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 5th September 2018, 09:00 AM   #281
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
COMMENT: The bigger issue is why the authors ignore their own endnotes in relation to Malone's 1990 fiber analysis? The documented record clearly demonstrates that in 1989, the FBI was still in possession of the Q89 pajama fibers in the pillbox. In preparation for the hearing before Judge Dupree, the FBI took two color photographs of the pajama fibers in the pillbox and they were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. The authors were aware of this FACT, but flat-out ignored it because it further debunked their claim that no pajama fibers were found on the club.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
So what? I could put your pajama fibers in a pillbox and take two color photographs of them and then present it to a court as evidence of murder. It only fools absurdly credulous people and con artists, and perhaps the average juror.
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 5th September 2018, 10:18 AM   #282
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
So what? {snip of nonsense}
These two words, dear readers of this thread, sum up Henri's attitude towards the FACTS in this case.
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 5th September 2018, 11:00 AM   #283
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
So what? I could put your pajama fibers in a pillbox and take two color photographs of them and then present it to a court as evidence of murder.
Sure you could IF said fibers were first removed from a murder weapon and placed in a pillbox or other container AND fully annotated in the bench notes. The pillboxes, vials, and slides created were also give evidence numbers like Q89. All items were examined, reviewed, and where possible sourced and all that information was in the bench notes. These are among the reasons that they could be used as evidence. (it also helps that the threads in the pillbox were matched (aka sourced) to inmate's pjs.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It only fools absurdly credulous people and con artists, and perhaps the average juror.
the jurors and those of us who deal in FACTS accept that the threads in the pillbox were removed (per the bench notes) from the murder club and placed in the pillbox. AND the FACT that they were examined and SOURCED to inmate's pjs.

fools and conspiracy theorists who get upset by the FACT that we INSIST on clouding out their ridiculous prejudices with FACT don't have a clue how the real world works. inmate viciously brutally slaughtered his pregnant wife and 2 precious daughters. he is where he belongs and the EVIDENCE proves 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 5th September 2018, 01:57 PM   #284
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Bost And Potter Wasted 10 Years Part III

"Consider Ivory," McCoy continued, "a guy of his low rank and meager experience, 26 years old, with absolutely no command authority, heading up his very first murder case, this green investigator should not go into the Fort Gordon lab and pick out evidence and mess with it. I'm talking about the piece of skin now. Then it vanished! Who let him have the run of the lab like that?"

COMMENT: At one point, the book intimates that McCoy's knowledge of this case was limited which indicates that all of the information contained in this excerpt was provided to McCoy by Bost and Potter. The first clue is McCoy's reference to Ivory being 26 years old at the time of the murders. In the original hardback version of Fatal Justice, the authors state that Ivory was only 26 years old when he entered the crime scene. That is false. William Ivory was 30 years old when he investigated this murder case and he had enough command authority to oversee the crime scene prior to Franz Grebner's arrival.

Robert Shaw had 7 years of experience as a CID investigator, yet he had to follow Ivory's instructions during the initial stages of the investigation. Ivory may have been green in terms of murder investigations, but he was involved in narcotics cases for almost a decade. In a few of those cases, people were murdered in drug deals, so Ivory was hardly intimidated by the MacDonald crime scene. While still in its container, Ivory asked to look at the piece of skin or surgeon's glove under a microscope and Ivory stated he never removed the item from its container. McCoy intimates that Ivory lost the piece of skin or surgeon's glove, but it's clear that this evidentiary item was lost by a Fort Gordon lab technician.

"Where'd Ivory get the balls to cover up his knowledge of Stoeckley's wig, her boots, the lack of alibi, yes, and Ivory's own avowed knowledge that her friends were dangerous little *****? Who let him get by so long with that cockamamie theory that MacDonald staged the scene?"

COMMENT: Again, most of the information in this rant was supplied to McCoy by Bost and Potter. There is no way of knowing how the authors couched the data presented in the "heart" of their files, but I would hazard to guess that it was presented in a one-sided fashion. Stoeckley's possession of a wig wasn't exactly a secret and roommate Kathy Smith claimed that the wig in question was actually her own. Similar to the wig issue, Ivory didn't cover up the existence of boots that were found at the residence of Cathy Perry. There is documentation of the CID obtaining the boots from Perry's landlord and a macroscopic examination determined that no blood was on the boots.

Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told Fayetteville Observer Reporter Pat Reese that she had no memory of her whereabouts due to excessive drug use. Ivory was simply one of several individuals who was given this same explanation by Stoeckley. Ivory's avowed knowledge came from his personal experiences with drug addicts and dealers. The FACT that the drug world is a dangerous place is hardly eye-opening information. Lastly, the origin of the staged scene theory was a group effort which included Ivory, Robert Shaw, and Franz Grebner. The rest of the CID endorsed the theory and for several years, the FBI used the living room at 544 Castle Drive in their literature as a prime example of a staged crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th September 2018 at 01:58 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 6th September 2018, 01:57 AM   #285
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
"Consider Ivory," McCoy continued, "a guy of his low rank and meager experience, 26 years old, with absolutely no command authority, heading up his very first murder case, this green investigator should not go into the Fort Gordon lab and pick out evidence and mess with it. I'm talking about the piece of skin now. Then it vanished! Who let him have the run of the lab like that?"

"Where'd Ivory get the balls to cover up his knowledge of Stoeckley's wig, her boots, the lack of alibi, yes, and Ivory's own avowed knowledge that her friends were dangerous little *****? Who let him get by so long with that cockamamie theory that MacDonald staged the scene?"

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Stoeckley always maintained that CID agent Ivory was corrupt and that he was personally involved in the Fort Bragg drugs scene. He did attend the 2012 evidentiary hearing, but I have never seen a transcript of what he said. There was some brief report that he is now going deaf. It's true that he was very inexperienced to be the senior officer in charge of the MacDonald case investigation. There is a bit of background to all this 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?
The latest news on Dr. MacDonald’s 4th appeal is at https://www.facebook.com/FreeMacdonald/

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th September 2018 at 02:11 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 6th September 2018, 03:34 AM   #286
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
The "Me No Nothing" Ploy

HENRIBOY: Despite the fact that you're lying about never having read the transcript of Ivory's testimony...

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._corrected.pdf

Hail to the competence and diligence of CID Hall of Famer William Ivory.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 6th September 2018 at 03:35 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 6th September 2018, 07:46 AM   #287
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 445
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stoeckley always maintained {snip of normal Henri nonsense}
Helena Stoeckley NEVER, I repeated NEVER "always maintained" anything but her drug and alcohol habits. Depending upon what combination she was doing, her story changed. Depending upon with whom she was talking, her story changed. She probably changed her story about the Macdonald case more often than she changed her underwear. She was a drug addict and probably an alcoholic who, for the price of a fix or a drink, would tell you whatever you wanted to hear. But her first statement was probably the closest the truth and went roughly along the lines of: I was too stoned to know where I was and don't remember anything of that night.
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 September 2018, 08:42 AM   #288
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Stoeckley also had a penchant for telling tall tales (much more polite then saying she lied, which she did frequently) including but not limited to stories of her "standing watch" in the guard booth with MPs. In fact, IF (and it is a very big if) she was ever actually IN a guard booth on base then she was not likely to be "standing" anything.....

the only consistent story she told was that she was too stoned to have any memory of that night....
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 6th September 2018, 09:34 AM   #289
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
This is an example of CID agent Ivory's pathetic questioning of Stoeckley from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. It's nearly as ridiculous as his interview with Mitchell during the re-investigation in 1972:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-ivory.html

Quote:
Q You mean she knew in her mind or that's all she chose to tell?
A Well, that's what she told me.
Q Did you ask for the description of the owner of that blue Mustang she was driving?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what, if anything, did she tell you in that regard?
A He was a white male, former enlisted man in the Army, and she couldn't go into more specific details, other than the physical description.
Q Did you ask her any questions about specific identification points?
A I asked her to describe the man to me as best she could, and she said he was twenty or under and a white male, dark hair.
Q Did you ask her any other questions in regard to the identification of that person, or the description of that person?
A That's all she could furnish me, in any way of a description.
Q But did you ask her any specific points of identification?
A Yes, sir, I asked her to describe any facial features, et cetera.
Q Is it fair to say that's the only type of question you put to her?
A Yes, she just could give me a general description.
Q When you say she could just give you, you mean she could or that's all she chose to give you?
A I couldn't read her mind. That's what she gave me.
Q How about her manner of demeanor? Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q Candid and open. Is that right?
A Right.
Q And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory. I don't underestimate that for a moment. What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A I could not -- I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A I've never tried it. I do not know.
Q Well, I didn't suggest that. I said based upon your experience as an investigator, I am sure you've talked with physicians in regard to marijuana, the fact you are aware, I am sure, that marijuana does not -- is not reported in any way to effect the memory processes.
A As far as I know.
Q So knowing that, at least, you still felt that she was being frank, candid and open when she told you that she couldn't remember her whereabouts when she was smoking marijuana?
A What else could I say?
Q You could say that she was a liar and ask her to be more specific about what she was doing and where she was.
A I possibly could have.
Q But you did not, sir?
A No, I did not.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th September 2018 at 10:08 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 6th September 2018, 10:05 AM   #290
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Despite the fact that you're lying about never having read the transcript of Ivory's testimony...

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._corrected.pdf

Hail to the competence and diligence of CID Hall of Famer William Ivory.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's an interesting transcript of Ivory's testimony from the 2012 evidentiary hearing, which JTF has found somewhere, which I have not seen before. This is part of it with Ivory being cross-examined by a MacDonald defense lawyer:

Quote:
Q. NOW, THAT PAJAMA TOP WASN'T ON HER BODY WHEN THE FIRST14 RESPONDERS GOT TO THE APARTMENT, WAS IT?15 A. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS.16 Q. AND SO IF MILITARY POLICEMEN ROBERT DUFFY AND DENNIS17 MORRIS TESTIFIED THAT WHEN THEY GOT THERE AHEAD OF YOU AND SAW18 AN EXPOSED BREAST OF COLETTE MACDONALD, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT19 THAT WAS INCORRECT, WOULD YOU?20 A. I'M SORRY, I DON'T FOLLOW YOU ON THAT. 21 Q. IF TWO MILITARY -- IF MILITARY POLICE ARRIVED AHEAD OF22 YOU -- 23 A. YES.24 Q. -- AND SAID THAT WHEN THEY ARRIVED THE PAJAMA TOP WASN'T25
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 320 Filed 11/21/12 Page 133 of 204
Ivory/Cross Page 835
September 20, 2012
ON THE BODY, YOU WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO KNOW THAT TO BE FALSE1 IF THEY GOT THERE AHEAD OF YOU, WOULD YOU?2 A. NOT REALLY, NO.3 Q. OKAY. AND IF THEY SAID THAT ONE OF HER BREASTS OR PART4 OF HER BREAST WAS EXPOSED, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO5 THINK THAT WAS -- OR KNOW THAT WAS FALSE, WOULD YOU?6 A. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T REPORT IT THERE AT THE7 SCENE. IT WAS NOT MADE KNOWN TO ME --8 Q. ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU DIDN'T -- 9 A. -- OR ANY OTHER AGENT THERE. 10 Q. SO, YOU DIDN'T KNOW?11 A. NO.12 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF13 SOMEONE LAID THE PAJAMA TOP ON TOP OF HER BODY BEFORE YOU GOT14 THERE TO COVER UP AN EXPOSED BREAST, WOULD YOU?15 A. NO.16 Q. YOU WEREN'T THE FIRST ONE THERE?17 A. THAT'S TRUE. 18 Q. OKAY. AND YOUR PHOTOGRAPHER WAS THERE AFTER YOU WERE?19 A. EXACTLY.20 Q. SO, ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DISPLAY OR SHOW IS THE SCENE AT21 THE TIME YOU GOT THERE AT THE EARLIEST?22 A. (NO RESPONSE.)23 Q. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU'VE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT24 OF TIME DESCRIBING --25
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 320 Filed 11/21/12 Page 134
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 6th September 2018, 01:49 PM   #291
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Your Point Being?

HENRIBOY: Despite your "Me Know Nothing" ploy, you are fully aware of the fact that the excerpt from Ivory's 2012 testimony mirrors his testimony from the 1970 Article 32 Hearings and the 1979 trial. Ivory had no control over the timeline of his arrival at the crime scene, but once he did arrive at the crime scene, he performed his duties in a professional manner. It's important to remember that even Bost and Potter admitted that Ivory's work on the MacDonald Case would earn him "a reputation for brilliance." Of course, they had to purge themselves of their sour grapes by adding, "whether or not it was deserved." The totality of Ivory's work for the CID earned him a spot in CID Hall of Fame in 2007.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 6th September 2018 at 01:51 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 6th September 2018, 03:58 PM   #292
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Exactly. This is more of the minutiae that Mac-olites like to cling to, as useless as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

The pajama top could have been on her and one breast still be exposed. The top was folder over, after all, and not necessarily spread out over her entire chest.

Does Henri really think this could serve as some type of "proof" of "innocence"? Or even "proof" that others were 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 6th September 2018, 07:41 PM   #293
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
The End Is Near

The excellent literary essays constructed by Joe McGinniss, Gene Weingarten, Robert Sam Anson, and a slew of dedicated case researchers explains why the approach by Bost/Potter/Morris and other MacDonald advocates lacks critical thought. I understand why MacDonald advocates have a fervent desire to ignore logic and plunge headlong into the largely irrelevant and irresolvable minutiae that is the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case.

It is far easier to focus on the fact that Stoeckley confessed on multiple occasions or that the CID's original investigation was not a model of its kind, but as McGinniss pointed out, "Facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they can't be overcome by hype." MacDonald advocates have no salient retort to most of the government's massive forensic case against inmate, so they rely on an artificially-created dichotomy between "MacDonald is the lone perp" and everything else, where everything else is most commonly (and pseudo-categorically) written as "Some of kind of conspiracy."

No amount of failure to prove a conspiracy of any kind (e.g., CID, FBI, DOJ, or all three) confirms the categorical-only inference of a conspiracy in this case. Illogical as it is, this conspiracy theory stands on two legs. Kick either one out from under you and you fall flat. The problem in debating this theory is how easy it is for conspiracists to bait their critics into having to defend the CID/FBI investigations while they themselves lay out a purely passive, presumptive case.

Fortunately, the case records became part of the public domain and researchers were able to fact check the work produced on both sides of the fence. Much to the chagrin of Bost/Potter/Morris, FJ and WOE were exposed as literary propaganda and the only readers who took their "work" seriously were those who embraced woo. In essence, FJ/WOE joined a journalistic brotherhood that specialized in advocating for cold-blooded killers and having the ability to spot a conspiracy around every corner.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 6th September 2018 at 07:44 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 02:30 AM   #294
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Fortunately, the case records became part of the public domain and researchers were able to fact check the work produced on both sides of the fence. Much to the chagrin of Bost/Potter/Morris, FJ and WOE were exposed as literary propaganda and the only readers who took their "work" seriously were those who embraced woo. In essence, FJ/WOE joined a journalistic brotherhood that specialized in advocating for cold-blooded killers and having the ability to spot a conspiracy around every corner.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Bost and Potter and Morris in the Wilderness of Errors book wrote sense about the MacDonald case. Fatal Vision was only written for the McGinniss bank account at the Bank of New England. As I have said many times in the past on the MacDonald forums, Ivory should have been in the Hall of Infamy not the Hall of Fame.

Ivory never really explained the candle wax at the crime scene at the 2012 evidentiary hearing which never came from MacDonald candles, or the fingerprints which a fingerprint expert testified at the trial that he was "totally mystified" about. From that evidentiary hearing in 2012:

Quote:
Q. OKAY. AND THERE WAS CANDLE WAX ALSO IN KIMBERLEY'S ROOM,1 WASN'T THERE?2 A. YES, THERE WAS ON THE ARMS OF THE CHAIR. YES, THERE WAS.3 Q. CANDLE WAX ON THE BEDSPREAD IN KIMBERLEY'S ROOM, CANDLE4 WAX ON THE COFFEE TABLE, CANDLE WAX IN ALL OF THESE PLACES,5 CORRECT?6 A. CORRECT.7 Q. AND NONE OF THAT CANDLE WAX MATCHED ANY OF THE CANDLES IN8 THE HOUSE?9 A. I'D HAVE TO DIFFER WITH YOU ON THAT.10 Q. WELL, WHICH ONES DID THEY MATCH?11 A. WE COLLECTED EVERY CANDLE WE COULD FIND IN THE HOUSE AND12 SENT THEM OFF TO THE LABORATORY TO BE EXAMINED. AS FAR AS I13 KNOW, ALL THE SAMPLES WE COLLECTED HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED OR14 ASSOCIATED WITH ANOTHER CANDLE OR OTHER CANDLE WAX.15 Q. OKAY.16 A. NOW -- OKAY. GO ON.17 Q. NO. GO AHEAD.18 A. I'M FINE.19 Q. BUT THERE WAS CANDLE WAX THAT DIDN'T MATCH CANDLE20 DRIPPINGS IN THE HOUSE IN SEVERAL OF THESE PLACES INCLUDING21 THE CHAIR IN KIMBERLEY'S ROOM AND THE BEDSPREAD IN KIMBERLEY'S22 ROOM THAT DID NOT MATCH ANY CANDLES IN THE HOUSE, ISN'T THAT23 ACCURATE?24 A. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACCURATE OR NOT.
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 7th September 2018, 05:29 AM   #295
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Bost and Potter and Morris in the Wilderness of Errors book wrote sense about the MacDonald case.

henri - I always knew you were capable of putting your foot into your mouth. what astonishes me is that you are then capable of opening your mouth even wider and sticking the other foot in there as well.

Fatal Joke is replete with errors, misrepresentation, cut and paste presentation, and out right lies. At least 1 error for every 5 pages of prose. FACT henri. I have not bothered with WOE because people that KNOW this case inside and out have said it is a piece of crap and since reading FJ was such a painful experience I do not desire to repeat the pain with an equally crappy book.

NONE of the authors mentioned above spoke sense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Fatal Vision was only written for the McGinniss bank account at the Bank of New England.
In all the years since Fatal Vision (and Final Vision) were published not one single substantive error has been found. The same cannot be said of FJ or WOE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As I have said many times in the past on the MacDonald forums, Ivory should have been in the Hall of Infamy not the Hall of Fame.
Bill Ivory EARNED his place in the HOF. I know what your problem is with Ivory....sour grapes because he was a big part of getting your man crush convicted. Too bad for you! If inmate had not brutally slaughtered his family he would not be where he is today.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Ivory never really explained the candle wax at the crime scene at the 2012 evidentiary hearing which never came from MacDonald candles,
What is there to explain about the wax? Did the defense bring up the wax? The wax found on the coffee table was old and filled with household debris so we KNOW that the wax was not from any candles held by any alleged hippy home invaders. The wax found in Kimmie's room was the wax from birthday cake candles so we KNOW that was not from any candles any alleged hippy home invaders might have carried. The fact that the investigators didn't find any candles in the home that matched wax deposits IS NOT SOME SINISTER SITUATION. You see henri, MOST PEOPLE throw the stubs of candles away when they can no longer be lit. One does not move stubs from home to home once the candles cannot be used they become TRASH and get tossed.

Presence of wax of unexplained origin is not proof of hippy home invaders. Besides Helena said her candle dripped blood not wax roflmao even though sentient beings know Helena was not there so the whole point is that inmate was not convicted over wax deposits.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or the fingerprints which a fingerprint expert testified at the trial that he was "totally mystified" about.
Not all the fingerprints were identified so? that does not put intruders into the house. You know what else henri? It also eliminates all of the known or suspected intruder suspects because the unidentified prints were compared with their print cards and no matches found. Thus Helena, Greg M, and all the rest were eliminated as suspects. They could not have been there and not left evidence of their presence.
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 7th September 2018, 06:20 AM   #296
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
Exactly. This is more of the minutiae that Mac-olites like to cling to, as useless as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

The pajama top could have been on her and one breast still be exposed. The top was folder over, after all, and not necessarily spread out over her entire chest.

Does Henri really think this could serve as some type of "proof" of "innocence"? Or even "proof" that others were there?
straws.........they must be grasped.
Whip 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 7th September 2018, 06:24 AM   #297
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
No amount of failure to prove a conspiracy of any kind (e.g., CID, FBI, DOJ, or all three) confirms the categorical-only inference of a conspiracy in this case. Illogical as it is, this conspiracy theory stands on two legs. Kick either one out from under you and you fall flat. The problem in debating this theory is how easy it is for conspiracists to bait their critics into having to defend the CID/FBI investigations while they themselves lay out a purely passive, presumptive case.
one would think they would all get together and get inmate freed instead of wasting time trolling messageboards. just think of the heroes they'd be.
Whip 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 7th September 2018, 08:13 AM   #298
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
one would think they would all get together and get inmate freed instead of wasting time trolling messageboards. just think of the heroes they'd be.
The slap fight over custody of the man-crush would be epic.
__________________
"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 7th September 2018, 08:54 AM   #299
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
The slap fight over custody of the man-crush would be epic.
roflmao! No doubt about 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 7th September 2018, 08:58 AM   #300
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
In all the years since Fatal Vision (and Final Vision) were published not one single substantive error has been found. The same cannot be said of FJ or WOE.
Not everybody agrees with you about that. In the McGinniss court case in 1987 McGinniss confessed to a MacDonald defense lawyer that he did not even believe the amphetamine psychosis theory himself, yet he still kept it in his book. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J...nald/Archive_1

Quote:
WTF!!
!
Who the hell wrote this article, government prosecutor Brian Murtagh??? This article is seriously biased, and needs a complete NPOV rewrite from top to bottom. The website www.crimelibrary.com, which Wikipedia frequently uses as a reliable source of information on crime cases, has a very complete picture of the case, and numerous news articles can be found with quick google searches.

There is no mention of the fact that Joe McGinniss's book "Fatal Vision" has been pretty much proven to be a complete fabrication and act of fraud on McGinniss's part, and the entire article literally sounds like it is speaking with the POV of the (very biased) prosecution. In particular, the article presents "facts" that have not only never been proven, but for which there was never any credible evidence in the first place. There is no mention of the obvious coverups of the Army investigators in the 1970s, of the mishandling of evidence by government officials in the 1980s, and of the FBI's refusal to turn over evidence to the defense team, including materials that can be tested for DNA evidence.

Jeeze... I hate sounding like a conspiracy nut... ;-) but here is a case of very possible judicial impropriately on a massive scale, and the article needs to better reflect this fact. I'll try some editing of it over the next few days, but I don't have as much time to devote to WP as I used to.
func(talk) 04:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 7th September 2018 at 09:02 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 7th September 2018, 01:08 PM   #301
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 445
Uh, Henri, Joe only THEORIZED (trying to explain the unexplainable) that your man crush had taken too much amphetamines. In "Fatal Vision" he clearly (well, maybe not to you) writes that this is a theory, an idea, a possibility for why Jeffrey Macdonald went ballistic and slaughtered his pregnant wife and two daughters. It's a better idea than the probable truth: your man crush (who admitted he walked into a bar and punched someone because he THOUGHT the man was a drug dealer) lost his temper and murdered the people he was supposed to love and protect.
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 7th September 2018, 01:47 PM   #302
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
I have always thought the confessions of Mitchell were disregarded as well as the confessions of Helena Stoeckley. That was clearly erroneous by the very bad judges in the MacDonald case and the CID and FBI. An example of this comes from that evidentiary hearing transcript in 2012 which JTF found with former CID agent Ivory being cross-examined by a MacDonald defense lawyer:

Quote:
Q. OKAY. AND IF I COULD TAKE YOU TO DEFENSE EXHIBIT 5029,2 AND DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE AN AFFIDAVIT OF AN EVERETT MORSE?3 A. YES, IT IS.4 (DEFENSE EXHIBIT NUMBER 50295 WAS IDENTIFIED FOR THE RECORD.)6 Q. OKAY. AND WOULD YOU READ THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF7 PARAGRAPH TWO?8 A. FROM IN OR ABOUT AUGUST 1972 TO 1974, WHILE I WAS A9 STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN CHARLOTTE,10 NORTH CAROLINA, I RESIDED AT 6400 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE, APARTMENT11 NUMBER TWO, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE. 12 Q. THANK YOU. COULD YOU READ THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF13 PARAGRAPH THREE?14 A. DURING THE TIME I LIVED AT COUNTRYSIDE APARTMENTS A MAN15 BY THE NAME OF GREG MITCHELL LIVED ACROSS THE STREET. 16 Q. AND COULD YOU READ THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF PARAGRAPH17 FIVE?18 A. A FEW DAYS AFTER I MENTIONED THAT I NEEDED GOLF BALLS,19 MITCHELL PRODUCED A CASE OF NEW GOLF BALLS AND DEMANDED THAT I20 PAY HIM FOR HIM. I WAS IN HIS APARTMENT AT THE TIME. WHEN I21 STATED THAT I DID NOT WANT THE GOLF BALLS AND WOULD NOT PAY22 FOR THEM MITCHELL BECAME VERY ANGRY AT ME. HE TOLD ME, YOU23 NEED TO TAKE THESE, REFERRING TO THE GOLF BALLS, AND TOLD ME24 THAT IF I DID NOT TAKE AND PAY FOR THE GOLF BALLS HE WOULD25
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 320 Filed 11/21/12 Page 163 of 204
Ivory/Cross Page 865
September 20, 2012
MURDER ME AS HE MURDERED JEFFREY MACDONALD'S FAMILY. I BECAME1 EXTREMELY FRIGHTENED WHEN MITCHELL MADE THIS THREAT BECAUSE I2 HAD OBSERVED THE GUNS AND KNIVES IN HIS APARTMENT ON NUMEROUS3 OCCASIONS. AFTER THREATENING ME, MITCHELL ISSUED ANOTHER4 THREAT TELLING ME THAT IF I EVER MENTIONED HIS INVOLVEMENT IN5 THE MACDONALD MURDERS TO ANYONE HE WOULD KILL ME.6 Q. ALL RIGHT. AND CAN YOU READ THE SIGNATURE LINE? DOES IT7 APPEAR TO BE SIGNED BY EVERETT MORSE?8 A. EVERETT MORSE, YES.9 Q. AND DOES IT APPEAR TO BE NOTARIZED BY A NOTARY PUBLIC?10 A. YES.11 Q. WHICH, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WOULD MEAN HE WAS SWORN BEFORE12 HE MADE THE STATEMENT?13 A. I DON'T KNOW.14 Q. WELL, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS THAT WHAT A NOTARY DOES15 BEFORE THEY WITNESS A SIGNATURE OR DO YOU NOT KNOW?
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 7th September 2018, 03:28 PM   #303
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
The Regurgitation King

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. You're fully aware of the fact that there is no tangible evidence of Greg Mitchell confessing to this crime, and even if he did confess, there is no physical evidence linking him to the crime scene. No DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no prints, nothing, nada, zip. Mitchell also signed statements for the CID and FBI denying any involvement in the murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 7th September 2018 at 03:30 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 8th September 2018, 03:09 AM   #304
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Mitchell also signed statements for the CID and FBI denying any involvement in the murders, and he passed a polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Polygraphs are not used as evidence in the UK because they are not considered reliable, I believe there are some states in America where polygraph evidence can be presented to a court, and it is not inadmissible, like perhaps Arizona. As far as I can remember, Brisentine was suspicious about the polygraph of Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry, but for some reason he gave Mitchell a pass. To my mind, if I was in Brisentine's shoes I would consider Mitchell's answers to be a load of bollocks. How many people in their twenties go to bed at 9p.m. without some very good reason? From that 2012 evidentiary hearing:

Quote:
ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS A LONG TIME BACK.1 QUESTION: WHERE WERE YOU LIVING AT THAT TIME? 2 AND THE ANSWER IS HE WAS AT -- AND IT'S REDACTED --3 IN EVERGREEN ESTATES IN FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.4 WITH WHOM WERE YOU LIVING AT THAT TIME IS THE NEXT5 QUESTION. 6 AND THE ANSWER, WITH MY PARENTS. A FRIEND WOULD7 ALSO STAY WITH ME. HIS NAME IS DON HARRIS. EARLIER I HAD8 BEEN LIVING WITH HIM IN A TRAILER NEAR MURCHISON ROAD WITH A9 GUY NAMED RICK TAYLOR. AND MURCHISON ROAD BEING IN10 FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA. 11 WITH WHOM WERE YOU ASSOCIATING ABOUT THAT TIME? 12 HELENA STOECKLEY, CATHY SMITH, CHARLIE BROWN AND13 J.C. CONKLIN. HELENA WAS MY GIRLFRIEND. I KNOW THAT HELENA14 WAS NOT WITH ME ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS OF THE MACDONALD15 FAMILY.16 QUESTION: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SHE WAS NOT WITH YOU17 ON THAT NIGHT?18 ANSWER: I REMEMBER TALKING TO HER ABOUT IT THE NEXT19 DAY OR SHORTLY AFTER IT HAPPENED.20 Q. MAY WE HAVE THE NEXT PAGE. TOP HALF, PLEASE. IF YOU21 WOULD CONTINUE.22 A. THE NEXT QUESTION, WHERE WERE YOU THAT NIGHT?23 ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW. I WAS USUALLY HOME IN BED BY24 9:00 P.M. AT MY FOLKS' PLACE. I HAD TO BE AT WORK EARLY.
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 8th September 2018, 05:24 AM   #305
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
All Over The Map

HENRIBOY: Mitchell was given a pass, eh? Why would Brisentine only give Mitchell... Oh, wait a minute, he also gave Bruce Fowler a pass. You already knew that, but that has never stopped you from jumping from topic to topic without any rhyme or reason. This is the same Bruce Fowler that your favorite serial confessor accused of driving her to the crime scene. Sorry about interrupting your rambling narratives with facts. You can now travel back to Crazy Town.

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 8th September 2018, 09:32 AM   #306
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Brisentine testified at the MacDonald trial in 1979. He made some statement once, which is probably still in the depths of the CID evidence somewhere, that the chances of both Stoeckley and Cathy Perry both saying they were there at the MacDonald murders and it not being true was very small. Cathy Perry, who is now deceased, went off her head and her parents then insisted that she categorically denied it all when she was interviewed by CID agents. I still think it was a mistake for Brisentine to give Mitchell or Fowler a pass after being polygraphed:

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

Quote:
That she desired to attend the MacDonald funerals but did not attend as none of her friends would accompany her. That she went into hiding to evade police arrest subsequent to the homicides and considered fleeing from Fayetteville, North Carolina. That she knew the identity of the persons who killed Mrs. MacDonald and her children. That if the Army would give her immunity from prosecution, she would furnish the identity of those offenders who committed the murder and explain the circumstances surrounding the homicides.
Q That concludes the gist of the statement she made to you; is that correct, Mr. Brisentine?
A On the 23rd; yes, sir. That's not the 24th.
Q All right, now, did she make a statement to you on the 24th?
A She did.
Q What did she say?
A On the 24th Ms. Stoeckley related she had been incorrect in her statements and had, and I quote, "talked too much," and that she only suspected some people of committing the homicides. At this time, Ms. Stoeckley stated that she suspected Don Harris, a Caucasian male, who told her after the homicide that he must leave Fayetteville, North Carolina, as he could not find an alibi for the time of the murders; Bruce Fowler, the owner of a blue Mustang automobile in which she, Ms. Stockley, was a passenger or a driver on the night of the homicides; Janet Fowler, wife of Bruce Fowler and who was employed as a go-go dancer in Fayetteville, North Carolina, at the time of the homicides.
I should digress here, sir. I later learned this lady's name was Janice Fowler -- not Janet Fowler.
Q All right.
A Joe Kelley, a Negro soldier who was assigned to a medical holding detachment at Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, at the time of the homicides; and a Negro male she knew only as "Eddie" who introduced her -- Ms. Stockley -- to heroin.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th September 2018 at 09:34 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 8th September 2018, 01:21 PM   #307
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Coward

Not only did CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine determine that Fowler and Mitchell passed their polygraphs, inmate backed out of a proposed Brisentine administered polygraph exam 10 minutes after telling Franz Grebner that he would take the exam. Just another example of inmate's cowardice.

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 September 2018, 02:51 AM   #308
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
The matter of polygraphs in the MacDonald case was discussed during the McGinniss trial in 1987 with MacDonald defense lawyer Gary Bostwick. MacDonald was naturally reluctant to take a polygraph while he was still recovering from his collapsed lung. Some guilty people, like Mitchell and Fowler pass polygraphs while innocent people may fail them:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ster_1987.html

Quote:
C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Mr. Backster, the polygraph instrument is not an infallible device for telling truth and falsity; is it?
A No, it is not.
Q And sometimes when people are telling the truth, it indicates that they are being deceptive; does it not?
A On issues that are not intense, I would say that there is a possibility certainly of that happening.
Q And in fact the accuracy rate in terms of whether a lie detector test can tell whether someone is lying or not varies between maybe 70 to 90 percent; isn't that correct?
A The figures you're mentioning relate to laboratory studies, not field studies.
Q But isn't it correct?
A That laboratory studies do show, or that it could be as low as 70 percent or as high as 90 percent, yes, that's correct.
Q And that you have no way, as a polygrapher, of telling when the error occurs or doesn't occur; isn't that correct also?
A We can work on probability, and there is a scale to tell you the probability of your accuracy, depending on the intensity of the case, the adequacy of your case information, and the distinctness of the issue that you're pursuing.
Q Isn't it true that the questionable accuracy of polygraph examinations is one reason that it's not admitted in criminal trials in federal courts?

MR. KORNSTEIN: Objection, your Honor. Calls for legal conclusion.

MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, I don't think --

THE COURT: Let's find out if he knows, first of all. Do you know about this subject?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I can talk about it.

THE COURT: All right. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: What was your question again, Counselor?

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Isn't it true that the questionable accuracy of polygraph examinations is one of the reasons that it is not allowed as evidence in federal courts?
A I would state that it would relate more to the questionable qualifications of the polygraph examiners than it would the technique itself.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th September 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 9th September 2018, 12:01 PM   #309
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Your Boy Failed

Not only did Mitchell and Fowler pass polygraph exams administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine, none of their head hair or print exemplars matched exemplars found at the crime scene. Unlike Mitchell and Fowler, inmate refused to take a CID administered polygraph exam and he gave no salient reason as why he wouldn't take it. The CID interview was 6 weeks after he suffered a collapsed lung from a self-inflicted stab wound, so this latter excuse for not taking the exam is bogus. Heck, there are photographs of inmate assisting with the carrying of the caskets of Kimmie and Kristen.

Inmate then took a defense funded polygraph exam from John Reid and the results were inconclusive due to inmate's claim that he was "frantic with worry." Jeez, this Green Beret tough guy was/is the biggest wimp in the world. Inmate then took a defense funded polygraph exam from Cleve Backster and he flunked the exam with flying colors. As he is prone to do, he concocted an excuse for this result which has no link to reality. Inmate's excuse was that Backster didn't complete the exam. If inmate's excuse was legitimate, why refuse to give Joe McGinniss permission to speak with Backster?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th September 2018 at 12:12 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 10:19 PM   #310
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Bellwether Fallacy

Fred Bost, Jerry Allen Potter, Ted Gunderson, Jeffrey Elliott, and Errol Morris have all put forth a conspiracy narrative involving the CID, FBI, and DOJ. This cognitive process is known as the Bellwether Fallacy, a common pattern of argumentation in conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories are, to a large extent, theories of history. That is, history tells us that something happened, but a conspiracy theory says that some other (typically poorly defined) events unfolded instead to give us that evidence.

Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives.

Hence historical lines of reasoning talk about preponderances of evidence. And so when we dispute a conspiracy theory, we point back to the preponderance -- the totality of available evidence that en masse suggests a particular cause. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th September 2018 at 10:32 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 9th September 2018, 10:32 PM   #311
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Partners In This Fallacy

Here is a prime example of how MacDonald advocates become partners in this fallacy with Helena Stoeckley being the main ingredient in this cognitive stew. MacDonald advocates have relied on the statements made by Helena Stoeckley in order to justify the position that unsourced trace evidence equals hippie home invaders. To MacDonald advocates, it doesn't really matter that unsourced synthetic fibers, hairs, dark woolen fibers, and candle wax were never linked to Stoeckley in any tangible sense.

It matters not to these same advocates that Stoeckley recanted about 50 percent of her confessions and that she testified under oath that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. It carries no weight with MacDonald advocates that none of her confessions match-up with one another and there seems to be a collective shrug when it is pointed out that there isn't any evidence of her presence at the crime scene.

The only thing that matters to MacDonald advocates is that Stoeckley's CLAIMS make her involvement and the involvement of others in these horrific crimes a foregone conclusion. Stoeckley and her acquaintances have to be the perps because Stoeckley said so. They add that there is evidence of her presence at the crime scene, but the CID/FBI/DOJ have conspired to manipulate, distort, and supress that evidence. All of the other more logical explanations for the household debris found at 544 Castle Drive are dismissed.

Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation. Errol Morris ignored most of the physical evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction, so his bellwether was a two-fold process.

In essence, Morris created twin straw men. One is the credibility of Stoeckley's confessions and the other is the Pajama Top Theory. Morris believed that he had to cut down the "single most convincing" bit of proof on the other side of the case, in order to propose that the other points would fall similarly or easier. He was wrong. The 2012 evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the government's case remains rock solid and that regurgitating previously debunked claims does not provide the defense with the tools to meet their client's "daunting burden."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th September 2018 at 10:39 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:36 AM   #312
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
I don't know why I am the only person on this forum who has to have an unseemly wrangle with a bunch of hysterical and biased women, and others with no sense of abstract justice about the MacDonald case. Mitchell confessed several times, but he was disregarded, and he passed a mumbo-jumbo polygraph. It was not only Stoeckley who confessed as JTF suggests. There was exculpatory evidence, but it was withheld from the jury and the MacDonald defense team, and there was also manufactured evidence by the FBI. I suppose the forensic evidence does not point directly at any names, as JTF says, but that is not unusual in difficult murders.
There have been murder cases in the past where fingerprints were found which pointed directly at the real culprit.

There is some background to all this at this website:

http://www.smithforensic.blogspot.co...na-people.html

Quote:
Through the years, MacDonald has amassed some high-profile supporters, including some of the top forensic experts in the world. “I believe that the story that Jeffrey MacDonald related that evening and ever since is correct,” says world-famous forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, who has studied all the autopsy reports, physical evidence and trial testimony. “The multiple and extensive injuries inflicted on Mrs. MacDonald and the two children and all the other things that were done at the house…depicts the involvement of two or more people,” Wecht says.........Other prominent supporters include Barry Scheck, co-founder of The Innocence Project, the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, and C. Ronald Huff, a high-profile criminologist at the University of California, Irvine, who has been studying wrongful convictions for the past 30 years. “I believe that Dr. MacDonald did not murder his family and that this will ultimately be regarded as one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the modern era,” says Huff. "

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th September 2018 at 02:38 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 10th September 2018, 05:07 AM   #313
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Not everybody agrees with you about that.
Anyone who has READ Fatal Vision is fully aware of the FACT that no substantive errors have been found within its pages. The same cannot be said of Fatal Joke or WOE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
In the McGinniss court case in 1987 McGinniss confessed to a MacDonald defense lawyer that he did not even believe the amphetamine psychosis theory himself,
IF you say so....HOWEVER, the issue at hand is SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS. Theories, whether the author believes those theories or does not believe those theories are just that THEORIES.

SUBSTANTIVE: (adj) 1. Substantial 2. Independent in function or exestence; not subordinate 3. Not imaginary: actual 4. of or relating to the essence or substance 5. having a solid basis: firm 6. expressing or denoting existence.

THEORY: (n) 1. systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances 2. Abstract reasoning 3. an assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
yet he still kept it in his book.
It is perfectly reasonable for this theory to have been kept in the book. Still, since the book was not published until AFTER inmate was tried and convicted what difference does a theory make? None. The FACT is that inmate himself admitted to taking Eskatrol (amphetamines) AND the FACT is that people might have been able to understand (to a VERY LIMITED degree) how inmate got enraged enough to so brutally butcher his wife, his unborn son, and his 2 daughters if they believed in that theory.

Personally, I know that he is a sociopathic narcissistic familial slaughterer. The reality is and will always be that he has a temper, he has gotten into trouble due to his inability to control that temper in his past, and he continues to have issues due to his temper tantrums. FACT henri.

Point out a SUBSTANTIVE ERROR in Fatal Vision.....you know you cannot any more than you can answer any of the challenges we've directed your way....

.....single item of evidence sourced to known intruder suspect? nope
.....salient time line that exonerates inmate? nope
.....substantive error in Fatal Vision? nope
.....explanation of how someone could have "swapped" E-5 hair? nope
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 September 2018, 08:21 AM   #314
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Point out a SUBSTANTIVE ERROR in Fatal Vision.....you know you cannot any more than you can answer any of the challenges we've directed your way....

.....single item of evidence sourced to known intruder suspect? nope
.....salient time line that exonerates inmate? nope
.....substantive error in Fatal Vision? nope
.....explanation of how someone could have "swapped" E-5 hair? nope
Not everybody agrees with you about the accuracy of that Fatal Vision moneymaking book, and that's why MacDonald sued McGinniss:

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/Ed...al-Vision.html

Quote:
And then there was “Fatal Vision,” the popular, best-selling true crime book about the murders published in 1983. The book painted MacDonald as a manipulative mastermind who erased his family so he could be with another woman. The book's author Joe McGinniss was embedded with the defense during and after the 1979 trial. MacDonald cooperated with McGinniss because he believed the book was about his innocence. But when the book was published, it made MacDonald look guilty as sin. MacDonald sued McGinniss for a breach of trust. McGinniss settled out of court for $325,000.

With so many lingering questions about the case, the fact that MacDonald was convicted and sent to prison for three life sentences should at least give us pause. If a Princeton graduate and decorated Army doctor like MacDonald was really railroaded, no one is safe from bungled investigations and prosecutor misconduct.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th September 2018 at 08:41 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 10th September 2018, 08:36 AM   #315
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The FBI made it up. There is a similar sort of controversy about these silly polygraphs in the JonBenet Ramsey case when the lousy detectives and the FBI falsely tried to imply that the Ramseys were reluctant to take a polygraph. This is from the deposition of the bad cop Steve Thomas about the matter with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001

Quote:
18 Q. I mean when I was out there
19 saying, you know, I didn't think the FBI is
20 objective because they've been involved in
21 this case to a significant amount, whether
22 you agree or not with my objectivity
23 conclusion, I was right about the fact that
24 the FBI had been significantly involved in
25 the case, wasn't I?

378

1 A. For the record I don't agree with
2 the objectivity conclusion but, yeah, they
3 were significantly involved in the case.
4 Q. It seems like from what you're
5 telling me that they were of the mind that
6 you were, that Patsy Ramsey they thought was
7 involved in the death of her daughter?
8 A. That certainly seemed to be my
9 impression.
10 Q. So whether that was an objective
11 decision by then I certainly was right to
12 have some concerns about whether or not they
13 had formed such a conclusion before I
14 submitted John or Patsy to the FBI
15 examination, wasn't I?
16 A. Well, twofold. One, I don't think
17 they would have -- I don't think there was
18 anything inappropriate with their polygraph
19 unit or that they would have conspired in any
20 way with their polygraphers.
21 Q. I also comment to you the ruse
22 interview that was attempted on Richard Jewell
23 by the FBI might be enlightening about FBI
24 tactics, legal and illegal. Do you agree
25 that you all investigated the hell out of

379

1 Bill McReynolds?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th September 2018 at 08:40 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:36 AM   #316
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Not everybody agrees with you about the accuracy of that Fatal Vision moneymaking book, and that's why MacDonald sued McGinniss:
Again, POINT OUT A SUBSTANTIVE ERROR IN FATAL VISION. Just as I said, you cannot....

It is not about you agreeing with my statement it is ABOUT FACTS. IF you believe there are SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS in Fatal Vision then point them out. And, as I have already explained to you SUBSTANTIVE means "real" or "actual" it does not include whether you or anyone else believes the amphetamine psychosis theory. FACTS henri. point out one ERROR OF FACT.

you can't because there are not any....but go ahead and prove your claim or shut up about 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 10th September 2018, 10:40 AM   #317
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The FBI made it up.
The FBI made up what, exactly?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a similar sort of controversy about these silly polygraphs in the JonBenet Ramsey case....
first this IS NOT the Jon Benet' Ramsey case

second you cannot have it both ways henri. first you want to proclaim inmate's innocence because he passed "A polygraph" singular and then you get mad when we point out that he FAILED "two polygraph's" and that he chickened out and cancelled the first one offered.
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 September 2018, 11:42 AM   #318
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,030
Thank You

I want to thank our favorite conspiracy theorist (e.g., Henriboy) for providing this forum with a prime example of the Bellwether Fallacy. The Bellwether Fallacy is a common pattern of argumentation in conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories are, to a large extent, theories of history. That is, history tells us that something happened, but a conspiracy theory says that some other (typically poorly defined) events unfolded instead to give us that evidence.

Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives.

Hence historical lines of reasoning talk about preponderances of evidence. And so when we dispute a conspiracy theory, we point back to the preponderance -- the totality of available evidence that en masse suggests a particular cause. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.

MacDonald advocates have become partners in this fallacy with Helena Stoeckley being the main ingredient in this cognitive stew. MacDonald advocates have relied on the statements made by Helena Stoeckley in order to justify the position that unsourced trace evidence equals hippie home invaders. To MacDonald advocates, it doesn't really matter that unsourced synthetic fibers, hairs, dark woolen fibers, and candle wax were never linked to Stoeckley in any tangible sense.

It matters not to these same advocates that Stoeckley recanted about 50 percent of her confessions and that she testified under oath that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. It carries no weight with MacDonald advocates that none of her confessions match-up with one another and there seems to be a collective shrug when it is pointed out that there isn't any evidence of her presence at the crime scene.

The only thing that matters to MacDonald advocates is that Stoeckley's CLAIMS make her involvement and the involvement of others in these horrific crimes a foregone conclusion. Stoeckley and her acquaintances have to be the perps because Stoeckley said so. They add that there is evidence of her presence at the crime scene, but the CID/FBI/DOJ have conspired to manipulate, distort, and supress that evidence. All of the other more logical explanations for the household debris found at 544 Castle Drive are dismissed.

Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation.

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 11th September 2018, 08:36 AM   #319
Henri McPhee
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
What happened was that MacDonald gave a general description of his assailants at the time of the MacDonald murders and this was relayed to Detective Beasley, who was a front line local police officer. It fitted the Stoeckley gang who were known to the local police.

For some unknown reason best known to the genius detectives of the Army CID, with their brilliant detection, the suspects were disregarded by the Army CID. They were being held by Detective Beasley at the local police station. Beasley had to let the suspects go because of the CID lack of interest and the police records of their names were later mysteriously 'lost' probably by Murtagh and Blackburn. The Army CID had wrongly decided MacDonald did it right from the start. It was just the same in the JonBenet Ramsey case with the same sort of lousy detectives.

There is background information to all this in the cross-examination of Detective Beasley during the 1979 MacDonald trial:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...7-beasley.html
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 11th September 2018, 11:38 AM   #320
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
What happened was that MacDonald gave a general description of his assailants at the time of the MacDonald murders
No, inmate gave a DETAILED descriptions of his alleged intruders.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and this was relayed to Detective Beasley, who was a front line local police officer. It fitted the Stoeckley gang who were known to the local police.
Actually, there was no "Stoeckley Gang" and the description didn't ACTUALLY fit Helena nor her associates, unless you lessened the details in the descriptions. For example, Helena was a brunette not a blonde and lots and lots of men walked around in fatigue jackets....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
For some unknown reason best known to the genius detectives of the Army CID, with their brilliant detection, the suspects were disregarded by the Army CID.
They local hippies were checked out by CID. They didn't match the description. They had iron clad alibis. There was absolutely zero evidence of their existence at the crime scene. AND, none of the local hippies were involved in the murders and EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS TO INMATE AND ONLY INMATE AS THE MURDERER. FACTS!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They were being held by Detective Beasley at the local police station.
No they were not. In FACT there is not even any proof that PEB stopped, questioned, and/or held anyone (including Stoeckley). no evidence that he ever contacted the CID saying he had some persons of interest for them to come pick-up.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Beasley had to let the suspects go
PEB never had any suspects, he never stopped them, he never contacted the CID to say he had any, and at that point IF HE HAD they would have been persons of interest not suspects.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
because of the CID lack of interest and the police records of their names were later mysteriously 'lost' probably by Murtagh and Blackburn.
CID could not take an interest in something they knew nothing about. PEB never stopped and held anyone, he never contact the CID about having anyone for them to come talk to, and PEB would have been the one to have any notes related to such an event as stopping a car full of persons of interest. Murtagh and Blackburn would not have EVER been in a position to "lose" mysteriously or otherwise a police detectives personal notebook.

Once again we get to remind henri that PEB was already showing signs of his illness by this point. he confabulated the entire story about having stopped anyone and calling the CID. WE won't call it lying (although it is in fact lies) because he couldn't help it. The inorganic brain disorder caused gaps in his memory and he would "fill those gaps" with things that seemed logical to him. They didn't happen but you can understand why he would have claimed to have done certain things. Poor inmate, if he hadn't slaughtered his family he wouldn't have had to have crazy people and conspiracy nuts on his team.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Army CID had wrongly decided MacDonald did it right from the start.
Actually, the Army CID started the investigation believing inmate's story. Although it did start to fall apart very quickly. They rushed someone to the hospital to get his story assuming that he'd be on death's doorstep after seeing what happened to a pregnant woman and 2 little girls. What they found was a man who was barely scratched. This same person admitted that ALL THEY ALLEGED INTRUDERS wore either shoes or boots (thus cementing that the bloody foot print was his) and the biggest gaff of all was for him to be sitting up in the hospital bed eating a steak dinner and drinking Cold Duck that he had a friend bring.

he did not behave like an innocent victim - he behaved like someone who knew his family was dead by his hand and was celebrating that 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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