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 19th October 2018, 02:55 PM   #601
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 482
Henrietta's find admits to coaxing a drunk into saying something. Yeah, that's believable. NOT.
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 19th October 2018, 03:20 PM   #602
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Still Waiting

HENRIETTA: Still waiting (e.g., 15 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Your claim that there was circumstantial evidence linking Mitchell to the crime scene is not backed by any lab analysis. Again, the following data proves that Mitchell never stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive.

- No prints of value matching Mitchell's exemplars were found at the crime scene.

- No head hairs matching Mitchell's exemplars were found at the crime scene.

- None of the 29 DNA exhibits tested by the AFIP matched Mitchell's DNA profile.

- Mitchell passed a 1971 polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine.

- Mitchell voluntarily met with the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1981. In both instances, he signed written statements denying any involvement in these horrific crimes.

- Mitchell never produced a signed statement admitting to his involvement in these crimes.

Like Mitchell, there is no evidence linking Dwight Smith, Bruce Fowler, or Allen Mazzerolle to the crime scene. No DNA, no head hairs, and no fingerprints. Like Mitchell, Fowler passed a polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine, and Fowler's alibi is so airtight that the defense gave up on him as a suspect in 1988. The defense also gave up on Smith as a suspect in 1997, and Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70.

So, you are literally the ONLY person on this earth who believes in inmate's innocence AND pitches Fowler, Smith, and Mazzerolle as being viable suspects.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th October 2018 at 03:24 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 19th October 2018, 08:14 PM   #603
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 143
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Griffins say they did contact some people after Mitchell's drunken confession to the MacDonald murders, including that drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinnis, but they were disregarded and not believed. I agree that it may not be strictly legal evidence but it's interesting just the same. The matter is discussed in more detail at this website:

http://www.constantinereport.com/upd...l-vision-case/
Since you have no credibility on this forum anyway, I find it amazing you continue to pile onto that by descending into cheap racist stereotyping. Why do you continue to call McGinnis "drunken Irish" & other nonsense? Who cares whether he's Irish or not? Is that supposed to make some sort of difference? I'd venture to guess that the Griffins' story about Mitchell's "drunken confession" wasn't believed because it simply lacked credibility. If they were serious about doing the right thing regarding this so-called confession then they should have gone to their local police and let those officials handle it from there.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 02:38 AM   #604
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
I reckon Murtagh had Mitchell and Stoeckley bumped off because they knew too much for the 1985 Judge Dupree MacDonald appeal. They knew too much and they were talking too much. Stoeckley had just previously said on TV that she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. That would never do. Mitchell had recently made several unofficial confessions and aroused the interest of the FBI in him.

I also think the MacDonald lawyer Eisman was bumped off before the 1992 Judge Dupree MacDonald appeal, perhaps because he knew too much, or he was becoming a bit too outspoken about the MacDonald case, or he had obtained some knew information about the case. I know the official version was suicide but he was also involved in another big controversial drugs case at the time.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 03:01 AM   #605
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Bruce Fowler just said " I don't remember" which is much the same as the usual "no comment" at a police interview:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ler_bruce.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 03:17 AM   #606
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Bruce Fowler is mentioned in the testimony of the 'genius detective' from the Washington Army CID, Mahon, at the 1975 Grand Jury:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-21-mahon.html

Quote:
Q Now, you mentioned that Smith, I think it was, had been at Bruce Fowler's trailer that night. By the way, were all these people -- were they all drug users, Kathy Smith, for example?
A Yes, sir.
Q Dianne Cazares?
A I believe she was also, yes, sir.
Q Bruce Fowler, how about him?
A Yes, sir, he was.
A All right, now, you were able to locate Bruce Fowler?
A Yes, sir, I located Bruce Fowler in a prison at Mount Meigs, Alabama. I believe it's M-e-i-g-s.
Q And he had a wife, I take it?
A Yes, sir, he was married and his wife's name was Janice.
Q Were they separated in February -- February 16, 17, 1970 or -- well, we have him in a trailer with Kathy Smith. Tell us about that.
A Yes, sir, as I understand it, both Bruce Fowler and Mrs. Fowler are from Alabama. That Mrs. Fowler's parents were in the Army stationed at Fort Bragg.
And so Mrs. Fowler left her husband for a period of time, and went to live with her parents in North Carolina.
Apparently Mr. Fowler followed her up there. They were not living together to my knowledge in February of 1970. I believe she was employed as a go-go-dancer in Fayetteville, and I'm not certain as to where he was employed, if he was in fact employed.
Q But he was living in a house trailer there?
A He was livinkg in a house trailer in Fayetteville.
Q All right, now, what did he tell you with respect to having any knowledge of the murders of the MacDonald family?
A Well he -- he stated that he did not recall where he was on the night in question.
He denied that he had any knowledge about the homicides, and stated that he did not know where Miss Stoeckley was on the night in question.
He -- he also identified his automobile as a 1967 blue Mustang.
Q All right, was he given a polygraph?
A Yes, sir, he was.
Q And was it given by Mr. Brisentine or Brisenteen?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what were Mr. Brisentine's conclusions?
A Mr. Brisentine concluded that Mr. Fowler was truthful when he denied having any knowledge of the murders.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th October 2018 at 03:19 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 20th October 2018, 06:19 AM   #607
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 22
Umm - Henri or Henrietta (whoever you are today):
So, while Helena lay dying alone in her apartment (with her infant child), she called her mother and confessed that she lied on the stand? Then you "reckon" that Brian Murtagh had both Helena and Mitchell "bumped off?" Why didn't Helena mention that someone was killing her during that last phone call? If I remember correctly (and someone sensible please correct me if I am wrong), Helena died of pneumonia complicated by her chronic drug use. Show us the phone logs from that time frame. I've had pneumonia, and believe me, I barely could draw in enough air to breathe, let alone have a telephone conversation like that.
And Brian also had Eisman bumped off? Really? Another conspiracy!!!!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 06:35 AM   #608
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
All Alone On A Tiny Island

HENRIETTA: It's not surprising that for the past 15 years, you've consistently refused to produce the non-existent evidence that sources someone not named Jeffrey MacDonald to these murders. What is somewhat surprising is how you seem to take comfort and joy in being the ONLY person to currently claim that Fowler, Harris, Smith, and Mazzerolle were involved in these murders. Bizarre and/or sad claim? Yes. A claim based on the evidence collected at the crime scene? No.

As I'm sure you already know, even diehard advocates like Fred Bost gave up on Fowler, Harris, Smith, and Mazzerolle as being viable suspects. No physical evidence tied them to the crime scene, Harris and Smith publicly called out Stoeckley as being a lunatic, Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70, and Fowler had an airtight alibi. Oh, and despite their ability to do so, the defense did not request that exemplars be obtained from these 4 individuals for DNA testing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th October 2018 at 06:44 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 20th October 2018, 08:22 AM   #609
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Your mind reading skills aren't any better than your legal skills.

The affidavits you cite, absent evidence (not your pov of evidence, actual evidence) of misconduct by a juror means nothing. If this was an instance of a hung jury for acquittal where the individual juror in question was the only juror voting for guilty, that would be worth a review. If the juror in question acted as his own prosecutor in jury deliberation and brought "evidence" into the jury room not presented by the prosecution or defense that would clearly be misconduct.

Voting to convict isn't evidence of misconduct.

As far as bribery being a necessary component of being wrong about something, folks are fully capable of being wrong all on their own, and some folks have no difficulty inserting themselves into notorious criminal cases for their own reasons. That might ring a bell with certain crime buff posters

In a way I agree with you that some people have no difficulty inserting themselves into notorious criminal cases. There have been a few on the internet forums which I could mention. These people have even been involved attending a deadly place like a courtroom to spout their silly remarks.

However my point about the affidavits indicating corrupt bias by the foreman of the jury in the MacDonald case were not motivated by any kind of JTF or Byn interest in the case, or financial interest, or desire for revenge. They just simply reported on what the foreman of the jury said to them before the trial, and what Mitchell confessed to them. There is no law against that. They didn't think it important, though it is important to MacDonald. The 4th Circuit judges should have taken up the matter instead of just ignoring those affidavits.

I know America is a different country to the UK, but in the UK corrupt bias by a juror, or the foreman of a jury, is considered contempt of court, which can be punishable by imprisonment. There was a case in the UK a few years ago when a female juror had unwittingly looked up the defendant's previous convictions in the case she was on when she was not supposed to have done that. She was sentenced to six months for that which I thought was a bit harsh. It must have been an unpleasant surprise for her.

There is a discussion about this sort of thing at this website:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/corru...se-james-daily

Quote:
California's Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 provides:

(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true..,(3) (A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding...(6) (A) For any reason:..(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

Sounds pretty easy. But once the judge approves their own Self-confirming statements "I can be fair" what another person may think becomes a litigation in an of itself. Filing of a 170.1 results in the case being sent to another court, likely another county. A hearing may or may not be given. When the supervising court decides that the judge is not biased as happens in 98% of the time according to the Guardian - the case is sent back to the very same judge for handling.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th October 2018 at 08:27 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 09:00 AM   #610
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
Umm - Henri or Henrietta (whoever you are today):
So, while Helena lay dying alone in her apartment (with her infant child), she called her mother and confessed that she lied on the stand? Then you "reckon" that Brian Murtagh had both Helena and Mitchell "bumped off?" Why didn't Helena mention that someone was killing her during that last phone call? If I remember correctly (and someone sensible please correct me if I am wrong), Helena died of pneumonia complicated by her chronic drug use. Show us the phone logs from that time frame. I've had pneumonia, and believe me, I barely could draw in enough air to breathe, let alone have a telephone conversation like that.
And Brian also had Eisman bumped off? Really? Another conspiracy!!!!
I suppose it's possible that it was Jimmie Proctor who arranged for Stoeckley and Mitchell to be bumped off to prevent any problems for his former father-in-law, Judge Dupree, in preventing MacDonald from winning his 1985 appeal from a talkative Mitchell and Stoeckley. Proctor seems to have been in the CIA for about a year at the time.

From what I have read, Helena was concerned at the time that there were strange men in dark glasses around her apartment and, as far as I can remember, there was a witness who corroborates this. She had even contacted Detective Beasley about that to express to him her worries. MacDonald was so suspicious about her death that he arranged for a medical colleague to attend the Helena autopsy, but he was unable to establish any proof of foul play. I concede that she was not at all well and she had been heavily into drink and drugs for years.

There is an article on the internet about the MacDonald case private investigator, Ted Gunderson, which is a discredit and hatchet job on him. Personally, I think Gunderson and Detective Beasley were on the right murder trail in the MacDonald case. For some reason Gunderson just concentrated on Stoeckley when the next logical step would have been to investigate the other suspects. I suppose that may have been due to a lack of money by MacDonald:

https://llbahreligion.wordpress.com/...blic-paranoid/

Quote:
Of course, Gunderson too was in mortal danger for his trifling into Satanic affairs. MacDonald murder confessor Helena Stoeckley had been found dead in her apartment in January of 1983 from pneumonia and cirrhosis of the liver — a not-so-mysterious death according to the coroner’s report — though Gunderson would be “convinced that she was silenced using one of the many covert, untraceable assassination techniques known to government intel agencies.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th October 2018 at 09:05 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 06:25 PM   #611
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Attempting To Flee

HENRIETTA: Closing your eyes and covering your ears ain't gonna help.
Again, it's not surprising that for the past 15 years, you've consistently refused to produce the non-existent evidence that sources someone not named Jeffrey MacDonald to these murders. What is somewhat surprising is how you seem to take comfort and joy in being the ONLY person to currently claim that Fowler, Harris, Smith, and Mazzerolle were involved in these murders. Bizarre and/or sad claim? Yes. A claim based on the evidence collected at the crime scene? No.

As I'm sure you already know, even diehard advocates like Fred Bost gave up on Fowler, Harris, Smith, and Mazzerolle as being viable suspects. No physical evidence tied them to the crime scene, Harris and Smith publicly called out Stoeckley as being a lunatic, Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70, and Fowler had an airtight alibi. Oh, and despite their ability to do so, the defense did not request that exemplars be obtained from these 4 individuals for DNA testing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2018, 07:34 PM   #612
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,189
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I reckon Murtagh had Mitchell and Stoeckley bumped off because they knew too much for the 1985 Judge Dupree MacDonald appeal.
Why not just go all the way?

Given your penchant for naming any possible suspect other than your convicted man crush, why isn't Murtagh a suspect in the murder of inmate's 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 21st October 2018, 02:37 AM   #613
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
The King Or Queen Of MacDonald Case Woo

BStrong: In the past 15 years, Henrietta has expressed the type of MacDonald Case woo that would have made the likes of Ted Gunderson blush. At least Gunderson figuratively and literally went away when confronted with documented fact. Henrietta, however, merely rinses and repeats the same debunked claims over and over again. In Henrietta's fantasy world, the only person not involved in these murders is the perp himself.

In this same world, every CID/FBI agent involved in this case somehow had a direct line of communication with the District and Circuit Courts. They all appear to have been on the same page and that page involved risking their individual careers in order to protect local stoners from being incarcerated. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Railroad a charter member of the best and the brightest club in order to protect local drug addicts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st October 2018 at 02:56 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 21st October 2018, 02:53 AM   #614
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Why not just go all the way?

Given your penchant for naming any possible suspect other than your convicted man crush, why isn't Murtagh a suspect in the murder of inmate's family?
Murtagh just had a will to win at all costs attitude which included using forensic fraud where necessary and withholding exculpatory evidence. I don't know the exact details of how Murtagh became a prosecutor in the case. I suspect he was appointed by Proctor after the initial prosecutor Woerheide at the Grand Jury died. Proctor was the former son-in-law of corrupt biased Judge Dupree. Proctor seems to have been in the CIA for about a year at the time.

Helena Stoeckley did say once that she knew Proctor, and that she knew about Proctor's involvement in drug smuggling at Fort Bragg, and she would provide more details about Proctor if she was ever granted immunity which never happened. That could be one reason why Proctor had Stoeckley bumped off.

The leads and suspects in the case were disregarded and discredited unless they started talking too much. The MacDonald defense lawyers were never professional criminal investigators. Defense lawyers and journalists don't catch thieves and murderers. That's how the real culprits in the MacDonald case were able to get away with murder. MacDonald no longer has any professional criminal investigator working on his case, probably due to lack of money on his part.

All this is obviously unfair on MacDonald. The 4th Circuit judges should have acted drastically about the corrupt bias in the MacDonald case, which continues now with Judge Fox still being in bed with the prosecution, and using the law's delay to keep MacDonald in prison for ever.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2018 at 03:22 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 06:34 AM   #615
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

All this is obviously unfair on MacDonald.
No it isn't.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

...keep MacDonald in prison for ever.
Good. It's where he belongs until he dies.


BTW, it was Murtagh who got Worheide's attention about the case in the first place.

Also, please show one other case from the annals of recorded history wherein someone who died as Stoeckley did was proven to have been "bumped off".
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 07:03 AM   #616
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Cricket Noises

AF: For the past 15 years, I've been asking Henrietta to provide proof of his or her outlandish claims. All I've gotten in return is hyperbolic word salad and it is salad that has gone bad. Henrietta is an expert at avoiding the question and providing an "answer" that has not been echoed by any other MacDonald advocate. The good news is that inmate has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 21st October 2018 at 07:08 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 21st October 2018, 08:15 AM   #617
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post

BTW, it was Murtagh who got Worheide's attention about the case in the first place.
That's not strictly true. It was Proctor who was behind the wrongful prosecution of MacDonald, and the corrupt bias in the MacDonald case, though Proctor probably emphatically denies it now, if he is still alive:

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

Quote:
In addition, Mr. Proctor states that he went "to Washington every two to three weeks, taking new evidence. He talked with Victor Woerheide, Justice Department prosecutor, and convinced him that he had a case against MacDonald." Finally, Mr. Proctor states that in an effort to obtain approval to prosecute the case, "begged, pleaded, even threatened to resign."

This motion for reconsideration is made in order to offer the Court the opportunity to consider this new evidence of Mr. Proctor's involvement in the case and advocacy of Dr. MacDonald's prosecution.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 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 21st October 2018, 08:47 AM   #618
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Not all these appeal court judges in America, like the 4th Circuit, can be trusted to avoid conflicts of interest and just rubber stamping very bad judges like Judge Dupree and Judge Fox.

There seems to have been changes of personnel over the years at the 4th Circuit and there has been an attempt to appoint younger judges. I don't know of any mistakes they have made, but there have been mistakes and conflicts of interest with other appeal courts in America. The Supreme Court has made mistakes in the past. This has been admitted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, on TV recently:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014...s-plead-guilty

Quote:
When Linda Wolicki-Gables and her husband appealed a lawsuit all the way to the second-highest court in the nation against Johnson & Johnson over a malfunctioning medication pump that had been implanted in her body, the couple had no idea that one of the judges who decided their case had a financial stake in the giant multinational company.
Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Hill owned as much as $100,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock when he and two other judges ruled against the Gables’ appeal in the precedent-setting case.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2018 at 08:50 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 08:53 AM   #619
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
AF: For the past 15 years, I've been asking Henrietta to provide proof of his or her outlandish claims. All I've gotten in return is hyperbolic word salad and it is salad that has gone bad. Henrietta is an expert at avoiding the question and providing an "answer" that has not been echoed by any other MacDonald advocate. The good news is that inmate has spent 37 of the past 39 years in prison.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I'm a red -blooded Englishman.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2018, 09:25 AM   #620
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 482
Proctor was a FORMER son-in-law and, as those things go, not the judge's favorite person in the room. Or the universe. It would be more likely that the judge would go FOR someone a former son-in-law opposed rather than Henri(etta)'s thesis. Your man crush would have benefited rather than suffered had what you postulate been the truth.
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 22nd October 2018, 02:39 AM   #621
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
The point is that Dupree and Proctor were colleagues in the same law firm at one time. Judge Dupree was hardly an impartial judge from an independent judiciary and neither is Judge Fox. As I have said many times the 4th Circuit judges should have put their foot down about it. Just for Dupree and Judge Fox to say publicly "I can be fair" is simply not good enough. They were both in bed with the prosecution.

The matter is discussed on this forum:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/true-...ld-case-3.html

Quote:
I worry you would not use critical thinking as a juror.

Fair trial? I think not.

"Judge Franklin T. Dupree Jr. had already made up his mind that MacDonald was guilty well before the trial began. Dupree had a close personal relationship with a man named James Proctor, who was one of the key individuals in the government who was determined to convict MacDonald.

As Potter and Bost point out: "Proctor had been an associate in Dupree's private law firm from 1967 through 1969. He regarded Dupree as a mentor, married one of Dupree's two daughters, and sired Dupree's first grandchild." Considering the opportunity for Proctor to prejudice the judge, Dupree should have excused himself from the case.
Instead, Dupree asked for the case.

James Blackburn


It was a high profile case and everyone wanted to be on the bandwagon. It was the kind of case that could really make one's career. Assistant U.S. Attorney James Blackburn, the lead prosecutor, used the case as a springboard to become the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of North Carolina. A man of very dubious ethics and morals, he later was convicted of forgery, fraud and embezzlement.

Blackburn's chief assistant was a young, ambitious government lawyer named Brian Murtagh who made suppression of evidence into a new art form. Worse, Murtagh had in his possession several critical pieces of physical evidence that would have proven MacDonald's innocence and yet he spared no effort to make certain that the evidence remained undiscovered by the defense.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd October 2018 at 02:42 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 05:10 AM   #622
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's not strictly true either. As I have said before, polygraphs are not scientifically reliable. Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Nobody said that Polygraphs are admissible. We all know that sociopaths have been able to "beat" the machine from time to time.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald did pass at least one polygraph a bit later on
Yes he did, years later, after his sociopathic mind was fully engaged in the prevarications.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
..., when he had recovered from his collapsed lung and nervous tension at the time of the Article 32 proceedings in 1970.
he had long since been recovered from his PARTIALLY collapsed lung, it doesn't take that long to heal. In FACT, the only reason he remained in the hospital as long as he did is because there was no place to release him to since his apartment was a crime scene.

He did not have a large amount of "nervous tension" during the Article 32. In fact, inmate was strutting around like the cock of the walk, started a heated affair while on House Arrest in the BOQ, and attempted to get famous writers to write stories about him.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2018, 06:45 AM   #623
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,189
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh. snipped
Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask.

Why isn't Murtaugh a suspect in the murder of inmate's 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 22nd October 2018, 07:04 PM   #624
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that Dupree and Proctor were colleagues in the same law firm at one time. Judge Dupree was hardly an impartial judge from an independent judiciary and neither is Judge Fox. As I have said many times the 4th Circuit judges should have put their foot down about it. Just for Dupree and Judge Fox to say publicly "I can be fair" is simply not good enough. They were both in bed with the prosecution.

The matter is discussed on this forum:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/true-...ld-case-3.html
LIAR. You have always maintained that the RELATIONSHIP between Dupree and Proctor meant that Dupree could not be impartial. It's the implication you've made almost every time you've mentioned the subject. It's the inference we were supposed to draw from the statement Proctor was once Dupree's son-in-law. Until this post, you have NEVER used the "colleagues in the same law firm at one time" BS.
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 22nd October 2018, 10:30 PM   #625
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Nice Spot

DESMIRELLE: Nice response to Henrietta's failure to keep track of his or her bs. It's hard to rinse and repeat the same debunked claims 50 times over without adding new nonsense to your posting resume. The lure of her conspiracy minded persona is too strong.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd October 2018 at 10:35 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 23rd October 2018, 10:40 AM   #626
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Does anyone else like to imagine how totally embarrassed inmate would be if he knew what his most adamant supporters are like on the boards? Knowing that his personality type is such that "what others think of him" is of primary import, can you imagine? roflmao! Maybe we could print out, enlarge, and make huge posters of some of their posts and have a little party up near the prison in Cumberland......
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 04:55 AM   #627
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I reckon Murtagh had Mitchell and Stoeckley bumped off because they knew too much for the 1985 Judge Dupree MacDonald appeal.
As much as inmate despises the LilVipr I seriously doubt he'd be pleased to know that one of his few remaining supporters was making these sorts of allegations ostensibly "on his behalf".

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They knew too much and they were talking too much.
Helena was a total burnout drug addict and Greg was a drunk. Neither of them were involved in the murders the lack of evidence is proof. Also, Helena had a penchant for telling tall tales so her credibility is very much lacking. Greg's only "confession" was that he "did something bad while I was in the military" and during the Vietnam era that covers a lot of probabilities that do not include participating in the murder of a pregnant woman and her daughters.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stoeckley had just previously said on TV that she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg.
If you are talking about the Gunderson orchestrated 60 Minutes segment you REALLY need to rewatch and pay attention. First, check out Helena's eyes....the pupils are dilated (sign of being under the influence). Second, listen to her speaking (monotone and unblinking signs of telling a rehearsed story that may not be based on FACT). Third, look at Helena's life up to that point.....she lacks credibility! I remember one story she claimed that she had "stood guard" with some of the MPs at Bragg. I've grown up near several large military installations (and lived on 1 for 8 weeks) and IF Helena was in one of the guard booths she was NOT standing watch. IN FACT, SHE LIKELY WAS NOT STANDING AT ALL.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I also think the MacDonald lawyer Eisman was bumped off before the 1992.....appeal,
OMG really? You are going to try and turn Eisman's suicide into another conspiracy related to inmate?

Nowhere (except in his own mind) was inmate every of enough importance to bring down such a huge wide ranging conspiracy. Not to mention that as Benjamin Franklin once said "three men may keep a secret only after two of them are dead". IF it had been a true conspiracy it would all have come out by now, the FACT that inmate is still in prison (where he belongs) is testimony to the fact that there is no conspiracy here.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 11:29 AM   #628
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,189
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Does anyone else like to imagine how totally embarrassed inmate would be if he knew what his most adamant supporters are like on the boards? Knowing that his personality type is such that "what others think of him" is of primary import, can you imagine? roflmao! Maybe we could print out, enlarge, and make huge posters of some of their posts and have a little party up near the prison in Cumberland......
As depressing as being in custody is, I'd bet the knowledge that his water is being carried by the type here would make a bad day in prison even worse.

What I'd like to tell the inmate is that if he's released, he can look forward to a visit from a foreign dignitary - Il Presidente dell'isola di non fatti.

That'll scare 'im!
__________________
"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 26th October 2018, 01:24 PM   #629
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Using And Discarding

In the 1980's, inmate got spooked by not one, but two female advocates. The first was a former babysitter of the family that was murdered by Timothy Hennis. This crime occurred at Fort Bragg and this young woman fostered an unhealthy obsession with inmate. They communicated via letters and the more they corresponded, the more her obsessive thought process reared its ugly head. Inmate eventually stopped communicating with her.

In 1986, Melinda Stephens authored the book I ACCUSE: THE TORTURING OF AN AMERICAN HERO, and she also corresponded with inmate on a consistent basis. Melinda owned a successful real estate company and she was married with two children. By 1988, however, it became clear to inmate that she wanted more than a casual relationship, so he cut off all contact. Within a years time, she was replaced by Lucia Bartoli.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th October 2018 at 01:26 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 28th October 2018, 02:24 PM   #630
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Clarification

Lucia Bartoli was an acquaintance of inmate, she interviewed several individuals who worked in the wig/doll manufacturing business, and she searched high and low for a wig made out of saran. She was unable to find a cosmetic saran wig, but she did locate a saran wig in a museum in Mexico City. That wig was a part of a museum exhibit. Depending on who you believe, their relationship ended when Lucia sought a romantic relationship with inmate or when she was unable to produce the evidentiary goods to convince an appellate court to grant a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th October 2018 at 02:41 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 29th October 2018, 05:09 AM   #631
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Lucia Bartoli (at least at one time) believed that inmate had killed his family but that he could not recall it as inmate had been part of the USArmy PsyOPs (where they turned soldiers into efficient killers but without the "memory" burden)....at least that is how I read her comments when she posted on one of the old forums.
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 29th October 2018, 02:54 PM   #632
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
The Manchurian Candidates

Piggybacking on BYN's post, Lucia believed that in addition to inmate, several unnamed soldiers also partook in the mind control experiments. She was convinced that inmate murdered Colette and that the unnamed soldiers killed Kristen and Kimmie.

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 29th October 2018, 09:37 PM   #633
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 482
Piggybacking the piggyback on Byn (she's so strong!): I've always wondered why anyone with an ounce of common sense would think PsyOps would use doctors as guinea pigs when the post was full of gun bunnies who were going to be in action anyway. Makes no sense. At all.
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 30th October 2018, 04:03 AM   #634
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Piggybacking the piggyback on Byn (she's so strong!): I've always wondered why anyone with an ounce of common sense would think PsyOps would use doctors as guinea pigs when the post was full of gun bunnies who were going to be in action anyway. Makes no sense. At all.
I totally thought "really?" when Lucia first posted that she believed inmate to have been "programmed" through PsyOps. IF the USArmy was going to experiment with such a program they would not have selected Doctors or married men with children. IF a PsyOps program existed, the soldiers selected would have been actual soldiers (fighting men) who had no family. IF PsyOps were taking place the old saying "if the Army wanted you to have a wife it would have issued you a wife" would have been an absolute truism.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2018, 03:19 PM   #635
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 482
I don't see PsyOps co-opting Doctors as guinea pigs, period. Whether or not they had a wife, children or six hamsters and a goldfish. Doctors were, uh, needed elsewhere. There was a war going on.
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 31st October 2018, 03:44 AM   #636
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
I don't see PsyOps co-opting Doctors as guinea pigs, period. Whether or not they had a wife, children or six hamsters and a goldfish. Doctors were, uh, needed elsewhere. There was a war going on.
My memory of Lucia Bartoli was that I think she worked for the MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate law firm. She was quite romantically attached to MacDonald for a time while he was in prison and knew his mother quite well. She had the job of trying to prove that the blonde synthetic hair like fibers at the crime scene came from some sort of Helena blonde wig. There seems to have been some sort of a bust up with MacDonald because she was strongly RC and she advised MacDonald to keep his mouth shut.

She used to post on one or two MacDonald forums about those PsyOps theories. There may be a grain of truth in what she said, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and it could not be proved because of preserving secrecy unless some whistle blowers come along.

You must speak only as to facts in a court case, and not the court of public opinion or the Murtagh and Blackburn and Stombaugh manufactured evidence.
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 31st October 2018, 04:55 AM   #637
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My memory of Lucia Bartoli was that I think she worked for the MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate law firm.
To my knowledge Lucia Bartoli is now and always was an independent researcher. She may have been hired by Harvey to work on the case, or she may have been hired by inmate himself.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
She was quite romantically attached to MacDonald for a time while he was in prison and knew his mother quite well.
inmate claimed she was romantically interested in him and SMQ was jealous and ran her off. So what if she knew his mother?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
She had the job of trying to prove that the blonde synthetic hair like fibers at the crime scene came from some sort of Helena blonde wig.
No, she had the job of trying to prove that COSMETIC WIGS made of saran for human wear existed. What she found out/proved is that they did not exist. She PROVED that the blonde saran fibers came from dolls wigs.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There seems to have been some sort of a bust up with MacDonald because she was strongly RC and she advised MacDonald to keep his mouth shut.
No, she left the macolite camps because SMQ was jealous and managed to run Lucia off, just as she has run off all the other females in macolite land.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
She used to post on one or two MacDonald forums about those PsyOps theories.
Yes, she did post at the old A&E boards but it didn't last long. Personally I think she was surprised how many people with in-depth case knowledge delighted in pointing out the many fallacies of her PsyOps theories.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There may be a grain of truth in what she said, but it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me,
there is NO TRUTH to the PsyOps theories as she presented them. You a lover of conspiracy theories (especially in this case) turn your nose up at her theories?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and it could not be proved because of preserving secrecy unless some whistle blowers come along.
3 men may keep a secret only after 2 of them are dead. IF a conspiracy involving PsyOps or inmate had ever existed it would have been proven long long ago. inmate has never been important enough (except in his own mind) to be the target of a conspiracy. PERIOD

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You must speak only as to facts in a court case, and not the court of public opinion
Yes, speak to the FACTS and the FACTS are that inmate slaughtered his family and the only ones who try to handle the case through the Court of Public Opinion is inmate and his rotating band of lawyers and his criminal wife.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or the Murtagh and Blackburn and Stombaugh manufactured evidence.
Nobody on the government side of this case manufactured evidence. Among other PROOFs of this FACT is that even the DEFENSE experts agreed with large portions of the FBI analysis results. Also, the DEFENSE doesn't argue the ridiculous claims that certain conspiracy loving rabid inmate lovers like to post.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was a gross miscarriage of justice.
Nope, it was justice well served for Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy. Inmate has been heard by the courts more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence. NONE of his appeals have been successful! He was partially successful once, and that was that DNA testing was approved but in the end that came back to bite him too when the most important items of evidence were shown to match 100% DNA profile of inmate.
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 31st October 2018, 07:33 AM   #638
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,189
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You must speak only as to facts in a court case, and not the court of public opinion
Do you read what you post? You've consistently asserted that hearsay evidence and statements made by individuals under the influence of/damaged by drug and alcohol use should be admissible in court (only ones that support your fantasy, of course) and you consistently reject evidence that has been accepted by the courts.

Weak reasoning.
__________________
"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 31st October 2018, 07:42 AM   #639
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,440
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Do you read what you post? You've consistently asserted that hearsay evidence and statements made by individuals under the influence of/damaged by drug and alcohol use should be admissible in court (only ones that support your fantasy, of course) and you consistently reject evidence that has been accepted by the courts.

Weak reasoning.
that's some hardcore trolling right there (not you lol)
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 31st October 2018, 09:33 AM   #640
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Do you read what you post? You've consistently asserted that hearsay evidence and statements made by individuals under the influence of/damaged by drug and alcohol use should be admissible in court (only ones that support your fantasy, of course) and you consistently reject evidence that has been accepted by the courts.

Weak reasoning.
Do you honestly think this should be accepted in a court? It's funny and not correct:

Quote:
This is the Army CID theory in a quote from Army CID agent Kearns. It's guesswork and speculation. If a jury believes all this then they probably think the moon is made of green cheese. It's cloud cuckoo land:

"Let's say Colette kills Kimmie in a rage over bedwetting. MacDonald attempts to intervene and the resulting struggle lead to Colette's initial injuries - MacDonald takes Kimmie to her bed intending to call for assistance. Colette regains consciousness, goes to Kris's room and still raging, kills Kris; MacDonald enters the room and strikes her with the wood trying to stop her stabbing Kris."
The evidence against Helena Stoeckley and her pals should never have been held in secret. It was clearly erroneous by a corrupt judiciary in North Carolina.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 31st October 2018 at 09:34 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 11:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.