.

Anne places great emphasis on the prosecutors not presenting "a clear motive for why a man with no signs of a violent past would snap, bludgeon his family, stage a crime scene and inflict wounds on himself. His case exposed extramarital affairs, but there was no testimony or evidence of one going on at the time of the murders."

This statement indicates that Anne is a young and inexperienced investigative journalist. A prosecutor is not required to provide a motive, so the prosecutors at the MacDonald trial were smart enough to let the physical evidence provide the proof of inmate's guilt. Anne is also coy about what constitutes an affair occurring "at the time of the murders."

If Anne had researched this case, she would have known that in the weeks prior to the murders, inmate had told Colette that he was accompanying the Fort Bragg Boxing Team to Russia during the time when she was due to give birth to their 3rd child. The CID collected information from several sources indicating that the trip to Russia was a ruse, and that he would be spending that time with an ex-girlfriend.

The prosecution decided not to include that information at trial, but that was not an unusual decision as evidenced by the fact that they only presented about 60 percent of their massive case file.

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 20th August 2018, 02:37 AM   #228
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
If Anne had researched this case, she would have known that in the weeks prior to the murders, inmate had told Colette that he was accompanying the Fort Bragg Boxing Team to Russia during the time when she was due to give birth to their 3rd child. The CID collected information from several sources indicating that the trip to Russia was a ruse, and that he would be spending that time with an ex-girlfriend.

The prosecution decided not to include that information at trial, but that was not an unusual decision as evidenced by the fact that they only presented about 60 percent of their massive case file.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Without getting too academic about that proposed boxing trip to Russia in the MacDonald case, it has been discussed endlessly on the MacDonald forums in the past. It's inadmissible under the rules of evidence. There is a different opinion about it to JTF at this website:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...Y/6Qg7ivmReuMJ

Quote:
"McGinniss said throughout the book that MacDonald had lied to Colette
about being offered a trip to Russia to serve as physician on the army
boxing team. Yet McGinniss had failed to interview Sherriedale Morgan,
the Fort Bragg boxing coach, to check on the issue, even when the
author and the coach appeared together during a court hearing. Morgan
later verified that MacDonald had not lied."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th August 2018 at 02:54 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 August 2018, 02:50 AM   #229
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Anne also states inmate suffered several stab wounds, but conveniently ignores the type and severity of those wounds. The medical record is easily accessible, but it appears that Anne didn't want to reveal to her readers that all but one of inmate's wounds were superficial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The severity of MacDonald's injuries have also been discussed endlessly on the MacDonald forums in the past. The dishonest prosecutors and corrupt judges and other internet posters, always tried to insist the he just had a few self-inflicted cuts and bruises. That was patently false. This is an opinion by a medically qualified expert about the matter:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...12_manson.html

Quote:
Q Did you have occasion to observe any injuries on or about Captain MacDonald's head?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you describe to Colonel Rock, the investigating officer, what injuries you saw on his head, where they were located, please?
A He had a large contusion on his forehead, slightly to the left of center, and he had another smaller contusion in the interior portion of his temple region on the right.
Q In regard to the second of those, which you described on the interior portion of the right, would you point your finger as to where that would be?
A It would be about right in here. Just immediately behind the hairline.
Q Was that injury in any way obscured by anything at the time you saw it?
A It was just hard to see because of the hairline.
Q Did you have occasion to observe any body injuries on Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, I did. He had a very large hematoma of his left eye and he had a puncture wound in the lower portion of his right chest anteriorly, and he had some scratches on his abdomen and another puncture wound, near his -- umbilicus on his abdomen.
Q Of all those injuries, which was the more serious injury, taken by itself?
A It most certainly would have been the puncture wound in his -- lower portion of his right chest.
Q Was this injury, in your judgment, a life-threatening injury?
A Because of the possibility of a tension pneumothorax laceration of a major blood vessel or a laceration of the liver.
Q Assuming that a trained medical person, a doctor, was to inflict the wound in that location you've just described, could he know the medical consequences of such injury, if he did inflict it upon himself?
A No.
Q Why would he not be able to anticipate the medical consequences of that injury?
A It's just impossible to predict whether or not one will get a tension pneumothorax from a penetrating wound in the chest. It is impossible to predict where the liver is in relation to any wound in the area and likewise where any of the great veins that run in that area.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th August 2018 at 02:52 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2018, 07:56 AM   #230
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
It's pure speculation and fabrication for Stombaugh of the FBI to suggest that Colette hit MacDonald on the head with a hairbrush after a violent argument about a boxing trip to Russia. That proposed boxing trip was mentioned on August 24th 1979 at the MacDonald trial:

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

Quote:
Q Now, you testified yesterday that -- I think -- that you and Sherridale Morgan had discussed a proposed boxing trip to Russia?
A That's right.
Q And that you were going to be the team physician?
A That's correct.
Q And that would be a 30-day trip in March of 1970?
A Right.
Q Are you sure? Are you positive?
A Of what?
Q That Mr. Morgan and you did, in fact, discuss such a boxing trip?
A I discussed the boxing trip. I thought it was with Mr. Morgan; yes.
Q He was the boxing coach?
A Right.
Q Are you positive that you were planning to go to Russia with the boxing team for 30 days in March of 1970?
A No.
Q Let me ask you this question: are you positive that it was being discussed or considered that you might go --
A (Interposing) Yes.
Q -- with the boxing team?
A That's what occurred. It was being discussed.
Q Who did you discuss it with, if you can recall?
A Captain Heestan (phonetic), my immediate superior at the Group Surgeon's office, and Colette, and I don't know yet if we had discussed it with Colonel Kane. I think we had. I'm not sure. And Mr. Morgan -- Sergeant Morgan.
Q Now, I think you said yesterday that in your discussions with Colette she thought it was okay. She did not object to your going.
A That's correct.
Q Didn't it bother her that you were going to be gone for 30 days while she was -- I guess -- would be seven months pregnant -- six months pregnant?
A I'm sure it did. We had discussed it. It didn't seem like that traumatic an event for me to be gone for that amount of time not really close to delivery date.
Q Well, traumatic to who -- you or Colette or both?
A To both of us.
Q Well, do you recall the testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Krystia Ramage and Mrs. Kassab also that Colette expressed some concern about the fact that you might be away for a long period of time while she was pregnant?
A I don't remember Mrs. Elizabeth Krystia (sic) saying that. She may have said it, but I don't recall sitting here and hearing that testimony. I thought that she stated that we had a nice relationship and Colette was proud of me and --
Q (Interposing) I'm not disputing that point that that's what she said. I think that is correct and this is what she said. What I am saying is: do you recall her testimony that at one time in their visits with each other, going to or from class or at class, Colette was concerned about your possible absence at some time?
A I am not struck with any remembrances of that testimony. It may have occurred.
Q What about Mrs. Kassab; do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall her saying that?
A Vaguely.
Q Now, as I recall, you stated and some of your character witnesses also stated, as I recall, and your mother that this was a time of happiness for you all, that you had more money...………..

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th August 2018 at 08:11 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 August 2018, 11:22 AM   #231
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,654
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The FBI are total liars.
Your man crush is still guilty.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 09:13 AM   #232
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Quote:
Prosecutors never presented a clear motive for why a man with no signs of a violent past would snap, bludgeon his family, stage a crime scene and inflict wounds on himself. His case exposed extramarital affairs, but there was no testimony or evidence of one going on at the time of the murders.
Nor are they required to present a motive. "If we prove that he [inmate] did it, we don't have to prove he is the kind of man who could have done it."

They never argued the killing of Colette was premeditated, so their was no original "motive" in the traditional sense for him killing her. It was an outburst of rage. Kristy was the one that had to be premeditated, since she at least was still alive after the initial rage killing(s).
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2018, 09:29 AM   #233
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
Nor are they required to present a motive. "If we prove that he [inmate] did it, we don't have to prove he is the kind of man who could have done it."
Americans seem to be very vociferous in the Amanda Knox case, even on this forum, that there was no motive, and defects in the forensic evidence in that case, but not it seems in the MacDonald case in America.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...45a2abc70c0d49

Quote:
Mr Cantwell added that the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox was guilty. Jurors were allowed to view negative news coverage about Knox.
Other flaws in the justice system on display included the alleged treatment of Knox after her arrest and negligent handling of evidence by investigators, he said.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st August 2018 at 09:33 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 August 2018, 01:32 PM   #234
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Cognitive Chaos

HENRIBOY: For the past decade plus, I've challenged you to produce a single piece of trace evidence that was sourced to a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven. You've repeatedly failed to produce that evidentiary item, yet your reference to the Amanda Knox Case is another example of your special brand of cognitive chaos. Unlike the MacDonald Case, there were several evidentiary items in the Knox Case that were sourced to another suspect. Similar to inmate, the sourced evidentiary items led to that suspect being convicted of murder.

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 22nd August 2018, 04:46 AM   #235
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
inmate was a specialist accident and emergency doctor as we say in the UK.
He was an Emergency Room physician here.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He knew what he was doing.
Correction HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what he was doing.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is his explanation for the knife impaled in the chest from the 1975 Grand Jury and it is not a lie:
whatever his comments in relation to the knife he "allegedly removed" from Colette's chest is (1) a BIG FAT LIE because there were no injuries to Colette's chest made by the knife he claimed to have removed (2) as an ER Doctor he WOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO REMOVE AN IMPALED OBJECT FROM COLETTE'S (or anyone's) CHEST. 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 22nd August 2018, 08:42 AM   #236
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
whatever his comments in relation to the knife he "allegedly removed" from Colette's chest is (1) a BIG FAT LIE because there were no injuries to Colette's chest made by the knife he claimed to have removed (2) as an ER Doctor he WOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAN TO REMOVE AN IMPALED OBJECT FROM COLETTE'S (or anyone's) CHEST. PERIOD.
Yes, assuming he wanted the person to do better medically. He likely did remove anything that was actually impaled in her since he was determined that she die. I think you basically have to invert normal "doctor thinking" in this case, because inmate was not trying to "do no harm": indeed, he was doing the ultimate harm.
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 August 2018, 02:26 AM   #237
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Where's The Beef?

It comes as no surprise to those familiar with this case that inmate's advocates have been unable to produce a single piece of sourced evidence that inculpates someone other than Jeffrey MacDonald. In a legal sense, this philosophy of relying on hearsay testimony and tenuous forensic links, is best encapsulated in the government's 6/29/12 notice to Judge Fox. Despite the defense having 28 years to gather the exculpatory goods, they asked for yet another delay to collect additional information to present at the evidentiary hearing.

1) The government argues that depositions are not needed to "develop additional facts relevant to the disposition of MacDonald's successive 2255 claim" and that "any facts relevant to the disposition of MacDonald's successive 2255 claim can be fully developed" at the 8/20/12 hearing.

2) The government adds, "As the Court noted, MacDonald has not made any effort to depose or to seek to depose any witness in the more than six (6) years that his successive 2255 claim has been pending." Talk about waiting until the last minute!

3) I love how the government points out that the defense is simply using this process as a "fishing expedition" in order to "turn up additional 2255 claims."

4) The following is my favorite part of the government's notice to Judge Fox.

"MacDonald has been provided discovery in a criminal trial, has received numerous documents from extensive FOIA requests, has filed 5 previous collateral attacks on his conviction, and has had six years to develop the evidence related to his current claims. He should not be allowed now, just seven weeks before the oft-continued (at his request) evidentiary hearing, to launch a fishing expedition for more evidence, at great expense to the taxpayers."

5) Janice Glisson is the only person on the deposition list whose affidavit was appended to the government's response. The government argues that if Judge Fox allows depositions to be taken by the defense, it should be limited to Glisson and Glisson alone. Incredibly, the defense never called Glisson nor any other qualified forensic examiner to testify at the evidentiary hearing.

Once the government began to present their case, most of the media outlets broke the sound barrier when leaving town. They had already viewed the government destroying the defense's case on cross, so they weren't going to wait around to view the government putting the final nail in inmate's legal coffin.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th August 2018 at 02:35 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 03:07 AM   #238
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
Yes, assuming he wanted the person to do better medically. He likely did remove anything that was actually impaled in her since he was determined that she die. I think you basically have to invert normal "doctor thinking" in this case, because inmate was not trying to "do no harm": indeed, he was doing the ultimate harm.
I'm not medically qualified. I appreciate that the advice is to leave an impaled knife alone, but there are exceptions which I think apply to the MacDonald case:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-t...object-1298804

Quote:
However, as with every rule, there are exceptions. If an impaled object must be removed, follow the steps to control bleeding, starting with direct pressure on the wound. Impaled objects may be removed if:
the patient needs CPR and the object is in the way
the object is in the way of the patient's airway

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th August 2018 at 03:10 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 09:39 AM   #239
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm not medically qualified. I appreciate that the advice is to leave an impaled knife alone, but there are exceptions which I think apply to the MacDonald case:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-t...object-1298804
Oh, the article left out one: you want to put your blood-stained pajama top on the victim and stab her multiple times to explain the blood on said shirt that doesn't go with the story you're going to tell the authorities.
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 27th August 2018, 09:43 AM   #240
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm not medically qualified. I appreciate that the advice is to leave an impaled knife alone, but there are exceptions which I think apply to the MacDonald case:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-t...object-1298804
But all irrelevant since inmate himself stated that he knew she was already dead. Since she was so clearly dead, she must have been dead for at least some period of time.

Which points out the other common sense issue about his story and these crimes:
How did the "intruders" manage to have such pin-point timing?

By inmate's own story, he is awake until past 2 reading, doing dishes, etc.. Yet by ~3:30AM, he's calling for help (he dropped the receiver and had to call back several minutes later). This after having fought the "intruders" and been "unconscious" for at least several minutes (again, by inmate's own story).

So somehow the "intruders" manage to arrive at almost exactly the moment he fell asleep? Just not believable, just too much and too many "coincidences".

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 27th August 2018 at 09:44 AM.
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
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 03:17 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.