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

Closed Thread
Old 28th November 2017, 10:43 AM   #3321
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
roflmao! the landlord is bad-mouthing the 4th Circuit Court - this is the SAME court who has continued to give inmate another chance to weasel his way out of the punishment he so justly received!
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 Back to Top
Old 28th November 2017, 03:46 PM   #3322
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
<snip of drivel> Guilt or innocence is not decided by the media or social media. It's decided on the facts in court and not on opinions. <snip>
You are right (for the second time, I believe). Your man crush's guilt was decided by facts presented in court; not by the media - social media didn't even exist at the time he was convicted.

Your opinion that he is not guilty is just that, your opinion.

My opinion is that the jury got it right.

The fact is, he's guilty. He's been found so by a jury of his peers (including a former Green Beret, who had perhaps the most compelling reason to find a reasonable doubt - Macdonald fouled the name of the Green Berets when he was found guilty).

Oh, and Byn's got it right as well: why are you bellyaching about the ONE court to let him come back time and again with his appeals?

Last edited by Agatha; 28th November 2017 at 04:37 PM. Reason: fix quote tags
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 Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 03:41 AM   #3323
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
I think Murtagh is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

This an opinion about the 4th Circuit judges from one of MacDonald's military lawyer's, Malley:

Quote:
Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable. The trial resulted in Jeff’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment on charges of killing his wife, Colette, and his two daughters Kim and Kristen. Many appeals followed, most of which resulted in not much. Jeff remains in prison today, and probably will for life.

I myself dropped out of the defense “team” (which changed over time) in the late 1980s-early ‘90s—I just didn’t see what more use I could be—but I remained in touch with Jeff. Harvey Silverglate ‘64, who was a year ahead of me at Harvard Law School, agreed to take up the appellate representation of Jeff around that time. Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 4. Will you please remember to limit quotes from elsewhere to a maximum of two paragraphs.

Last edited by Agatha; 29th November 2017 at 04:48 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 Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 03:49 AM   #3324
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
The source for that Malley article is at:

http://pu65.org/album/50th%20Reunion...ays/malley.pdf
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 Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 05:31 AM   #3325
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
inmate didn't like Brian Murtagh either, most probably because he wasn't taken in by the "Golden Boy" persona that inmate tried to project. Murtagh saw inmate for EXACTLY WHAT HE IS - A NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATHIC FAMILIAL SLAUGHTERER. It is easy to tell that Brian Murtagh did not feel overly concerned (translation - it didn't bother him at all) when inmate called him the Little Viper. IN FACT, Brian ordered vanity plates for his car that read LiLViPR......it fits....Brian Murtagh is intelligent, skilled, honest, hard-working, talented, dedicated advocate for his client(s) in this case we are talking about Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn son that inmate butchered.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 09:56 AM   #3326
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Brian Murtagh is intelligent, skilled, honest, hard-working, talented, dedicated advocate for his client(s) in this case we are talking about Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn son that inmate butchered.
I entirely disagree. There is a criticism of Brian Murtagh which makes sense to me at this website and it's something the 4th Circuit judges and even the Supreme Court should read:

https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Brian-Murtagh/1151877393

Quote:
To me Brian Murtagh is a shady lawyer.I agree with what was written on an old newsgroup forum about Brian Murtagh :- "But if he IS guilty, why did the prosecutors need to manufacture, misrepresent, and suppress evidence in order to obtain and maintain a conviction?If he did it, there should have been evidence that he did it, but there wasn't (as COL Rock found at the Art.32 in 1970), so the FBI lab and Brian Murtagh had to, essentially, make it up, then cover their tracks by not allowing the defense to see what they'd done."

More criticism of Brian Murtagh from an internet article :- "Fatal Justice states that during the MacDonald trial the prosecution released no evidence or lab reports to the defense. Because the prosecutor, Brian Murtagh, insisted that the lab reports held nothing to support MacDonald's claims, the judge refused to make Murtagh release the lab documents to the defense.(131)

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th November 2017 at 10:01 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 Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 05:21 PM   #3327
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
The Little Things

Malley and the landlord are peas in a pod. Both can't even get the "little things" right. In regards to Malley's cursory knowledge of this case...

"Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable."

The 4th Circuit Court disagrees with Malley's slanted opinion.

"Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications."

This is the same appraisal put forth to Judge Dupree in 1989, the 4th Circuit Court in 1992, and to Judge Fox in 1995. In each case, Silverglate's evidentiary arguments were considered specious and lacked merit.

"In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial."

This is a half-truth. The evidence presented at evidentiary hearings in 1984, 1989, and 1995 were not uniform. In 1984, the defense presented 7 "new" evidentiary items. In 1989, they focused on unsourced fiber evidence. In 1995, their focus was on unsourced hair evidence.

"The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013,"

The evidentiary hearing took place in 2012, not 2013.

Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion.

Malley is the only individual to claim that Judge Fox "reluctantly" held an evidentiary hearing and his claim is not backed by the documented record. In terms of the delay, that had nothing to do with Judge Fox. The lone reason for the delay falls in the lap of the defense. During that time period, the defense asked for 4 separate extensions to present written briefs in this case.

"Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view."

No, it doesn't. When addressing the "evidence as a whole," Judge Fox is required to track/summarize ALL of the evidentiary claims in this case. Malley clearly didn't read the decision in its entirety.

"He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years"

Malley ignores the mass of "ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions" put forth by his friend in the past 47 years.

"Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt."

There ya go.

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 Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 05:40 AM   #3328
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
henri using your own ignorant and uninformed opinions posted on old forums to bolster your ridiculous claims now DOES NOT help your cause. It just points out even more clearly that inmate and his few followers do not care about the truth and many of them wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the nose.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 03:35 PM   #3329
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Lack Of A Critical Eye

The landlord also doesn't help his cause, obsession or whatever one wants to call it, by refusing to lend a critical eye to the claims leveled by other MacDonald advocates. I could claim that a unicorn was the intruder wielding the ice pick, but that doesn't make it so. Any investigator worth a salt would require evidence that is SOURCED to that unicorn. In the case of the Stoeckley Seven and the New York Four, not a single piece of evidence was ever SOURCED to either group.

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 Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 05:20 PM   #3330
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I entirely disagree.

snipped
We know. You never met a handsome convicted murderer that you didn't like.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 03:22 AM   #3331
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
We know. You never met a handsome convicted murderer that you didn't like.
That's patently untrue. Some people are definitely bad. They have an evil evil kink which leads them to complete selfishness and cruelty. They are often sexually attractive and they have no good in them at all. Jeff MacDonald was never such a person. Other murderers are simply idiots who think they will never be caught or convicted.

The penalty for murder used to be death. In a way I agree with that. The problem with that is that I don't trust judges and juries to always have right judgement, or even honesty, or to be impartial and competent. You take everything on the evidence and FACTS, not on the opinions of the media, or Joe McGinniss.

Sometimes there are no forensics at all in a difficult murder. There were some forensics in the MacDonald case, but they were disregarded by the incompetent boobs in the Army CID and FBI so that they could not be linked to the Stoeckley group.

Malley spoke sense about the MacDonald case unlike that silly old fool Judge Fox.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 07:19 AM   #3332
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Some people are definitely bad. They have an evil evil kink which leads them to complete selfishness and cruelty.
EXACTLY! Inmate, your man crush, is one of those evil evil people. He took a KNIFE and STABBED HIS 2 year old DAUGHTER AT LEAST TWICE DIRECTLY IN THE HEART. He HIT HIS 5 year old DAUGHTER SO HARD THAT HE BROKE HER CHEEK BONE AND CAUSED IT TO TEAR THE SKIN OF HER FACE AND LEAVE THE BONE STICKING OUT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
....inmate was never such a person. Other murderers are simply idiots who think they will never be caught or convicted.
Yes, actually he is such a person and he did believe that he'd not be caught and punished for what he did, although technically speaking he is not an idiot since he was sufficiently book smart enough to get accepted to Princeton.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...is that I don't trust judges and juries to always have right judgement, or even honesty, or to be impartial and competent. You take everything on the evidence and FACTS, not on the opinions of the media, or Joe McGinniss.
Once again you make our point for us henri......WE ARE ALL DISCUSSING FACTS AND EVIDENCE. YOU are the only one here who uses opinion to base their arguments. I know you hate it when we cloud the issue with FACTS but the FACT is that EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS DIRECTLY AT INMATE AS THE SOLE MURDERER. FACT henri FACT! The problem you are encountering here as that the FORENSICS and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is ALL SOURCED TO INMATE or UNSOURCED. Despite your comments to the contrary UNSOURCED is FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Well, to be fair you also have a really odd belief that somehow Brian Murtagh magically obtained a limb hair from inmate THAT EXACTLY MATCHED the size and color descriptions of the mystery hair WITHOUT inmate noticing AND also MAGICALLY got it covered in the same dried blood as on the splinter. All this while the packing of the DNA test samples were witnessed by the defense AND FILMED. You make the LilVipr appear even more powerful than the Wizard of OZ.

Malley was not involved in the actual TRIAL so any of his comments about what went down are AT BEST to be taken with a whole barrel of salt.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 10:10 AM   #3333
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
All this while the packing of the DNA test samples were witnessed by the defense AND FILMED. You make the LilVipr appear even more powerful than the Wizard of OZ.

Malley was not involved in the actual TRIAL so any of his comments about what went down are AT BEST to be taken with a whole barrel of salt.
Malley has a thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case unlike silly old fool Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit judges. Real proof that the mystery hair in the hand was witnessed by the defense and then videotaped please. Judge Fox made a ruling that it should be videotaped which was ignored by Stombaugh and Malone at the FBI lab, and by Murtagh. That mystery hair was substituted as a MacDonald hair by forensic fraud and then DNA tested by the AFIP lab in order to prevent any further MacDonald appeals. That hair had been unidentified until 2006.

This is some background information to the MacDonald case forensics by MacDonald lawyer Eisman:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...rari-depo.html

Quote:
A At all of these sessions that I had attended or was aware of, there appeared to be indications of non-conclusiveness. For a case of this magnitude there seemed to be inadequate or insufficient physical evidence. At different times, both Dr. Besant-Mathews and I remarked, is this all? There had to be more. We will need more in order to arrive at a positive conclusion.

At the exit meeting with all the members of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the CID special agents present, Dr. Froede said that on the basis of the evidence, both physical and documentary that was presented for examination and evaluation, there was no conclusionary or positive evidence to indicate that the homicides were committed by Dr. MacDonald.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 1st December 2017 at 10:15 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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 11:29 AM   #3334
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Malley has a thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case unlike silly old fool Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit judges. <snip of items not being addressed>
You've whined on and on about bias and you're commending the most biased and least attentive attorney connected to the case? Malley, as if you don't already know, WAS A FRIEND OF MACDONALD's prior (that means before) to the murders, prior to the trial in 1979. He was someone who had a preconceived idea of who and what Macdonald was and was capable of PRIOR the murders & trial. He was, hands down, the most biased attorney ever connected with this case. His judgment of Macdonald was colored by his prior experiences with Macdonald in college, and the facts had nothing to do with his opinion.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 12:45 PM   #3335
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Malley had long since stopped being involved in inmates case before the TRIAL and thus had absolutely NO GRASP OR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of what was presented as evidence, what the DEFENSE EXPERTS discovered, no idea WHAT THE FORENSICS FOUND, in other words he knows NOTHING of what happened at trial. On the other hand respected, distinguished jurists such as Judge Franklin Dupree and Judge Fox were or have detailed and in-depth knowledge of the case, the evidence, who and what inmate truly is AND is knowledgeable about the Federal Rules of Evidence, and all other pertinent legal materials.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 05:09 PM   #3336
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
The evidence, in toto, clearly shows that inmate must be the killer. His subsequent lies only serve to reinforce that fact.

Rather than the obscure obfuscations that inmate tries to focus on, let's look at the evidence more generally. Any quotes below are from inmate himself, my favorite way to prove his guilt and his lies.

1) Any "intruders" would have had to have astounding timing. Inmate himself says he was up past 2AM. Then was "attacked" and "unconscious" for a significant period of time: "it had to take awhile to get me cold enough to have shaking chills so my teeth were shaking." Then he did repeated circuits of the apartment, crawling part of the time. Yet by 3:33AM, he is phoning for help. Hmm, how did the "intruders" somehow manage to get there immediately after he "fell asleep"??

2) As so often noted here, the wording is wrong: "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs." is a non sequitur for a head: groovy is a feel good word, and thus would never go with kill. And the ham-handed "Pig" on the headboard also doesn't fit the alleged "Stoeckley gang", whereas Manson had a reason for his use of pig/pigs (however bizarre it was).

3) Inmate had no significant injuries -- according to inmate (who was a doctor at the time):
"thinking that I was going into shock and not being able to breathe. Now I, you know, when I look back, of course, it's merely a symptom, that shortness of breath. It isn't - you weren't really that bad, but that's what happens when you get pneumothorax. You, you think you can't breathe. And I had to get down on my hands and knees and breathe for a while, and then I went in and checked the kids and checked their pulses and stuff."
"Oh, I just seemed to have a little--a little bump on this head, and I had pain back here and a little lump back here (motioning to the back of his head). It wasn't very exciting. It wasn't what I, you know, expected."

4) Inmate struck the "intruders" but was allowed to live, while they slaughtered two tiny, harmless girls?
I think I hit the guy with the club once, but nothing very spectacular, let me tell you.
SHAW: Do you think you hit him with your fist, too?
Inmate: Fists--I really grabbed. You know, I got grabbing; and I thought at the time--that, you know, I was grabbing him on the--
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 Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 10:00 PM   #3337
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Take 330

Only the landlord would have the stones to ignore my post regarding Malley's cursory case knowledge AND to claim that Malley has a "thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case." Just a little reminder...

"Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable."

The 4th Circuit Court disagrees with Malley's slanted opinion.

"Harvey has expressed his scathing appraisal of the government’s unfair dealings with MacDonald’s defense lawyers in several publications."

This is the same appraisal put forth to Judge Dupree in 1989, the 4th Circuit Court in 1992, and to Judge Fox in 1995. In each case, Silverglate's evidentiary arguments were considered specious and lacked merit.

"In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial."

This is a half-truth. The evidence presented at evidentiary hearings in 1984, 1989, and 1995 were not uniform. In 1984, the defense presented 7 "new" evidentiary items. In 1989, they focused on unsourced fiber evidence. In 1995, their focus was on unsourced hair evidence.

"The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013,"

The evidentiary hearing took place in 2012, not 2013.

"Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion."

Malley is the only individual to claim that Judge Fox "reluctantly" held an evidentiary hearing and his claim is not backed by the documented record. In terms of the delay, that had nothing to do with Judge Fox. The lone reason for the delay falls in the lap of the defense. During that time period, the defense asked for 4 separate extensions to present written briefs in this case.

"Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view."

No, it doesn't. When addressing the "evidence as a whole," Judge Fox is required to track/summarize ALL of the evidentiary claims in this case. Malley clearly didn't read the decision in its entirety.

"He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years"

Malley ignores the mass of "ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions" put forth by his friend in the past 47 years.

"Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt."

There ya go.

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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 10:12 AM   #3338
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
The evidence, in toto, clearly shows that inmate must be the killer. His subsequent lies only serve to reinforce that fact.

Rather than the obscure obfuscations that inmate tries to focus on, let's look at the evidence more generally. Any quotes below are from inmate himself, my favorite way to prove his guilt and his lies.

[/i]
The timings in the MacDonald case are not one hundred percent accurate for the simple reason that nobody was looking at their watches at the time. The fact is that MacDonald was asleep on the couch when Mazerolle and Mitchell and Dwight Smith and Helena Stoeckley burst in, after leaving Dunkin Donuts some time after 2am. As far as I can remember MacDonald said he had been watching late night TV, and he had left the TV on. MacDonald definitely had a pneumothorax and that's a medical fact.

Helena Stoeckley confessed that she had said "acid is groovy kill the pigs" and something like kill the others. MacDonald was left alive so that the incompetent boobs in the Army CID and FBI would blame him for it.

Another aspect of this is as Byn keeps saying, his concussion might have affected his memory slightly of the exact details of what happened. There is no evidence of lies or inconsistencies on his part.

This is what Gunderson said about the matter:

Quote:
The defense scenario is quite different from the government scenario. The defense claims that in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970 Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, then a Green Beret captain and physician at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was awakened by the screams of his wife. She was in their bedroom; he had gone to sleep on the couch because his younger daughter had climbed into the double bed in the master bedroom and wet the bed.

Dr. MacDonald saw at least three men and a woman standing over him. There was a brief struggle, during which he was beaten and stabbed. His pajama top had been pulled up over his head and had bound his wrists, rendering him somewhat defenseless. He collapsed in the hallway and later awakened to a cold, quiet house. He went to his pregnant wife, then to each of their two daughters, trying to resuscitate them. They had been brutally murdered. In disbelief, he called for police and ambulances, and finally collapsed next to his wife's body.
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:52 PM   #3339
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Hate to break it to you, Henri, but as an actual resident of army quarters at that time period, any screaming (by Colette, Mac, the unicorn JTF mentioned) would have gotten the neighbors' attention - as 0200 hours was an unusual hour to be having an argument. Had Colette been screaming for Jeff or Santa Claus, the neighbors would have been up and (at least) looking out their windows and seen the (imaginary) intruders.

We heard when they fought, we heard them "make up", we heard their stereos, TVs, children playing.....I, in fact, once answered the woman next door when she repeatedly asked her children "Do you hear what I'm saying?" I didn't have to yell loudly for her to hear me and complain to my mother about my "The whole quad hears you" reply.

Also, there is no way for mac to have done all he claims to have done between phone calls. Literally no way. It's strange how all you mac lovers ignore his impossible claim to have made the rounds of the house, checking on everyone before returning to call the operator an ******* because "some people" had killed "some people".

Last edited by desmirelle; 2nd December 2017 at 12:54 PM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 03:35 AM   #3340
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
I don't know about you but not being a light sleeper I'm usually fast asleep in the middle of the night. I don't usually hear any other noises from other apartments or houses, except perhaps for a dog barking outside for hours on end.

Jeff MacDonald went to check on his family after he rather lost his temper when the emergency phone operator asked for his social security number. That's not strained logic, like silly old fool Judge Fox.

There is a bit about polygraphs as it applies to the Jeffrey MacDonald case on You Tube at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ujSeBy7fY

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd December 2017 at 03:36 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 08:46 AM   #3341
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know about you but not being a light sleeper I'm usually fast asleep in the middle of the night. I don't usually hear any other noises from other apartments or houses, except perhaps for a dog barking outside for hours on end.

Jeff MacDonald went to check on his family after he rather lost his temper when the emergency phone operator asked for his social security number. That's not strained logic, like silly old fool Judge Fox.
Misdirection will not change Mac's fairytale. He specifically said Colette and Kim were screaming, which wakes others when a regular tone of voice will not. So, mac lied when he said he heard them screaming. It was all part and parcel of his attempted cover-up of his murder spree.

Your man crush most assuredly did NOT check on his family and the house (which is what he claimed to do) in the two minutes he was away from the telephone. He probably checked himself in the bathroom mirror because he was worried he'd done too good a job on himself. It is physically impossible in two minutes to go through the house and to medically check three people. Impossible - that means it can't happen.

And you're ignored the fact that he calls an operator an *******, but refers to the (imaginary) killers as "some people" - the exact phrase he also uses to refer to his dead family. That's not 'losing his temper' - that's contempt for the family he just murdered.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 09:52 AM   #3342
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Misdirection will not change Mac's fairytale. He specifically said Colette and Kim were screaming, which wakes others when a regular tone of voice will not. So, mac lied when he said he heard them screaming. It was all part and parcel of his attempted cover-up of his murder spree.
The fact is that Colette and Kim screaming did not wake any neighbour up. That's not suspicious. At least one neighbor saw the fleeing criminals but they were threatened when a rifle was pointed at their apartments, and they refused to testify for the defense.

It's no good coming on the internet and saying what PROBABLY happened. MacDonald was interviewed and cross-examined several times, even on TV, and he never really changed his story. This is from the April 1970 interview and is exactly what happened:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...rview1970.html

Quote:
MacDonald: Let's see. Monday night my wife went to bed, and I was reading. And I went to bed about -- somewheres around two o'clock. I really don't know; I was reading on the couch, and my little girl Kristy had gone into bed with my wife.
And I went in to go to bed, and the bed was wet. She had wet the bed on my side, so I brought her in her own room. And I don't remember if I changed her or not; gave her a bottle and went out to the couch 'cause my bed was wet. And I went to sleep on the couch.

And then the next thing I know I heard some screaming, at least my wife; but I thought I heard Kimmie, my older daughter, screaming also. And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd December 2017 at 10:14 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 02:18 PM   #3343
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that Colette and Kim screaming did not wake any neighbour up. That's not suspicious. At least one neighbor saw the fleeing criminals but they were threatened when a rifle was pointed at their apartments, and they refused to testify for the defense.

It's no good coming on the internet and saying what PROBABLY happened. MacDonald was interviewed and cross-examined several times, even on TV, and he never really changed his story. This is from the April 1970 interview and is exactly what happened:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...rview1970.html
Screaming in military quarters in 1970 would have roused the neighbors. Unlike civilians, military personnel tended to watch out for others during the Vietnam era, especially with the anti-war protesting going on. Different war, different attitudes towards soldiers back then. Nobody said "Thank you for your service" when they saw a man in a military uniform back then. It was "baby killer" and, sometimes, spitting on them.

Which neighbor? Back up this lie.

You are the only one saying what mac said is the truth. The truth was proven at trial and it's why your boyfriend is still in jail. No proof of his implausible story.

Oh, and did you notice mac's "You guys are more thorough than I thought?" in that interview?

And you can't say "exactly what happened" - unless you are confessing to being there when it happened.

I notice, though, that you keep avoiding the FACT that mac lied about what he did between talking to the operator. It's physically impossible to have done everything he claimed to have done in the two minutes that elapsed. Address that one, if you would. Oh, wait, you can't. You cannot do anything but passive-aggressively defend your man crush with the lies he told, not with facts.

Last edited by desmirelle; 3rd December 2017 at 02:22 PM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2017, 09:00 PM   #3344
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Ignoring Logic

The landlord leaves out the pesky testimony provided by inmate's upstairs neighbor who told the CID that she could hear inmate either laughing or crying on 2/17/70. In the landlord's world of illogic and mythical home invaders, it makes perfect sense that neighbors could clearly hear laughing or crying, yet not hear the screams of an adult and/or a small child. It's important to note that inmate claimed the screams awoke him from a sound sleep.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 3rd December 2017 at 09:01 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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 05:58 AM   #3345
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Liar, Liar, pants on fire,
killing his family was his desire,
he wanted to be a free man,
so he removed encumbrances and then,
he made up a story to cover his tracks,
changed it trying to match the facts.
All these years later he cries foul,
because wasn't believed anyhow.
Supporters of inmate are few and far,
they don't realize how off track they are....
Still inmate is in prison where he should be,
and he shall stay there always and never be free.

bynthebard

Last edited by byn63; 4th December 2017 at 07:13 AM. Reason: wrong word tense
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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 06:47 AM   #3346
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 22
Don't forget that:
"And I sat up. The kitchen light was on, and I saw some people at the foot of the bed."
And the next thing you know, they were all over him, attacking. That's quite a well coordinated move, considering your man crush stated that those "some people" were high.
So where was your man? On the couch? If so, how could he have seen "some people" in the bedroom, even if the kitchen light was on?
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 09:26 AM   #3347
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Which neighbor? Back up this lie.

I notice, though, that you keep avoiding the FACT that mac lied about what he did between talking to the operator. It's physically impossible to have done everything he claimed to have done in the two minutes that elapsed. Address that one, if you would. Oh, wait, you can't. You cannot do anything but passive-aggressively defend your man crush with the lies he told, not with facts.
MacDonald was tricked into that April 1970 interview by the CID with promises that he could get back some of his private property from the crime scene. It then became a full blown interview with lights being shone in his face. It's true that he was told his Miranda rights, and that he could 'no comment' and that he could have a lawyer with him.

It would have been a good business like move to have a lawyer with him who could have warned him to be careful about what he said. The transcripts were later misconstrued, and they may not be entirely accurate, as happened in the JonBenet Ramsey case, and the Darlie Routier case.

Where is the reference that the emergency phone operator was on the phone for two minutes? That's not scientifically reliable.

This is the neighbour who saw the fleeing criminals at the crime scene. The jury were never informed of this because Murtagh and 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree wangled it so that the jury and the 4th Circuit judges, and Supreme Court, never saw this testimony on the specious grounds that it was ten years old:

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

Quote:
A About Captain MacDonald's family -- and --
Q Did she make any indication that she had seen anything that appeared to her to have some possible connection with that episode?
A Yes, she did.
Q Would you tell the investigating officer what Mrs. Snyder said in your presence?
A She said that there was a disturbance in her house, her children were yelling and she had occasion to be up at 3 or 3:30 in the morning and heard a commotion outside, in front of the house, and went to look out the window and saw some people. She was kind of vague -- a woman and some of men get into an automobile and the automobile drove away.
Q Do you recall any of the details of that -- did she indicate whether she had seen anything about the appearance of clothing, physical characteristics of any of the people that she saw in front of her house?
A She said that the woman had long hair. She didn't say what color it was, she merely said it was long and she wasn't specific as to the men.
Q Were you there for the entire conversation on the subject of what Mrs. Snyder had to say?
A No.
Q Did you have occasion to repeat to anyone else what Mrs. Snyder had said to you?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you repeat that information?
A Yes, an FBI agent who came to the house about ten days or two weeks after that.
Q Did you ever have occasion to give that information to any CID investigator or PMI?
A Yes, I did.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 4th December 2017 at 09:29 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 09:55 AM   #3348
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact is that Colette and Kim screaming did not wake any neighbour up. That's not suspicious. At least one neighbor saw the fleeing criminals but they were threatened when a rifle was pointed at their apartments, and they refused to testify for the defense.
Come on, back up that highlighted lie.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 10:33 AM   #3349
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Come on, back up that highlighted lie.
While trying to keep it to two short paragraphs, this backs up what I have said from that Chester testimony mentioned above:

Quote:
COL ROCK: So you went where?

A The wall she was beating on that divided our apartment and asked her what was wrong and she said there was somebody out front with a gun.
Q Excuse me. What did you do at that time?
A I went to the front bedroom and looked out. There was a car out there. There were two individuals in it. One of them, one driving, had a rifle pointed in the direction of the -- our house.
Q You say "our house." How close --
A This is a 6-apartment complex.
Q Did you, in fact, observe the weapon?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you describe to the investigating officer what you saw?
A I saw a weapon with a telescope sight.
Q Do you have any particular competence in the area of weapons?
A I like to think so, yes.
Q What is that, sir? What is the basis of your --
A I'm a professional shooter, now that I'm out of the service.
Q What, if anything, did you do when you saw the weapon with the scope that you described?
A I went into the back bedroom of my house to get a shotgun.
Q Then what did you do?
A I went to the front window and at that time --
Q Was the vehicle still there?
A It was in the act of leaving. It was maybe a hundred yards from the house, moving away from the house.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 12:23 PM   #3350
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
Article 32 "testimony" is of no value BECAUSE THE TRIAL CAME LATER....any testimony of value from the Article 32 would have been brought forward....since Bernie Segal did not see fit to call whoever made those claims of "rifle pointed toward the apartments" one can infer that there was something incorrect about the claims....it could have been a different day/night for example. inmate is still a lying, cheating, narcissistic, sociopathic familial slaughterer.....
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 Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 02:49 PM   #3351
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
While trying to keep it to two short paragraphs, this backs up what I have said from that Chester testimony mentioned above:

And you conveniently fail to mention that the alleged rifle incident took place nearly a week after the murders; even granting, arguendo, that it actually occurred, there is no evidence that it was connected with the MacDonald case. You have repeatedly claimed that Fort Bragg was a hotbed of illegal drug activity at the time; why couldn't this incident be connected with drug smuggling?

Further, Segal apppears to set great store by the fact that the witness was a former Army officer and firearms expert, as if that implies that he couldn't possibly have been mistaken about what he saw. This is the same fallacy that UFO enthusiasts fall into when they cite pilots who claim to have seen airborne objects that can't be explained as normal aircraft. The fact is, pilots are conditioned to see phenomena such as suddenly appearing lights or clouds as other aircraft that must be avoided as a matter of life or death. By the same token, the witness would have been conditioned to possibly see something such as a camera, or even a man's arm in a dark coat, as a rifle.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 02:56 PM   #3352
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
snipped
This is some background information to defense propaganda on the MacDonald case forensics by MacDonald lawyer Eisman:

snipped
FIFY
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"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 Back to Top
Old 5th December 2017, 09:45 AM   #3353
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
You implied that the rifle was seen on the night in question by not mentioning the date that the 'rifle' was seen up front; a lie by omission is still a lie. In fact, it's the same sort of shady **** Segal tried to pull by claiming he wasn't given enough time to examine the evidence because the fact was that he couldn't be bothered to send someone to North Carolina until just before the trial.

Last edited by desmirelle; 5th December 2017 at 09:50 AM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th December 2017, 01:07 PM   #3354
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The timings in the MacDonald case are not one hundred percent accurate for the simple reason that nobody was looking at their watches at the time. The fact is that MacDonald was asleep on the couch when Mazerolle and Mitchell and Dwight Smith and Helena Stoeckley burst in, after leaving Dunkin Donuts some time after 2am. As far as I can remember MacDonald said he had been watching late night TV, and he had left the TV on. MacDonald definitely had a pneumothorax and that's a medical fact.
The timings are FROM INMATE HIMSELF. That was the point of my post. Unless MacD is in a conspiracy against himself -- oh damn, I just gave him another claim on which to base an appeal! -- he had no reason to lie about the times.

In fact, he didn't. The times are accurate (except that he may well have committed the murders considerably earlier). Even you just stated that it was well after 2AM before the attacks even started. And we know for an absolute fact that the call-for-help time, ~3:33AM, is accurate, since it was logged.

And inmate's own timeline proves that MacD is the killer, as the timings are just too compressed for "intruders".

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 5th December 2017 at 01:08 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 Back to Top
Old 5th December 2017, 08:09 PM   #3355
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Same Thought Process

You could replace Gunderson with Henri in the following commentary (e.g., 2012 article entitled TED GUNDERSON: DEATH OF A PUBLIC PARANOID) and not miss a beat.

"In the world of Ted Gunderson, every seemingly arbitrary idiosyncrasy, every obscure sign constructed from the random held signification aimed inexorably toward one unifying narrative."

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 Back to Top
Old 6th December 2017, 02:54 AM   #3356
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
You can't just fabricate it out of whole cloth. You are out of touch with reality
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 Back to Top
Old 6th December 2017, 03:45 AM   #3357
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't just fabricate it out of whole cloth. You are out of touch with reality
Your man crush is the fabricator (although he had help from "Esquire" for the story) and you're the one who's out of touch.

The trial proved macdonald did it. His own words condemn him. He referred to the imaginary killers as "some people" and then used the same words to refer to his slaughtered family. Hardly phraseology a loving husband and father would use.

Explain how mac did everything he claimed to do in the two minutes between him dropping (but not hanging up) the phone and picking the handset back up? You can't, not without lying (again) or dismissing what he's said all along he did in those two minutes.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th December 2017, 05:21 AM   #3358
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
those two minutes locked inmate into a narrative....Freddy Kassab went to the apartment with the permission of the CID, and tried several times to recreate MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour (http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html) and it couldn't be done. THE FACTS don't fit the narrative. Inmate could not have moved from bedroom to bedroom checking for signs of life and stop in the bathroom to check on his own injuries AND made it back to the phone within the 2 minutes. It was physically impossible NOT TO MENTION he claimed he attempted resuscitation during those 2 minutes and that is also impossible.

FACT: just to attempt to resuscitate Kimmie (with the blown open cheek) would have taken more than 2 minutes AND inmate (super ER doc in his own mind) would have taken her out of bed and laid her on the floor - even the most basically trained first responder KNOWS THAT CPR MUST BE DONE ON A HARD SURFACE. The FACT that Kimmie was found totally tucked into bed SCREAMS LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE in inmate's face. 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 Back to Top
Old 6th December 2017, 08:37 AM   #3359
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,122
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Inmate could not have moved from bedroom to bedroom checking for signs of life and stop in the bathroom to check on his own injuries AND made it back to the phone within the 2 minutes. It was physically impossible NOT TO MENTION he claimed he attempted resuscitation during those 2 minutes and that is also impossible.
Forgive me if I'm misinformed, but none of you have provided a REFERENCE in black and white which indicates the emergency phone operator was only on the line for just two minutes. Are you making it up, or is that something that drunken dour Irishman son of a bitch Joe McGinniss once said?

Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were dishonest judges. If you break the rules in a sport like golf, or even in the Olympics, there are punishments. It's the same with the rules of evidence and procedure in a courtroom, and the Brady law on disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense lawyers.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th December 2017, 08:53 AM   #3360
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 898
henri don't be ignorant - the phone operator LOGGED THE INITIAL CALL AT 3:33am AND THEN THE CALLER DROPPED THE PHONE BUT DID NOT DISCONNECT AND CAME BACK TO THE PHONE AT 3:35am. That is 2 minutes. Read the testimony of the TRIAL.

Neither Judge Fox nor Judge Dupree has been accused of dishonesty in the cases they have tried. The 4th Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have heard this case multiple times and they did not find any merit or support to claims of Brady violations or hiding exculpatory evidence. That is YOUR nonsense. You cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support your man crush, while we can all produce hundreds of items that show inmate is guilty.

I do not appreciate your vicious slanderous nasty vitiolic and uncalled for comments about the late Joe McGuiness. Knock it off!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 11:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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