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 1st August 2018, 02:12 AM   #121
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
There isn't a shred of evidence that those blond synthetic hair like fibers came from a doll. Stombaugh and Malone were total liars. They were making it up. Stombaugh and Glisson also never mentioned the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and biceps with no known source, which were discovered by the FBI expert examiner, Frier, but covered up and kept secret from the defense by the prosecution and Judge Fox and Dupree. Thornton was never allowed to test the hairs and fibers, and he was never told about them half the time until after the trial.
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 1st August 2018, 08:08 AM   #122
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There isn't a shred of evidence that those blond synthetic hair like fibers came from a doll.
Yes, there IS evidence that at least 2 of the saran fibers came from dolls. The FBI exemplar collection has thousands of doll wigs in it. Chemical composition, exact dye information, length, thickness etc. The 3rd saran fiber was matched to one of Colette's hair pieces.

HOWEVER, MORE IMPORTANTLY IS THAT THERE IS NO WAY THE SARAN FIBER CAME FROM A COSMETIC WIG. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE COSMETIC WIGS WERE NOT MADE WITH SARAN IN 1960s-1970s TIMEFRAME. TO MANUFACTURE A COSMETIC WIG, ONE NEEDED TO CREATE A TOW FIBER. SARAN COULD NOT BE MADE INTO A TOW FIBER AT THE TIME. PERIOD.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh and Malone were total liars. They were making it up.
No, Stombaugh and Malone were experts in their field. Just because you don't like what they concluded doesn't make them wrong.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh and Glisson also never mentioned the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and biceps
So? The prosecution only presented about 60% of the evidence available against inmate. IF the DEFENSE wanted to bring it up then they could have, but since the did not, it is a case of "oh, well, too bad, soooo sad". The government witnesses were not required to, nor would they "answer questions that were not asked....."

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
with no known source, which were discovered by the FBI expert examiner, Frier, but covered up and kept secret from the defense
UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS. The existence of dark fibers were not kept secret from the defense. All the bench notes etc mentioning those fibers were given to Bernie Segal during discovery. That Segal didn't use any of that information is on him....BUT the most likely reasons he didn't are:
1. unsourced equals forensically useless
2. random household debris not sourced to an alleged intruder suspect is not only forensically useless, but just points out that inmate was a viable suspect.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
by the prosecution
It is not the responsibility of the prosecutors to give hints or provide direct assistance to the defense in how to try the case. the information about the fibers was in the discovery material. Anyone with 2 functional brain cells should be able to see that since Bernie didn't mention those dark fibers he OBVIOUSLY realized they were useless to the defense.

[quote=Henri McPhee;12380286] and Judge Fox and Dupree.[/QUOTE

It is not up to the Presiding Jurist to provide the defense with ANYTHING other than his/her attention, his legal judgement and wisdom, and to ensure a fair trail. Judge Dupree did this, and Judge Fox since he took over the case has continued to be fair and impartial.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Thornton was never allowed to test the hairs and fibers,
Thorton had ample time to test ALL of the evidence if Bernie Segal had not wasted time attempting to get the evidence shipped across the country for testing. That is the DEFENSE' fault. The prosecution made arrangements for laboratory space to be used by the defense in the Raleigh Research Triangle area. IF Bernie Segal had not wasted all that time on an endeavor that was never going to fly (shipping the evidence) then Thorton would have had plenty of time. HOWEVER, THORTON DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO EXAMINE THE HAIRS AND FIBERS BECAUSE HE AGREED WITH THE FBI ANALYSIS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and he was never told about them half the time until after the trial.
So what? He had no reason to be "told about" hairs and fibers if the DEFENSE (the people who hired him) didn't tell him about the hairs and fibers that is on them. Even the defense doesn't try to argue these lame positions because they know if is of no value to them, it wouldn't help inmate's case at all.

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 1st August 2018, 08:45 AM   #123
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
It is not up to the Presiding Jurist to provide the defense with ANYTHING other than his/her attention, his legal judgement and wisdom, and to ensure a fair trail. Judge Dupree did this, and Judge Fox since he took over the case has continued to be fair and impartial.


Thorton had ample time to test ALL of the evidence if Bernie Segal had not wasted time attempting to get the evidence shipped across the country for testing. That is the DEFENSE' fault. The prosecution made arrangements for laboratory space to be used by the defense in the Raleigh Research Triangle area. IF Bernie Segal had not wasted all that time on an endeavor that was never going to fly (shipping the evidence) then Thorton would have had plenty of time. HOWEVER, THORTON DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO EXAMINE THE HAIRS AND FIBERS BECAUSE HE AGREED WITH THE FBI ANALYSIS.


[/i][/b]
You are talking a load of empty waffle. Both Segal and Thornton wanted to test the hairs and fibers, and the blood evidence microscopically, and to be informed about those hairs and fibers, particularly the hairs and fibers which were exculpatory and with no known source. The disclosure of exculpatory evidence is enshrined in American law. Murtagh and Judge Dupree and Judge Fox have prevented the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, except by several Freedom of Information requests after the MacDonald trial over which they had no control.

The matter is explained at this website:

https://everything2.com/title/Mispla...frey+MacDonald

Quote:
MacDonald’s trial was set for the summer of 1979 after much legal jockeying. After MacDonald had been bailed out and he had arranged his job affairs, he departed for North Carolina to be tried. Bernard Segal prepared his brief for trial, not even knowing if he had a case in the first place. For four long years, Segal battled with Brian Murtagh, chief prosecutor, to obtain the CID lab notes that were the basis for the government’s case. Murtagh never allowed them. Finally, a day before trial, Murtagh allowed an assistant of Segal to eyeball the evidence but not be able to lab-test it in any way. This was part of the government’s plan of suppressing evidence from the defense. When trial began, the critical Rock report had been disallowed by Judge Dupree’s ruling that the report, in fact, was a judiciary proceeding. Segal cried foul! Unfortunately, his motions were for naught. Throughout the trial, the prosecuted performed various acts of misconduct, some blatant, some not so much. For example, Janice Glisson, a CID lab technician, was an expert on both blood and fibers. However, the prosecution posed her as only an expert on blood, limiting the jury’s knowledge. A false science experiment, and one that was important to the prosecution’s case, was that concerning the folding of Colette MacDonald’s pajama top to fit the stab wounds in her. Segal nearly disproved this during cross-examination of Paul Strombough, when the judge helped reverse this and keep the false pajama folding experiment “truths" alive.(Potter and Bost 148-153) Brian Murtagh, chief prosecutor of the case, also never turned over the lab notes to Segal during trial. (Kurrich and Laba). In the end, the jurors were frustrated with the government’s case, but they voted to convict anyway. (Even the jurors didn’t believe the government!) Judge Dupree wasted no time in sentencing MacDonald to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment. (Potter and Bost 242).

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 1st August 2018 at 08:51 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 1st August 2018, 11:28 AM   #124
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 10

When backed into an evidentiary corner, Henriboy has always flailed about with erroneous claims, hyperbole, and conspiracy narratives. The legal system has provided Jeffrey MacDonald with more chances to prove his innocence than any convicted murderer in history. Despite these opportunities, inmate and his rotating band of lawyers haven't come close to proving that mythical hippie home invaders are responsible for the brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two daughters. Jeffrey MacDonald is not merely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilt beyond all doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st August 2018 at 11:55 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 1st August 2018, 12:10 PM   #125
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You are talking a load of empty waffle.
No, I am talking FACTS you are the one who has no evidence to back up your nonsense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Both Segal and Thornton wanted to test the hairs and fibers,
Thorton never made any such request henri and you have been told this numerous times. Bernie Segal didn't pay any attention to the evidence against inmate and spent precious time on an impossible quest to have the evidence shipped across country for testing. FACT henri not make believe.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and the blood evidence microscopically, and to be informed about those hairs and fibers, particularly the hairs and fibers which were exculpatory and with no known source.
hairs and fibers with no known source are forensically useless. there was no additional blood testing because to test the remaining blood it would have been necessary to damage or destroy evidence. NOT ALLOWED!

once again, it is not up to the prosecution (or Judges) to point out possible evidentiary items that may or may not help the defense. That Segal didn't bother to have much of the evidence tested is solely his fault. THAT IS FACT.

Thorton has stated that he was in agreement with the FBI hair and fiber conclusions. FACT FACT FACT.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The disclosure of exculpatory evidence is enshrined in American law. Murtagh and Judge Dupree and Judge Fox have prevented the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, except by several Freedom of Information requests after the MacDonald trial over which they had no control.
The evidence was provided to the defense via the discovery process. What you seem to be having trouble processing is the FACT that the prosecution IS NOT REQUIRED TO TELL THE DEFENSE ANYTHING ABOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. The defense is responsible for setting up their own case. IF they wanted to use unsourced fibers as a possible "reasonable doubt" issue then they should have tried that route. The FACT that the defense didn't test the hairs is not the fault of the prosecution.

Using Fatal Joke (a much better title than the one the authors gave it) as a source of valid information is RIDICULOUS. Over the last 10 years or more, we have spent plenty of time "FACT CHECKING FATAL JUSTICE". It has been shown to contain at least 1 error for every 5 pages of text. That piece of drek (most painful reading experience of my LIFE!) is replete with errors, cut and paste presentation, misrepresentation, outright lies, and revisionist history. It is a tragic comedy right from the B movie beginning in the fog shrouded alley with the dragon door Chinese restaurant down to its putting together 2 or 3 documents to attempt to make a counter argument for some damning evidence. Perfect example of a FJ mash-up was the document that said there was a palm print on the footboard in the MB and another document that said there was some blood splatter on the footboard in the MB. Put the 2 documents together (as Bost and Potter did) and you have a "latent" bloody palm print.

Problem:
1. there was no bloody palm print
2. a print (palm, finger or foot) in blood or other substance would be a PATENT print not a latent print.
3. there was a partial palmprint (not bloody)
4. there was some blood (not a bloody print of any kind)

THESE ARE FACTS henri.
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 1st August 2018, 12:13 PM   #126
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
When backed into an evidentiary corner, Henriboy has always flailed about with erroneous claims, hyperbole, and conspiracy narratives. The legal system has provided Jeffrey MacDonald with more chances to prove his innocence than any convicted murderer in history. Despite these opportunities, inmate and his rotating band of lawyers haven't come close to proving that mythical hippie home invaders are responsible for the brutal murder of his pregnant wife and two daughters. Jeffrey MacDonald is not merely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilt beyond all doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
GUILTY BEYOND ALL DOUBT INDEED!!!!!
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 3rd August 2018, 07:02 AM   #127
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Polar Opposites

One of the main reasons why inmate has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison is that inmate has no salient explanation for the inculpatory nature of the physical evidence. This is in stark contrast to ALL of the evidentiary arguments put forth by the defense. The government has had no problem providing prosaic explanations for unsourced hairs and fibers found at the crime scene.

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 4th August 2018, 03:07 AM   #128
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The government has had no problem providing prosaic explanations for unsourced hairs and fibers found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Murtagh said the explanation for the black wool fibers around the mouth and biceps, and on the murder weapon with no known source, and illegally never disclosed at the MacDonald trial, was that photos were found once of Colette wearing a black dress! It's similar to Malone's prosaic explanations for unsourced hairs and fibers when he had no real proof, or him doing a swap of hairs to be sent to the AFIP lab. He just thinks he will never be caught or punished. It's manufactured evidence. A good judge would have put his foot down about it, and a good President would have pardoned MacDonald.
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 4th August 2018, 07:09 AM   #129
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 11

HENRIBOY: Please educate yourself and discover the definition of the word "prosaic." The government has produced several prosaic explanations for the saran and dark woolen fibers.

- Dolls owned by the MacDonald children. Their combined collection was in excess of 20 dolls.

- Dark wool caps and clothing owned by the MacDonald family.

- Dark wool-lined sleeping bags owned by the MacDonald family.

For the past 48 years, the defense has failed to provide a prosaic explanation for the presence of fibers sourced to inmate's pajama top under Colette's body, under Kristen's fingernail, under Kimmie's pillow/bed covers, and under Kristen's bed covers.

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 5th August 2018, 03:06 AM   #130
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
I have discussed this matter of so-called pajama fibers on this forum before. JTF always rejects and ignores my criticism. The fact is that MacDonald wore an old pair of pajamas which shed fibers easily, and that it was his apartment and his master bedroom. It's not conclusive proof of anything. The pajama bottoms were lost by incompetency at the hospital. As MacDonald has said himself the pajama bottoms could have been responsible for pajama fibers which were shed. Also any pajama fibers which were found under Kristen's fingernails, if they were which is doubtful, were caused by Kristen kicking and screaming as Macdonald carried her to her bedroom after she wet the bed in the master bedroom.

This is what I posted about the matter on this forum in 2013:

Quote:
The problem with all this pajama fiber stuff which is the main plank of JTF's theory is that there are doubts as to what was described as pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers. There were many fibers of various colors found at the murder scene most of which were described as household debris.

Browning of the Army CID lab made mistakes. He once described one hair as a human hair which later turned out to be horse hair. As I have mentioned before Kathy Bond of the FBI described "pajama-like" fibers which doesn't sound beyond reasonable doubt to me. The forensic significance of all this is that Blackburn swayed the jury into thinking Dr. MacDonald used the wooden club on his family. The mystery unidentified black wool fibers on the club were never reported to the judge or jury or defense at the time of the 1979 trial. A perhaps more simple explanation about all this comes from an opinion on the internet in 1999:

"Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps,
and on the murder club found out back.
In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
reexamined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also reexamined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact black wool fibers that were similar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.

In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
withheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-examined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debris" and were not
forensically significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is
the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the
fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black
wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps the fibers are simply household
debris.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it."

Henri McPhee
20th September 2013 08:14 AM

This matter of whether pajama fibers were in fact pajama fibers was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with Army CID lab technician Browning:

MR. EISMAN: But he is giving a chemical analysis saying that the thread was grossly similar to that found in the pajama top. This line of questioning merely goes to the fact that this could have been grossly similar to thread found on any other piece of clothing manufactured anywhere else. Since this witness does not know the name of the manufacturer, does not know whether or not there could have been other garments in the house that night, who had this thread, he cannot say to a scientific certainty that this particular thread came from this particular garment.
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 August 2018, 07:01 AM   #131
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 12

HENRIBOY: Setting aside the odd notion that one could ignore AND reject a critique, you are in concert with the defense in regards to being unable to innocently explain how fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top found their way under bodies, bed covers, pillows, and fingernails. You conveniently forget that Bernie Segal did not challenge Paul Stombaugh's fiber comparisons nor did he argue that Stombaugh was not a qualified expert in hair and fiber analysis. In addition, Segal did not challenge Stombaugh's conclusion that a majority of those fibers were deposited from specific locations of inmate's torn pajama top. For example, all of the pajama fibers found under Colette's body were shed from the torn left front seam of the garment.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th August 2018 at 07:13 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 5th August 2018, 07:55 AM   #132
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
You are fabricating it out of whole cloth. The crime scene was hopelessly contaminated. The Army CID were incompetent. The matter is mentioned at this website, though it mentions hairs under Colette's body and not pajama fibers:

http://www.whatliesbeyond.boards.net...ds-last-chance

Quote:
Now he believes his defense team has accumulate enough evidence to finally prove it. On January 26, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will hear oral arguments on MacDonald’s claim that he is innocent. The new evidence that is part of the appeal was never seen or heard by the jury that convicted him. It includes DNA test results on hairs found beneath Colette’s body and under one of Kristen’s fingernails that do not match MacDonald’s; black wool fibers found on one of the murder weapons (a club) that do not match anything in the apartment; two long, blonde wig hairs; and multiple confessions made over the years by Helena Stockley, a drug addict and narcotics informant for local police and her then-boyfriend, Greg Mitchell, that they were involved in the crime. “How could it be possible that Jeff described two intruders, one male and one female, that ultimately matched the descriptions of the two people who confessed to the murders?” asks Hart Miles, one of MacDonald’s attorneys.

Though US Attorney John Bruce declined to comment specifically on the MacDonald defense team’s claims, citing the ongoing nature of the court proceedings, he did reference a lower court’s rejections of these same claims in 2014 and 2015. “It is our practice to litigate the case in court ... rather than through the news media,” Bruce advised.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th August 2018 at 08:04 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 5th August 2018, 09:21 AM   #133
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
You Can Run, But You Can't Hide Part 500

HENRIBOY: You have the right to avoid the question as has been the case in most of your posts in the past 15 years. You also have the right to refuse to answer the challenge put forth to you in regards to listing a single evidentiary item sourced to a known intruder suspect. I also have the right to call you out for your use of hyperbole, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Jeffrey MacDonald has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison due to the inculpatory nature of DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody/non-bloody fabric impression evidence. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th August 2018 at 09:24 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 August 2018, 02:41 AM   #134
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
It's not Nuff said. It was false evidence and false testimony, and disregarding leads and suspects, and exculpatory forensic evidence.

There was more to the MacDonald case than so-called pajama fibers, or Jimmy Britt. Possible suspects were mentioned and they should be closely questioned if they are still alive:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...w/3fHDRoqVo_cJ

Quote:
What do you think of Logan's
> list of intruders above? Do you agree or disagree?
> "Pam Kriwanek" who is listed above: Is she related to the Col. Kirwanek
> who was the Provost Marshal---according to Fatal Justice, the Provost Marshal
> is
> equal to the local police chief---at Fort Bragg?
True.

> Talk about someone who should sue someone. I believe Pam Kriwanek would
> have every right to sue Logan for slander: Logan says Kriwanek may have been
at
> the murder scene.
I said "may have" been.


> Pam Kriwanek would be around 50 years old today, and probably is a
> grandmother.
True.


> I believe it is reckless for Logan to throw around Kriwanek's name so
> recklessly and say that she might have been in MacDonald's apartment the night
> of the murders in 1970.
> If I were Kriwanek, I would demand an apologize from Logan, or I would
> sue Logan for slander, because with his statement above, Logan is doing
serious
> damage to Kriwanek's reputation in front of millions on the Internet.
Many CID agents have come forward and stated that early on Pam Kriwanek's name
was coming up as a "problem in the case". She was known to hang around the
Stoekley crowd.


> Logan just about called Pam Kriwanek a murderer without any proof
> whatsoever! Doesn't Logan realize the terrible damage he has done with
> such an accusation? You claim you are Logan's friend.
> Do you also believe that Pam Kirwanek was involved in the butchery of
> MacDonald's wife and the 2 year old Kristen and the 5 year Kimberly 30 years
> ago?
I don't know if she was or not. It is a possibility.

> Again, who is Pam Kriwanek?
> Mi...@aol.com
>
Robert Kriwanek's daughter.
Logan

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th August 2018 at 02:56 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2018, 07:32 AM   #135
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Shooting Fish In A Barrel

HENRIBOY: Despite your notorious history in these matters, I challenge you to list the evidentiary items that were definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. Knowing that you play dumb with terminology, "definitively sourced" equates to evidence (e.g., DNA, hairs, fibers, prints, bloody footprints, fabric impressions) that matches exemplars obtained from potential suspects.

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 6th August 2018, 08:28 AM   #136
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Despite your notorious history in these matters, I challenge you to list the evidentiary items that were definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. Knowing that you play dumb with terminology, "definitively sourced" equates to evidence (e.g., DNA, hairs, fibers, prints, bloody footprints, fabric impressions) that matches exemplars obtained from potential suspects.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I was watching an old Poirot TV show the other day and in it Poirot says that a good murder investigator should have a passion for the truth.

It's not logical to say that because there are no fingerprints that there were no intruders. A fingerprint expert hopes to find fingerprints but does not expect to find fingerprints. MacDonald never denied that footprints were caused by him. The CID lab technicians disagree about the matter themselves.. It proves nothing. Prints and fabric impressions are all hotly disputed by the MacDonald defense, and by Dr. Thornton. The MacDonald defense have never been allowed to test the DNA and hairs and fibers themselves to see if the Army CID lab and FBI lab were making it up. As far as I'm concerned the blond synthetic hair-like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig point directly at her, and the black wool fibers around Colette's mouth and on the murder weapon with no known source point directly at Mazerolle, who was wearing velveteen clothes during the MacDonald murders. That was withheld by Murtagh at the MacDonald trial.

The matter of forensic investigation is discussed at this website, which might be too academic for this forum, but is interesting just the same:

https://flylib.com/books/en/2.57.1.55/1/

Quote:
From one perspective, an equivocal forensic analysis is necessary for self-preservation. When investigators render opinions in a case, they are staking their reputations on the veracity of these opinions. An investigator who does not base his/her conclusions on sound evidence will have a short career.
From a less selfish perspective, investigators should want to be sure that everything they assert is accurate because it will be used to determine an individual's innocence or guilt and deprive them of their liberty or, in extreme cases, their life.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th August 2018 at 08:31 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 August 2018, 12:36 PM   #137
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Inmate stands convicted so obviously the evidence presented WAS INCULPATORY. JTF is not imagining or making up anything. FACTS are FACTS henri. not one singled evidentiary item has been matched or sourced to a viable intruder suspect. the dark woolen fibers were not unknown to the defense their existence was included in the discovery items. The prosecution is not responsible for telling the defense what evidence is in the notes or telling them what to use. The simple fact is that inmate is convicted and he is guilty.
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 August 2018, 03:05 PM   #138
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Coward

HENRIBOY: As expected, you were unable to answer the challenge and your inherent cowardice again rears its ugly head. For the past 15 years, you've chosen to run to the hills rather than to admit to your failures in coming up with the evidentiary goods. You're certainly not unique to this history of failure. You join a long list of advocates who have failed to produce evidentiary items in a Court of Law or in media circles that definitively links the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven to these horrific crimes.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 6th August 2018 at 03:18 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 August 2018, 08:13 AM   #139
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
The dark woolen fibers were not unknown to the defense their existence was included in the discovery items. The prosecution is not responsible for telling the defense what evidence is in the notes or telling them what to use. The simple fact is that inmate is convicted and he is guilty.
That is patently false. Dr. Thornton had never heard of black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon with no known source until after the MacDonald trial in 1979, and also the blond synthetic hair like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig. It was deliberately withheld at the trial by Murtagh and Blackburn and it was crucial and vital evidence. The inability of the defense to obtain the lab notes thanks to the very bad judge, Judge Dupree and the FBI, meant that Dr. Thornton and Segal were ill-informed about the exculpatory evidence. The jury should have been informed. The matter was explained, and the background to it, by Segal in an affidavit:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...990-10-13.html

Quote:
38. On August 21, 1979, at a bench conference, Judge Dupree denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the government's failure to turn over Brady materials. However, Judge Dupree again admonished the government, stating:
But now, I'll say this: I have always taken the position that if the Government has anything that classifies as Brady material and they do not give it to you, they are certainly going to get reversal. I have instructed them to do it, but now I am not going into their files and in a case as big as this, I am not going to take three days off to see what they've got and whether or not you are entitled to it -- I'm not going to make that. That's their risk. If they've got stuff, they're going to do it. (emphasis added) (Attached hereto as Exhibit 28)
39. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Janice S. Glisson which reference her findings of blond synthetic hair-like fibers on a clear-handled hairbrush (designated by the CID as Exhibit "K") taken from the MacDonald home. (Attached-20-hereto as Exhibit 29) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

40. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten inventory notes and laboratory notes of FBI lab technicians James Frier and Kathy Bond, which document the existence of black, green, and white wool fibers found in debris taken from the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the FBI as exhibits Q-88 and Q-100) and the wooden club murder weapon (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-89). (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

41. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel an unsigned typed FBI laboratory report dated March 14, 1979, and numbered "90103084 S RR IZ." (Attached hereto as Exhibit 31) I have carefully reviewed this typed report and state with certainty that I never saw it prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case, nor was I aware until now that the FBI had conducted a re-examination of certain pieces of evidence in early 1979.

42. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of Army CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of fibers within the debris taken from underneath the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-303) that did not have the blue pajama top as their source. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 32) I have carefully reviewed these hand written notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

43. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes that were provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Dr. MacDonald's attorney, Anthony P. Bisceglie, by former FBI lab technician Paul M. Stombaugh. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 33) These handwritten notes indicate that the FBI's lab examiner discovered within FBI exhibit Q-79, which was the debris taken from underneath the trunk of Colette MacDonald's body, the existence of fibers that did not have the blue pajama top (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-12) as their source. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

44. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, concerning his examination of debris (designated by the CID as exhibit E-211) taken from a blue sheet that was found on the floor of the master bedroom. (Attached here to as Exhibit 34) These documents indicate that the CID found what possibly may have been a piece of "skin tissue" and an "animal hair" within the debris taken from the blue sheet. I have also been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being another page of handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, concerning another examination of the debris taken from the blue sheet (the blue sheet itself having been designated by the CID as exhibit D-211), which document the presence of a pubic hair within the debris taken from the sheet. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 35) I have carefully reviewed the handwritten notes in Exhibits 34 and 35, and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

45. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of FBI lab technicians Kathy Bond and James Frier. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) These notes, which document the FBI's laboratory examination of the debris taken from the blue sheet that was found on the floor of the master bedroom (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-125), document the FBI's conclusion that the CID had misidentified the hair found in this debris as being an animal hair when, in fact, it was a human hair. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case...………………..

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 7th August 2018 at 08:18 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 August 2018, 08:45 AM   #140
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,655
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I was watching an old Poirot TV show the other day and in it Poirot says that a good murder investigator should have a passion for the truth.

Snipped propaganda

https://flylib.com/books/en/2.57.1.55/1/

If you're getting your cues from popular fiction it's no surprise that you can't differentiate between fact and fiction.
__________________
"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 August 2018, 12:06 PM   #141
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That is patently false. Dr. Thornton had never heard of black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon with no known source until after the MacDonald trial in 1979,
So what? that doesn't make what I said untrue. It just further indicates that Bernie Segal didn't pay a bit of attention to the evidence.

IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION TO POINT OUT EVIDENCE OR EVEN POSSIBLE EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. The information was included in the discovery materials.

when Dr. Thorton did or did not learn of the wool fibers is irrelevant. the government did not use the unsourced fibers against inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and also the blond synthetic hair like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig.
Neither Helena nor her wig were ever inside that apartment. The blonde synthetic fibers were from 3 different sources therefore eliminating Helena's wig. 2 of the fibers match doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection and the other matched one of Colette's hair pieces.

You have been told time and time again that COSMETIC WIGS were not made with saran in 1960s-1970s. Therefore it is impossible for Helena's wig to have been the source of any of the saran fibers. PERIOD. your repeating this nonsense over and over is not going to make it any more accurate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was deliberately withheld at the trial by Murtagh and Blackburn and it was crucial and vital evidence.
The prosecution only used about 60% of the evidence available to them at trial and that was their prerogative. The information about the saran fibers was also included in the discovery material. Once again, it is NOT the responsibility of the prosecution, or the presiding jurist to point out any specific evidence to the defense. The defense chose to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The inability of the defense to obtain the lab notes thanks to the very bad judge, Judge Dupree and the FBI, meant that Dr. Thornton and Segal were ill-informed about the exculpatory evidence.
the lab notes were included in the discovery material. even the defense does not argue this ridiculous stance. the FACT that the government did not use the saran fibers against inmate, nor did they use the dark wool fibers is not surprising since UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS.

Bernie Segal had the responsibility to prepare the defense case that he chose to ignore saran fibers and unsourced dark woolen fibers is on him and him alone. Judge Dupree, Blackburn, and Murtagh have absolutely no responsibility for even mentioning these items. Just because you keep repeating the same nonsense does NOT mean it will become any more accurate.

inmate is convicted. over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert were presented at trial. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY
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 August 2018, 01:13 PM   #142
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
"Henri",

I'm not focusing on the irrelevancies you want to throw in. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate some wool fibers and a few unidentified stray hairs. Those don't prove intruders, period.

And they do absolutely nothing to change the absolutely overwhelming evidence of the pajama top. Even inmate himself admits there were no icepick holes in the pajama top prior to that night (after all, how could there be, since in his story [in every sense of the word] they didn't even have an icepick in the apartment [which is itself unbelievable: *everyone* had an icepick then]).

So what's his story/theory for how the perfectly round holes got there? "It must have been" that he used it a shield from a vicious, violent attacker. But somehow the hole pattern effectively exactly corresponds to the pattern of wounds on Colette. That's just statistically not possible. Truly, truly not possible. You'd win the lottery 50 times in a row before that "coincidence" could ever occur.

The only reasonable explanation for the hole pattern is that the pajama top was on Colette before she was stabbed with the icepick (it's so horrible, I literally tear up some just writing this).

Remember, initially the prosecution must prove the case beyond (all) reasonable doubt, not beyond all crazy theories whatsoever. And now, after his conviction, inmate must prove his innocence to the same degree. As we all know, that's just not possible. There is no reasonable way to get those icepick holes on that pajama top that doesn't completely expose the lies in inmate's story. And, deep down, we all know that, even you.

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 7th August 2018 at 01:15 PM.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2018, 02:16 AM   #143
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
The pajama top experiment was conceptually unsound and contrived and impossible by pseudo and purported experts from the FBI lab. It has been discussed endlessly in detail on this forum but still people, and very bad judges think two and two make five. The main fault of the police and FBI is perjury. They are apt to jump to conclusions. They decide who did it and then 'find' the evidence after. They are apt to disregard leads and suspects. There is more to the MacDonald case than pajama fibers. It was a gross miscarriage of justice.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2018, 03:14 AM   #144
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
So what? that doesn't make what I said untrue. It just further indicates that Bernie Segal didn't pay a bit of attention to the evidence.

IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION TO POINT OUT EVIDENCE OR EVEN POSSIBLE EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. The information was included in the discovery materials.
Under the Brady law in America there must be disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense. That never happened in the MacDonald case. Any exculpatory evidence had to be obtained after the trial by Freedom of Information requests by MacDonald lawyers. Judge Dupree said at a bench conference that he would order a reversal if the prosecution did not comply with the Brady law, which was a lie by Judge Dupree. Ignorance of the law is not good enough:

Quote:
On August 21, 1979, at a bench conference, Judge Dupree denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the government's failure to turn over Brady materials. However, Judge Dupree again admonished the government, stating:
But now, I'll say this: I have always taken the position that if the Government has anything that classifies as Brady material and they do not give it to you, they are certainly going to get reversal. I have instructed them to do it, but now I am not going into their files and in a case as big as this, I am not going to take three days off to see what they've got and whether or not you are entitled to it -- I'm not going to make that. That's their risk. If they've got stuff, they're going to do it. (emphasis added) (Attached hereto as Exhibit 28)
[/quote]

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th August 2018 at 03:16 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 August 2018, 05:56 AM   #145
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Under the Brady law in America there must be disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Yes, all the exculpatory and inculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE SPECIFIC ITEMS. The DEFENSE has to read and review the notes, lists of evidence, statements, affidavits, test results, etc. So, BERNIE SEGAL should have known about the various fibers found. ALL OF THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO HIM. That he was unaware is his fault. He did not do a complete and thorough review.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That never happened in the MacDonald case.
WRONG. All the material was provided to Bernie. PERHAPS, if he had not wasted all that time on an impossible quest to have the evidence moved to California for review he'd have had the time to sufficiently review all the evidence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Any exculpatory evidence had to be obtained after the trial by Freedom of Information requests by MacDonald lawyers.
Patently untrue. It was long ago PROVEN repeat PROVEN that the information on the dark wool fibers and the saran fibers were in the notes etc that was provided at discovery. Once again, Bernie Segal decided to waste time on tilting at windmills rather than do the work of reviewing evidence and deciding what to use and what not to use.

HOWEVER, since the saran and the dark wool fibers are unsourced they are forensically useless and were not used by the government in the conviction.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Dupree said at a bench conference that he would order a reversal if the prosecution did not comply with the Brady law,
and the prosecution DID provide all the material required under Brady.

There were no Brady violations in this case. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN repeat PROVEN. Even the defense does not argue these ridiculous positions. really, it is long past time that you stop bringing up nonsense. SPEAK TO THE PROVEN FACTS OR GO AWAY.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2018, 08:34 AM   #146
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
So, BERNIE SEGAL should have known about the various fibers found. ALL OF THE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO HIM. That he was unaware is his fault. He did not do a complete and thorough review.

WRONG. All the material was provided to Bernie. PERHAPS, if he had not wasted all that time on an impossible quest to have the evidence moved to California for review he'd have had the time to sufficiently review all the evidence.
You need to back up your statements with references that Segal and Thornton were provided with the evidence as a whole with regard to the fibers before the trial. The matter was discussed between Segal and the bad judge Dupree before the 1979 trial:

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

Quote:
THE COURT: All right, sir. Well, gentlemen, the discovery available to a Defendant and to the Government, too, for that matter, in a criminal proceeding, is outlined in Rule 16.
And it has been held that that does not authorize the discovery of statements made by the Government witnesses or prospective witnesses, except as provided by the Jencks Act.
Now, it is my invariable practice to implore the Government to display everything in their power that could in any way be helpful to a Defendant. If you don't do it you run afoul of the Brady Rule, and you will be back.
And of course one of these days it could all be -- in connection with a post-trial proceeding -- be compelled to be disclosed, and then we could see whether or not it does.
The Government takes that chance. You say that you have nothing that is exculpatory. That's your position at this time. With respect to the grand jury testimony, that is covered in Rule 6. And you, I assume, are standing on your right with that law, but you are going to let him have some?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we are going to give it -- what we are giving to the Defendant is basically Jencks material of witnesses that we did not use, which would include grand jury material; it would include statements.

THE COURT: Now, at this late date, of course, another thing that concerns me is that they would give rise to further investigation, subpoenaing other witnesses from all over the country, and that kind of thing, and delaying this trial.
And I don't want that to happen. I am going to leave the Brady material motion exactly where it is, reminding the Government again that it is their responsibility.
If you've got anything that is helpful to this Defendant, let him have as quickly as you can.
Let's get on to the Rock Report.

MR. SEGAL: If Your Honor pleases, I think the report of Colonel Rock, which is the Article 32 investigation, fits precisely within the rule for official reports, set out under 803(8)(c).
I mean, I think we have spelled it out in our memoranda --

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th August 2018 at 08:36 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2018, 09:07 AM   #147
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
I fully appreciate that Judge Dupree once described Segal as the only lawyer he knew that would take three days to litigate an uncontested divorce case, and that Segal's closing speech and argument in the MacDonald trial is one of the worst in legal history. That was not MacDonald's fault. There is more to it than that:

https://medium.com/@lajp/a-judges-se...r-733f61d6673a

Quote:
The judge in the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case is one of the big reasons he is still in jail all these years later. In this excerpt from the book Fatal Justice, the judge in 1979 trial, United States federal judge Franklin Taylor Dupree Jr secretly communicated with the prosecution trying to influence the outcome of the trial. This fact was found out years later. Just this revelation alone should free the good Doctor who is currently awaiting on his 4th appeal. In my opinion this is absolute judicial corruption.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th August 2018 at 09:19 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 August 2018, 09:43 AM   #148
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,655
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That was not MacDonald's fault.There is more to it than that:

inconsequential propaganda snipped
Inmate was at fault for murdering his family.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2018, 09:57 AM   #149
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 460
uh, henri, JUDGES (unless the defendant has asked that the judge alone makes the decision of guilty or not guilty) are not responsible for the jury's decision.

Federal inmate macdonald's biggest problem is that he did it. His main attorney at the 1979 trial was his second biggest problem. Had Segal saved that savaging of the army's investigation for a general court-martial instead of an Article 32 hearing, this would be a thread about how macdonald got away with murder.

Irony: in 1970, in order for him to have gotten any sort of serious sentence for murdering Colette, she would have had to been a service member as well. Until the late 1980's/early 1990's - domestic violence did not get the consideration it deserved. (One guy got ten years for killing his wife and severely injuring his child and it was reduced to seven - 7 - years when the final affirmation order was issued. He served FOUR YEARS, not even half of the original sentence handed down.) Mac would have been better off (time-wise) to have been found guilty by court-martial. Fortunately, for justice, Bernard Segal, Esq. SUCKED when it came to military justice and used all his firepower at the A32 hearing.
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 8th August 2018, 01:44 PM   #150
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The pajama top experiment was conceptually unsound and contrived and impossible by pseudo and purported experts from the FBI lab. It has been discussed endlessly in detail on this forum but still people, and very bad judges think two and two make five. The main fault of the police and FBI is perjury. They are apt to jump to conclusions. They decide who did it and then 'find' the evidence after. They are apt to disregard leads and suspects. There is more to the MacDonald case than pajama fibers. It was a gross miscarriage of justice.
I'm not talking about how the top was folded. That's just icing on the cake -- again, more an inmate lawyer distraction than a really relevant point.

The pattern in the pajama top matches the pattern of wounds on Colette. Obvious, irrefutable and absolutely convincing evidence of guilt. It just can't be a coincidence, too remote to even be possible.
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 9th August 2018, 03:21 AM   #151
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
The pattern in the pajama top matches the pattern of wounds on Colette. Obvious, irrefutable and absolutely convincing evidence of guilt. It just can't be a coincidence, too remote to even be possible.
That was a con trick by the pseudo experts and purported experts at the FBI hair and fiber department. It was the only new so-called evidence after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 when MacDonald was cleared. Photographic fakery was used. Blackburn said to the simple-minded North Carolina jury in his closing speech that Dr. Thornton had questioned the entrance and exit holes, but he asked the jury to accept his version because the fabric was eighteen months old!

Professor Segal replied in his usual academic and rambling way, but which makes sense to me:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html

Quote:
……………..Now, the second point. If you fit 48 into 21, what does that mean? Did you hear anybody who was a scientist in criminal cases -- forensic scientist or criminal -- say to you that it would be a valid way of determining whether or not Mrs. MacDonald was stabbed through the pajama top to line up the fabric over the holes of the body and come up with 48 to 21? No. No scientist -- no scientific criminal investigator ever asked that ludicrous question. Who asked it? That lawyer and another lawyer asked the question. I said to Stombaugh, "Well, didn't you question the fact that you weren't going to also have the pink pajama top underneath it also?" He said, "No." "Well, didn't it worry you that any kind of inference that one would draw would be totally invalid because of the fact that the way that Mrs. MacDonald's body was found -- the way Colette was found -- in a pajama top of her own and in blue pajamas and holes -- that is, you have got to make them all fit together?" "No." "Why?" "That is what the lawyer -- the partisans for the other side -- asked me to do, and Shirley Green and I produced it." That is not scientific evidence. That is sheer fakery. There is no basis for that.

It gets worse -- it gets worse. Stombaugh testified -- contrary to my recollection of what the Government said -- Stombaugh testified that he identified a certain number of holes as being exit holes in the pajama top and a certain number of holes as being entry holes. John Thornton testified and the Government never called either Stombaugh or Shirley Green back to deny it that when they did -- that was following Shirley Green's notes -- that she used exit holes and entry holes and exit holes and entry holes and totally disregarded the principal finding that he made. Yes, Stombaugh did not identify every hole as entry or exit holes, but a dozen of them, he did.

Shirley Green did not follow his findings. How in the name of heaven and rationality or justice are we supposed to say that you should draw any kind of inference from a demonstration that demonstrated nothing in the first instance, and in the second instance, to state that it is false on its own terms. It doesn't do what it says it does. That is not the worst part of it yet. It is not the worst of what they have done here.

The third and final coup de grace of this piece of pseudo-science is the fact of -- I asked Ms. Green, "When you did this, did you bother to check as to whether or not the hole on the top..." -- you may remember those drawings -- considering the diameter of the holes -- the holes are not all the same because an ice pick doesn't go all the way into all of the holes because sometimes the front part of the ice pick or if the tip goes in which is a narrow diameter and sometimes up to the hilt -- I said, "Well, then, did you bother to account or tell us whether or not when you put one of your little pieces of wire through it whether or not you were putting a small medium size hole or a large size hole and a little hole together? Did you even bother to check? Why?" She never answered that question. "Well, nobody ever asked me to do that." Now, that is supposed to come to you as part of a scientific deduction in this case to lead to this theory that Jeff MacDonald stabbed his wife in some pointless and absolutely motiveless -- absolutely ludicrous statement that he stabbed through a pajama top, putting aside that there is no explanation and no rationality to the whole idea.

On every basis you can think of, it is a fake. Now, those are not easy words, but you ought to draw a conclusion. They did not in any way come back in here and say, "John Thornton made a mistake. John Thornton did not understand what Shirley Green did." They did not because they couldn't. This piece of evidence strikes me as the clearest singular example of the distortion in the name of pseudo-science done by the Government. It is an example of a demonstration which no scientist says could prove anything valid. No criminalist says that is the way we understand the thing, done for lawyers and not any finding on precept and they trot it in here and the Government has the gall to stand here and say, "Members of the jury, convict MacDonald of first degree murder. We have proved our case beyond a reasonable doubt. We are going to show you this whole story about how the pajama top got holes in it." It is not true. That is beyond my belief how responsible advocates could even do that...……...

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th August 2018 at 03:34 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 9th August 2018, 04:39 AM   #152
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That was a con trick by the pseudo experts and purported experts at the FBI hair and fiber department.
If anyone in this trial was a pseudo expert it would have been Drs Morton and Thorton. The experts that presented evidence at trial were DEEMED EXPERT BY THE ONE AND ONLY PERSON WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was the only new so-called evidence after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 when MacDonald was cleared.
There was nothing "so-called" about the Article 32 Hearing. That is exactly what inmate received an Article 32 Hearing which is UCMJ version of a Grand Jury but without a Jurist. Inmate WAS NOT CLEARED the charges were DISMISSED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. That is NOT the same thing as being cleared. AND the FACT is that most of the evidence had not yet been analyzed or reviewed at the time of the hearing.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Photographic fakery was used.
PROOF? AND HOW EXACTLY?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Blackburn said to the simple-minded North Carolina jury in his closing speech that Dr. Thornton had questioned the entrance and exit holes, but he asked the jury to accept his version because the fabric was eighteen months old!
First, you need to watch yourself. There is no cause for you to insult people that you do not even know. The jury in Raleigh was not "simple-minded" they were intelligent people who listened to the evidence presented and deliberated a just conclusion.

Second, no matter how many times you try to ignore the FACTS stomping your tiny feet and throwing a temper tantrum it will not CHANGE THOSE FACTS. The FACT is that you cannot FORCE A PATTERN TO EXIST. It either does exist or it does not. FACT the pattern of ice pick holes in the top match the pattern of ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. PERIOD.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:14 AM   #153
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You need to back up your statements with references that Segal and Thornton were provided with the evidence as a whole with regard to the fibers before the trial.
United States v. MacDonald, 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985)
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985)
March 1, 1985

640 F. Supp. 286 (1985)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeffrey R. MacDONALD, Defendant.
No. 75-26-CR-3.
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Fayetteville Division.

March 1, 1985.

........Turning to the second motion brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255, MacDonald claims that his conviction should be set aside because the government suppressed exculpatory evidence which, had it been introduced at trial, would have caused the jury to acquit him of the murders.

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." From this brief passage, the court left no doubt that once a criminal defendant requests material, exculpatory evidence, the prosecution is under a duty to supply the evidence.

.......After reviewing the evidence and arguments on both sides, the court concludes that the government did not suppress evidence and, in any event, there has been an insufficient showing that the four items would have been favorable to the defense if introduced at trial.


LOL, I find it incredibly funny that you demand ANYONE back up their comments with documentation. But because I am being nice, I have provided the above snippets of the Court Decision that states there was no Brady Violation.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 09:32 AM   #154
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
United States v. MacDonald, 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985)
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - 640 F. Supp. 286 (E.D.N.C. 1985)
March 1, 1985

640 F. Supp. 286 (1985)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeffrey R. MacDONALD, Defendant.
No. 75-26-CR-3.
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Fayetteville Division.

March 1, 1985.

........Turning to the second motion brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255, MacDonald claims that his conviction should be set aside because the government suppressed exculpatory evidence which, had it been introduced at trial, would have caused the jury to acquit him of the murders.....

.......After reviewing the evidence and arguments on both sides, the court concludes that the government did not suppress evidence and, in any event, there has been an insufficient showing that the four items would have been favorable to the defense if introduced at trial.

That's tommy rot.
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 August 2018, 10:04 AM   #155
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Still Waiting

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item(s) that matches an exemplar from a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven. Got news for ya...

1) The AFIP DNA tested 29 evidentiary items collected at the crime scene and not one of those items matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

2) Not one fingerprint, palmprint or footprint collected at the crime scene matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect.

3) Not one hair collected at the crime scene microscopically matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect.

4) Not one fiber collected at the crime scene microscopically matched a clothing exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

This list demonstrates why the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th August 2018 at 10:10 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 9th August 2018, 10:35 AM   #156
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
Murtagh and Judge Dupree theoretically allowed the MacDonald defense 'discovery' as Byn says, but the defense and their forensic experts were never allowed to discover anything. The exculpatory evidence was covered up by dishonest prosecutors, and corrupt hair and fiber purported experts from the FBI and CID lab, and by very bad judges like Judges Dupree and Fox, supported by a majority in the Supreme Court, and the 4th Circuit judges. It was not fair and just and it has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. It was manufactured evidence.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 03:13 PM   #157
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,070
Not Even Trying Anymore Part 13

HENRIBOY: I repeat, still waiting on that evidentiary item(s) that matches an exemplar from a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven. Got news for ya...

1) The AFIP DNA tested 29 evidentiary items collected at the crime scene and not one of those items matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

2) Not one fingerprint, palmprint or footprint collected at the crime scene matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect.

3) Not one hair collected at the crime scene microscopically matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect.

4) Not one fiber collected at the crime scene microscopically matched a clothing exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

This list demonstrates why the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

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 10th August 2018, 02:12 AM   #158
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,206
You follow the evidence, not opinions. Information is the lifeblood of any police investigation. The pajama folding experiment was arithmetically lunatic. The surgical glove fragment found at the crime scene was proved to not be a MacDonald glove fragment, without mentioning the candle wax and the fibers with no known source, and all the rest of it, which points to intruders if not the name of an intruder, which so bewilders JTF. The suspects and real culprits should have been relentlessly pursued. Murtagh and Blackburn swayed the simple North Carolina jury, and simple Supreme Court, and American corporate media by forensic fraud, and cover-ups of the exculpatory evidence. It was an unsafe verdict.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th August 2018 at 02:15 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 03:39 AM   #159
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,063
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: I repeat, still waiting on that evidentiary item(s) that matches an exemplar from a member of the New York Four or Stoeckley Seven. Got news for ya...

1) The AFIP DNA tested 29 evidentiary items collected at the crime scene and not one of those items matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.

2) Not one fingerprint, palmprint or footprint collected at the crime scene matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect.

3) Not one hair collected at the crime scene microscopically matched an exemplar collected from a known intruder suspect.

4) Not one fiber collected at the crime scene microscopically matched a clothing exemplar from a known intruder suspect.

This list demonstrates why the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
wouldn't the correct term by 'an alleged intruder suspect'?
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 04:27 AM   #160
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's tommy rot.
No henri IT IS FACT. You can go read the full document if you choose to do so, however, it WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT NO BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND. PERIOD.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 12:56 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.