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 24th March 2019, 12:53 PM   #1121
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Red Herring

Stoeckley is the main red herring in this case, but issues such as the alleged comments by Hardison and/or alleged confessions by Mitchell, are simply a way for inmate's advocates to avoid addressing the prodigious amount of inculpatory evidence in this case. This evidence includes sourced DNA, blood, fibers, hairs, and bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 24th March 2019 at 01:01 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2019, 05:29 AM   #1122
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Any affidavit that said the foreman of the jury KNEW he'd be on the jury a week prior to trial is WRONG. It is not possible. I gave you a general overview of how a jury pool is called. THOUSANDS of potential jurors will get a jury duty notice. Most jurisdictions have potential jurors call a court house phone # the night prior to possible service to see if the numbers on the summons are actually being called to report. For example the summons will have a alpha numeric designation such as B450, C2120, A999, D620, E2011 etc. the recorded message will say that juror pools C2120 and A999, E2011 must report. These #s represent hundreds of potential jurors. That is a basic description of how it works. There is noway REPEAT NOWAY for an individual to KNOW he is going to be on any specific jury. Most days more than one trial will be starting...

Once again, the defense didn't try to argue this issue and the reason why is because the affidavits have no evidentiary validity since it would have been impossible for Mr. Hardison or anyone else to KNOW they'd be on the jury. 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 25th March 2019, 09:47 AM   #1123
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Stoeckley is the main red herring in this case, but issues such as the alleged comments by Hardison and/or alleged confessions by Mitchell, are simply a way for inmate's advocates to avoid addressing the prodigious amount of inculpatory evidence in this case. This evidence includes sourced DNA, blood, fibers, hairs, and bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
MacDonald said once that Stombaugh of the FBI with his false evidence was the one who had him falsely convicted and imprisoned. Stombaugh was never a serologist or a real textile expert, or fabric impression expert, and there have been doubts and very little confidence in his hair analysis. MacDonald's lawyer Bisceglie made some succinct comments about the matter in the past, but he now seems to have vanished from the case. The matter was discussed on this forum in 2016:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...249368&page=52

Quote:
This is what John Boston wrote, and it makes sense, to me if not to biased old Judge Dupree and biased old Judge Fox:

"This foreign fiber in Colette's hand could have been the centerpiece of MacDonald's defense if Segal had been properly informed of it. "He had been led to believe that MacDonald's hair...had been tested against another hair in Colette's hand, a longer blond one determined to be her own." (Potter & Bost). As Segal pointed out years later when he discovered the truth, "If it wasn't Jeff's hair, then whose hair was found in Colette's dead hand?"

Hair and skin under the victims' fingernails
Short, brown hair had been found under the fingernails of Colette and the girls, which was naturally and correctly presumed to be the hair of their killer. Analysis showed it was not MacDonald's blond hair, nor the hair of any of the house's inhabitants. A piece of skin was also found under Colette's fingernails which was also presumed to be from her killer. MacDonald had no fingernail scratches when he was taken to the hospital after the murders. The piece of skin was subsequently lost by the Army investigators in their mishandling of the evidence, so no testing of it could be done to prove MacDonald's innocence.

Not only was the knowledge suppressed at the trial that the hair under the victims' fingernails did not match MacDonald's, but a lab technician had written the following note: "[these hairs] are not going to be reported by me." The pressure was on the Army lab techs to keep quiet about anything that made MacDonald look innocent. This was precisely why Segal had wanted those lab notes."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th March 2019 at 09:52 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2019, 04:38 PM   #1124
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
The Test Of Time

When attempting to combat Paul Stombaugh's wide-ranging forensic analysis, inmate's advocates have had to resort to name calling and circular logic. The list of advocates included lawyers, authors, amateur sleuths, and forensic experts. Their efforts have done nothing to alter inmate's circumstances nor have they done anything to minimize the impact of Stombaugh's analysis of the physical evidence in this case. During the trial, inmate admitted that the two individuals who were most responsible for his plight were Stombaugh and Brian Murtagh.

It's important to remember that Stombaugh testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. From 1963-1976, Stombaugh was considered to be THE best hair/fiber expert in the United States and maybe in the world. His hair/fiber analysis has stood the test of time as evidenced by the FACT that DNA test results did not contradict any of his hair analysis. At trial, Bernie Segal acknowledged Stombaugh's qualifications as a fiber expert, and he did not challenge any of Stombaugh's conclusions regarding fiber comparisons.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 25th March 2019 at 04:40 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 26th March 2019, 04:29 AM   #1125
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald said once that Stombaugh of the FBI with his false evidence was the one who had him falsely convicted and imprisoned.
Stombaugh's evidence was not false. Inmate has of course continued to lie, that is what people who are guilty DO when faced with irrefutable FACTS. Even the defense's own experts agreed with the majority of Stombaugh's testimony. People with 2 or more functional brain cells realize that in order for inmate's tale of the events to be correct EVERY OTHER PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS CASE is lying....inmate was not EVER nor is he NOW of enough importance for a vast conspiracy to have been created to put him in jail. It is long past time that you henri accept the fact that your man crush is guilty, he lied and still lies AND he is a coward because he still won't admit to what he did to Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and his unborn son.

Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald's lawyer Bisceglie made some succinct comments about the matter in the past, but he now seems to have vanished from the case.
Perhaps Bisceglie finally evaluated the evidence against inmate and came to realize he is in fact guilty of the crime for which he has been imprisoned?
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 26th March 2019, 10:30 AM   #1126
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Stombaugh's evidence was not false.
Stombaugh's testimony was highly suspicious, if not shady. It was only because Stombaugh was in the FBI that he was allowed to get away with it by the very bad judges and the jury. The matter is explained at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...996-06-02.html

Quote:
2. Malone's affidavit at 1990-91-92 appeals - In one affidavit, on page 11, he lists the contents of Q89 and does not mention two purple cotton threads, only 2 wool ones (he calls them one black and one green wool). On page 12 of this same affidavit, he proceeds to discuss Q100, on which he lists the 1 black wool fiber, 1 blue cotton fiber, and pointedly adds, "These are in addition to 2 purple cotton threads previously found and removed by Stombaugh". Yet, he does not mention any purple cotton "previously found" by Stombaugh in Q89.

g.) Since we know (now) that Murtagh was desperately trying to find 2 "purple cotton threads" in Q89, it seems really strained to say now that there "may be" 2 purple cotton threads still hidden somewhere, but originally derived from Q889. Malone wasn't given general tasks - he was specifically asked to prove or disprove 2 or 4 fibers on the club. His results only indicate dark wool fibers.

Just in review - Recall that in Shirley Green's 1990 cataloguing of contents of Q89 for Malone, she wrote "pillbox containing 2 purp. thr" (2 purple threads). Yet, Malone still reported only 2 dark woolen fibers. The end result, to me, is very clear: Fred Bost has been correct all along. Paul Stombaugh negligently never bothered to actually study the fibers. He simply assumed 2 dark fibers had to be "purple cotton" from Q89, the pajama top. When Frier did his evaluation in 1979, Frier only saw 2 dark woolen fibers and no purple cotton.

And now, in 1990, we have Malone, even more specifically, being asked to find 2 purple cotton, yet he reports only dark wool. The clincher is in his affidavit where he does remind the reader Stombaugh did find 2 purple cotton threads in Q100, but he does not say it about Q89. Malone must have discovered, on real analysis of the 2 dark fibers, that they were wool, not purple cotton.

h.) Recall that it is these exact fibers that were the crux of the government closing argument in 1979. Blackburn and Murtagh specifically used "2 purple cotton fibers" on the club to convince the jury. If we now, via a 1996 series of 2 FOIA releases - February 5 and May - can prove the purple cotton never existed, we have a major new argument. And two more things:

1. It goes directly to "actual innocence".

2. Murtagh knowingly, now, allowed the courts in 1991-92 make decisions based upon false information.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th March 2019 at 10:32 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2019, 10:52 AM   #1127
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,196
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was only because Stombaugh was in the FBI that he was allowed to get away with it
It's not like he was an anon poster on the 'net with -0- qualification in any field related to the discussion at hand.

That's pretty much you're go-to source.
__________________
"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 March 2019, 11:25 AM   #1128
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh's testimony was highly suspicious, if not shady.
No it was not suspicious or shady. IF his testimony was then so was the testimony of Drs. Thorton and Morton who agreed with the majority of Stombaugh's testimony. You cannot have it both ways henri. IF Thorton and Morton's testimony was acceptable then Stombaugh's was even better. They agreed with his analysis so do you claim the defense experts testimony was suspicious or shady?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was only because Stombaugh was in the FBI that he was allowed to get away with it by the very bad judges and the jury.
The FACT that he was a qualified expert with the FBI makes his testimony even stronger. He did his job. The defense experts agreed with the vast majority of the testimony of Stombaugh so obviously he was correct. The Judge was not bad and the jury followed the law and the evidence in the deliberations that convicted the criminal. Every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate as the sole murderer. He did it and I think even you know it. I still want to know why you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen and the unborn baby boy so much?

Hatred for inmate's victims is the only conclusion one can draw for your determination to ignore facts and celebrate a murderous bastard. So, tell us NOW why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby?
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 27th March 2019, 03:28 AM   #1129
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
No it was not suspicious or shady. IF his testimony was then so was the testimony of Drs. Thorton and Morton who agreed with the majority of Stombaugh's testimony.
That's patently untrue. Dr. Thornton thought the pajama folding experiment was contrived and conceptually unsound and gave his reasons why it could not be true. Dr. Morton who was a real blood expert supported Dr Thornton. From the trial:

Quote:
This is part of what the forensic expert Dr. Thornton thought about Stombaugh of the FBI and his fabric impression analysis. From the 1979 MacDonald trial:

Q Now, I ask you to look at the area marked "E" on the pajama top, would you please identify that? That is an area which has been referred to by Mr. Stombaugh as a shoulder impression. Let me see if I can find you the section of his testimony.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I don't believe that is what Mr. Stombaugh said.

MR. SEGAL: I am going to read exactly what his words were, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Refer to page 4140 of the testimony. He was asked the question about Area "E."
"Area 'E' is the appearance of a bare left shoulder and the bottom of it has the appearance of a torn left cuff of a pajama top, the trailing out portion here."
Dealing first of all with the statement that Area "E" has the appearance of a bare left shoulder, do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
A I disagree.
Q What is the basis of your own opinion in this regard?
A I am unable to replicate an impression that has the appearance of "E" on that item by using a shoulder, neck, or clavicle region of a human being. I can replicate it to some extent by folding the fabric over an area of bloody cloth.
Q Let me go back over what you just told us. First of all, is it your opinion that it is not in any reasonable fashion a bare--it is not an impression made by a bare left shoulder as far as you can ascertain?
A That is correct. I don't think there is any credible possibility that it could be a bare left shoulder.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will strike the word "credible." Don't consider that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you find evidence that it is inconsistent with that Area "E" having been made by a bare left shoulder?
A Yes.
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 27th March 2019, 06:22 AM   #1130
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's patently untrue.
No it is not untrue you just don't like to admit that the defense experts agreed with the vast majority of Stombaugh's testimony.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr. Thornton thought the pajama folding experiment was contrived and conceptually unsound
that may be true BUT that was a very minor part of all of Stombaugh's testimony. It is much more powerful to remember that Thorton agreed with the fabric impressions on the sheet from the master bedroom (except the "shoulder" impression) including the morphology of the sleeves of inmate and Colette's pj tops.

As for whether an experiment is conceptually unsound and contrived Thorton has no room to talk his ridiculous ham on a sled experiment was beyond contrived and didn't even begin to meet the parameters that should have been used.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Dr. Morton who was a real blood expert supported Dr Thornton.
And since Dr. Morton supported Dr. Thorton they all agreed with the vast majority of Stombaugh's testimony.

Now answer my question "Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy"?
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 27th March 2019, 11:24 AM   #1131
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
No it is not untrue you just don't like to admit that the defense experts agreed with the vast majority of Stombaugh's testimony.
I still think that's patently untrue. You can't say Thornton and Morton, or even Glisson, agreed with Stombaugh. As I have said before the defense experts were never allowed to check, or test, the hair and fiber and blood evidence which allowed Stombaugh, and later Malone, to fabricate anything they wanted. It was manufactured evidence.

Quote:
More about what Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's speculations :

Q Dr. Thornton, I would like to ask you about the areas that you had sort of gotten into, "C" and "D," which were described by Mr. Stombaugh at page 4141 of his testimony. I am going to ask your opinion about those.
He stated at that time that, "Area 'C' conforms to a bloody handprint." He then said, "Area 'C' on the sheet...conforms to a bloody left hand--the two portions of it, here, here and here." He said, "As to Area 'D,' it conforms to a bloody right hand." Let me ask you, first of all, do you agree with his opinion and his conclusion?
A No, I think that is exceedingly unlikely
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 27th March 2019, 12:34 PM   #1132
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still think that's patently untrue.
Well you are WRONG.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't say Thornton and Morton, or even Glisson, agreed with Stombaugh.
Yes I can say that Morton and Thorton agreed with Stombaugh due to the fact that Thorton testified that he agreed with MOST of the fabric impressions (specifically) as testified to by Stombaugh and Morton testified that he believed that Thorton was correct in his analysis. Glisson did not testify to fabric impressions - she was a serologist.....

JTF can give you exact details on what Thorton agreed with Stombaugh testimony about....still.....

I want to KNOW WHY YOU HATE COLETTE, KIMBERLEY, KRISTEN, AND THE UNBORN BABY BOY SO MUCH! That is the only possible reason for your refusal to see the evidence. So answer my question!


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As I have said before the defense experts were never allowed to check, or test, the hair and fiber and blood evidence
THAT IS PATENTLY UNTRUE. The defense had plenty of time and were given access but BERNIE SEGAL decided to play games and wasted time trying to get evidence in a murder trial shipped across country WHICH WOULD NOT HAPPEN DUE TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY. That failure is not the responsibility of the government to rectify. IF inmate's attornies did not appeal due to insufficiency of counsel then they have nobody to blame but themselves that this issue was not raised in the appeals. The FACT is that the defense doesn't get to pout over the failure to recognize the strength of the evidence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was manufactured evidence.
THAT IS PATENTLY UNTRUE. There was no manufactured evidence. THE FACT is that you apparently hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much that you continually insult them by refusing to accept the truth. So tell me, WHY?
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 27th March 2019, 09:21 PM   #1133
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Playing Dumb, Again

The Landlord is well aware of the following facts, but he has chosen to play dumb and present a mythical case narrative based on hearsay evidence, hyperbole, and long debunked defense arguments.

Much to the chagrin of Bernie Segal, John Thornton agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions in regards to 3 bloody impressions found on the blue bedsheet. Stombaugh labeled each of these impressions with a letter designation.

Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff

For reasons only known to Thornton, he didn't even look at the following bloody impressions found on the blue bedsheet.

Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

Segal then muddied the waters even further when he asked Charles Morton to analyze Area G, but ignore Area E. Segal later watched Brian Murtagh take apart Morton on cross as evidenced by Morton admitting that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size. The clear winners of this particular forensic chess match were Murtagh and Stombaugh.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th March 2019 at 09:31 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 March 2019, 03:09 AM   #1134
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
I still think it's the fault of that silly old fool Judge Dupree. JTF has said in the past that his father believed MacDonald to be guilty, and his father presented JTF with that biased garbage book Fatal Vision by McGinniss in 1985. JTF needs to think for himself and look at the evidence. There has been criticism of Stombaugh of the FBI in other cases:

https://jfkfacts.org/new-fbi-study-h...en-commission/

Quote:
Lee Harvey Oswald was linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle alleged to have been used to shoot President Kennedy by the hair and fiber analysis of FBI expert Paul Stombaugh. The Warren Commission’s final report drew conclusions from Stombaugh’s testimony that buttressed assertions about Oswald’s guilt, particularly the association between hair and fiber evidence allegedly tying Oswald to the rifle.

The Commission considered Stombaugh’s testimony of “probative value,” the report stated.
But a devastating recent study by the Justice Department and the FBI shows that close analysis of cases involving hair and fiber testing raises grave concerns about the role of similar scientific testimony by law enforcement experts in criminal convictions.

“Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,” the Washington Post reported on April 18.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th March 2019 at 03:12 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 28th March 2019, 07:58 AM   #1135
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still think it's the fault of that silly old fool Judge Dupree.
Judge Dupree was anything but a fool (silly, old, or otherwise) he was a distinguished jurist. HOWEVER, what exactly do you fault Judge Dupree with in this instance? You blame Judge Dupree because inmate brutally slaughtered Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and his unborn son?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
JTF has said in the past that his father believed MacDonald to be guilty,
so? I bought my copy but I have also given copies to others....doesn't change the FACT that inmate slaughtered his family, has been convicted, and is a narcissistic sociopathic cowardly bastard who refuses to admit to his crimes.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and his father presented JTF with that biased garbage book Fatal Vision by McGinniss in 1985.
Nice father to give a book, any book given to someone is a GREAT THING! Too bad however that you are so far off the mark in describing Fatal Vision. No substantive errors have been found in that book since its original publication. None of the books in support of inmate can make the same claim.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
JTF needs to think for himself and look at the evidence.
ha ha haa ha ha haa haa ha haa haa ha ha ha haa haa haa ha ha OMG the tears are streaming down my face (thank goodness I learned to type without looking at my hands because I cannot see the keyboard through the tears of laughter). JTF has certainly reviewed the EVIDENCE many times and thinks for himself. unlike henri who apparently cannot see the forest for the trees.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There has been criticism of Stombaugh of the FBI in other cases:
maybe so, but most of the critics are conspiracy theorists not those that actually review the evidence.

Your insistence on supporting a family annihilator that has so much evidence to support his conviction insults the victims. It is obvious you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy because of your posts. I have asked and I will continue to ask until you answer "WHY DO YOU HATE COLETTE, KIMBERLEY, KRISTEN, AND THE UNBORN BABY BOY SO MUCH"?
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 28th March 2019, 12:47 PM   #1136
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,196
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Landlord is well aware of the following facts, but he has chosen to play dumb and present a mythical case narrative based on hearsay evidence, hyperbole, and long debunked defense arguments.

Much to the chagrin of Bernie Segal, John Thornton agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions in regards to 3 bloody impressions found on the blue bedsheet. Stombaugh labeled each of these impressions with a letter designation.

Area A Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
Area B Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff
Area F Colette MacDonald's left pajama sleeve cuff

For reasons only known to Thornton, he didn't even look at the following bloody impressions found on the blue bedsheet.

Area E Jeffrey MacDonald's torn left pajama sleeve cuff
Area G Colette MacDonald's right pajama sleeve cuff

Segal then muddied the waters even further when he asked Charles Morton to analyze Area G, but ignore Area E. Segal later watched Brian Murtagh take apart Morton on cross as evidenced by Morton admitting that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size. The clear winners of this particular forensic chess match were Murtagh and Stombaugh.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There's no play to it.
__________________
"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 29th March 2019, 03:40 AM   #1137
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Segal then muddied the waters even further when he asked Charles Morton to analyze Area G, but ignore Area E. Segal later watched Brian Murtagh take apart Morton on cross as evidenced by Morton admitting that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size. The clear winners of this particular forensic chess match were Murtagh and Stombaugh.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I can't quite see that Murtagh demolished Morton in cross-examination. The jury probably didn't know what Murtagh was talking about, or Segal either:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...15-morton.html

Quote:
BY MR. SEGAL:
Q I will ask you again in lay terms. Based upon your examination of the sheet, of Mrs. MacDonald's pajama top, based upon the experiment you conducted, is it your conclusion that the most likely explanation for the area on area "G" here is that it is the result of folding of this fabric when there was moist blood on it, and it occurred from a hand being placed on this folded which either had blood on it or blood on the sheet?

MR. MURTAGH: I OBJECT to the form of the question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Could you tell us, if you will then, your explanation as to why you think this hand impression was made on the sheet?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Go ahead, Mr. Morton --

THE COURT: (Interposing) I am still looking for one of these in which the answer is not exactly the same as it would have been to the question, if you had not objected. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: The most likely way I feel this impression was made -- based on the overall configuration of the pattern, the outline, the lightened areas within the interior of this pattern after you fold it over, and the ridge structure that is apparent in the stain itself -- the most likely way it got there was from a palm or possibly some other ridged skin surface making that impression while it was moistened with blood.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Are you satisfied in your mind based upon your own knowledge, training, information and experience and upon your examination that there are in fact friction ridge lines on both the area marked "G" and the area which you have described as being six inches away from it?
A Yes; I am...…………….


Q When you examined areas "C" and "D," did you find any evidence at all to support the conclusion that that was a handprint of some sort, or either one of those areas were handprints?
A I am sorry. Would you repeat the question, please?
Q My fault. When you examined areas "C" and "D," did you find any evidence at all to support the conclusion that those were in fact handprints; that is, any evidence of friction ridges, any of the details to support that conclusion?

MR. MURTAGH: I would OBJECT.

THE WITNESS: No; I didn't.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Your answer, please?
A No; I didn't.

THE COURT: He said, "No."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th March 2019 at 03:53 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 29th March 2019, 04:31 AM   #1138
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I can't quite see that Murtagh demolished Morton in cross-examination.
That is because you CHOOSE to not see it! Just like you choose to ignore the FACTS and continue to spew forth the long disproven nonsense that you lather, rinse, and repeat. I'd think you were trying to be comic relief, except there is nothing funny or releaving about you and your posts.

Why are you not answering the question you've been asked?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The jury probably didn't know what Murtagh was talking about, or Segal either:
The jury was a fairly intelligent group of individuals and I am CERTAIN they understood Murtagh perfectly. Also, the jury understood Bernie Segal to be the condescending jackass that he was and that FACT didn't help Bernie or inmate at all. Wade Smith should have been the lead attorney because he knew better than to insult the persons who would be making the decision on guilty or not....

Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby so much?
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 March 2019, 10:55 PM   #1139
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Just One Of Murtagh's Many Victories

As soon as Charles Morton admitted that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's bloody right pajama cuff, Murtagh knew that he had Morton on the ropes. The implications of Morton's admission were clear to everyone in the courtroom. The odds of that bloody impression matching the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, yet NOT being the source of the impression are astronomical.

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 30th March 2019, 03:17 AM   #1140
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Wade Smith should have been the lead attorney because he knew better than to insult the persons who would be making the decision on guilty or not....

Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby so much?
That's absurd. I agree that Wade Smith did some excellent cross-examinations, particularly with regard to the perjury by the babysitter, and questioning the surgical glove experts, and of Detective Beasley, and he had the knack of swaying an average North Carolina jury. Segal really needed at his side his former partner, the now deceased Eisman, who was at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. Eisman had a thorough grasp of the whole subject of the MacDonald case forensics, unlike the 4th Circuit judges, and I don't think he would have been outwitted by Stombaugh and Murtagh with their made up evidence. It was highly technical.
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 30th March 2019, 03:25 AM   #1141
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
There is an interesting article on the internet which applies to the Macdonld case:

Quote:
I called Brandon Garrett, the law professor who wrote the book on wrongful convictions and why they happen, and he pointed out that police and prosecutors have no obligation to pursue alternative explanations, or even to follow a particular method of investigation or keep a record explaining the course they’re taking. Which means it’s close to impossible to hold them accountable for their errors. Garrett pointed out that crime labs are different: They write down every step they take. “Even though they have crushing caseloads, they follow that procedure,” he said. And that means we know when there’s a broken link in the chain. Police too, Garrett thinks, should have to record every witness interview they do; perhaps they should also keep notes about how their thinking evolves or doesn’t. Garrett also suggested giving the defense more resources to do their own investigations or requiring police and prosecutors to open their files to the defense. Tunnel vision isn’t going away. But to protect the innocent, we should diminish its dark power.
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 30th March 2019, 03:47 AM   #1142
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
As soon as Charles Morton admitted that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's bloody right pajama cuff, Murtagh knew that he had Morton on the ropes. The implications of Morton's admission were clear to everyone in the courtroom. The odds of that bloody impression matching the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, yet NOT being the source of the impression are astronomical.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I can't quite see how that proves Stombaugh got it right. I don't think it was at all clear to the jury. It was highly technical and it went into one ear and out the other. It was very weak evidence. The pajama cuff doesn't prove anything.

Segal had a bit too say about Morton in his academic and lengthy and rambling closing speech which again went over the heads of the jury and 4th Circuit judges. He should have cut, cut and cut and emphasised his points of law:

Quote:
We said to Mr. Stombaugh, "What experiment did you conduct? What did you do in the way of scientific approach or in science as a whole?" He says, "No. I looked at it and I recognized it. I am an impressions expert." I want to say to you that deductions made by the Government from the sheet which is gathered up in the fashion I described with blood on it and which you have a right to conclude was still moist and there is probably the transfer of the contact as the explanation of the so-called Stombaugh handprint, they are not handprints at all. I do not know how anyone in this jury could say that beyond a reasonable doubt, you have seen evidence that overcomes the demonstration that Chuck Morton did that says when the fat part of the finger touches, the blood is least there as opposed to what Mr. Stombaugh showed you where the fat part of the finger should be, there is the most blood there. There is no basis for his opinion. It is sheer poppycock and there is no basis for the jury to consider this as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that portion of the Government's theory.
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 March 2019, 08:41 AM   #1143
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
There is an interesting, but again highly technical article on the internet about the doubts and inconsistencies with regard to the hair evidence in the MacDonald case. I still can't quite see why silly old Judge Fox stopped any more DNA testing in 2014, unless he wants to hush things up:

http://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/2015...ald-after.html

Quote:
Likewise, the consistency that Malone reported was not sufficient to establish to a near certainty that the hair was MacDonald’s rather than an intruder’s. In fact, the later mitochondrial DNA testing excluded MacDonald, his wife, and his children as the source of the hair. Consequently, Malone’s reported similarity could have been false (if Malone did not make accurate observations, or if he lied about what he observed). Or, perhaps the Q79 hair was physically similar to MacDonald’s, as Malone said, but it nevertheless originated from someone else. As MacDonald and Fram explicitly stated, physical similarity alone is probative but not definitive of identity.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 31st March 2019 at 08:46 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2019, 05:00 PM   #1144
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Wrong Again

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting, but again highly technical article on the internet about the doubts and inconsistencies with regard to the hair evidence in the MacDonald case. I still can't quite see why silly old Judge Fox stopped any more DNA testing in 2014, unless he wants to hush things up:

http://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/2015...ald-after.html
You're wrong on every level. The article is not highly technical, there are no inconsistencies in regards to the hair analysis, and Judge Fox was not the only judge who denied inmate further DNA testing.

In 1990, FBI hair/fiber expert Michael Malone concluded that the pubic hair found under Colette's body was similar to inmate's pubic hair exemplars. In 1999, FBI hair/fiber expert Robert Framm also concluded that this hair (e.g., Q79) was similar to inmate's pubic hair exemplars. The AFIP conducted DNA tests on all of the hairs collected at the crime scene and they concluded that only 3 of the hairs were unsourced. The pubic hair in question was 1 of the 3 unsourced hairs. It's important to note that microscopic hair comparisons and DNA testing are completely different technologies.

None of the 3 hairs had matching DNA profiles, all 3 of the hairs were naturally shed, and Colette was not sexually assaulted. The totality of the evidence indicates a prosaic explanation for the presence of this pubic hair at 544 Castle Drive. This hair was either deposited on the shag carpet prior to the carpet being transported to 544 Castle Drive or it was deposited on the carpet by visitors to the residence. Transfer Theory of Locard postulates that there are numerous ways in which hairs and fibers are transferred from one location to another location.

Judge Fox's denial of additional DNA testing was echoed by the 4th Circuit Court in 2016. There were several reasons for this denial, but the main reason was that ALL of the hairs in this case were DNA tested by the AFIP and that a majority of the defense team's DNA exhibits were blood stains. Inmate NEVER claimed that he injured one of the mythical home invaders, so it was virtually impossible for anyone other than a MacDonald family member to be the source of those blood stains.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 31st March 2019 at 05:10 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 31st March 2019, 06:01 PM   #1145
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,440
this thread really belongs in the conspiracy theory section now.
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 1st April 2019, 02:01 AM   #1146
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
There was somebody on TV yesterday saying that the main cause of wrongful convictions is bad science. That applies to the Macdonald case. Those military police were very inexperienced and they had never seen a dead body before, apart perhaps from Stombaugh who was an experienced charlatan and con artist. It was tunnel vision and manufactured evidence. Leads and suspects were disregarded. Trump could have pardoned MacDonald by now if he had a strong personality.
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 April 2019, 03:45 AM   #1147
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Avoiding The Issues

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was somebody on TV yesterday saying that the main cause of wrongful convictions is bad science. That applies to the Macdonald case. Those military police were very inexperienced and they had never seen a dead body before, apart perhaps from Stombaugh who was an experienced charlatan and con artist. It was tunnel vision and manufactured evidence. Leads and suspects were disregarded. Trump could have pardoned MacDonald by now if he had a strong personality.
I realize that your fantasy case narratives are going to continue until you're worm food, but replacing concrete forensic analysis with childish personal attacks forever defines you as a true crime troll. Paul Stombaugh's qualifications speak for themselves.

- He was an FBI agent for 25 years.

- He retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976.

- He testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases.

- He appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission.

- He lectured at Quantico on hair and fiber analysis.

- His work on the MacDonald Case has stood the test of time as evidenced by inmate's inability to obtain a new trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st April 2019 at 03:55 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 April 2019, 08:38 AM   #1148
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's absurd.
The only absurd things on this forum are your posts.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that Wade Smith did some excellent cross-examinations, particularly with regard to the perjury by the babysitter,
There was no perjury by the baby sitter. There was a great deal of perjury by inmate himself but he wasn't prosecuted for that because he was convicted of the more serious crimes and they will keep him in prison until he is dead.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and questioning the surgical glove experts, and of Detective Beasley, and he had the knack of swaying an average North Carolina jury.
Apparently not ALL North Carolina jurors because inmate was convicted. Also, the jury was seriously pissed at Bernie Segal and his condescending attitude.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Segal really needed at his side his former partner, the now deceased Eisman, who was at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970.
Eisman was junior to Segal and he was just as much an a$$ as Segal in his attitude towards the people of North Carolina. inmate required a local attorney and that is why Wade Smith became part of the defense team. Why do you insist on bringing up the ARticle 32? That was superseded by the Grand Jury, Federal Indictment, Trial, and conviction!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Eisman had a thorough grasp of the whole subject of the MacDonald case forensics,
No he did not. MOST of the forensics had yet to be analyzed by the time of the Article 32 and Eisman was a hack!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
unlike the 4th Circuit judges, and I don't think he would have been outwitted by Stombaugh and Murtagh with their made up evidence.
Stombaugh and Murtagh did not "outwit" the Judges and certainly not those of the 4th Circuit Court since that is an appeals court. The trial was held in the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. There was no made up evidence. Since the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh in great portions of his testimony then you must think they were no good too!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was highly technical.
No, it was not at all technical. The analysis proves that inmate slaughtered his family.

Now answer the question Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?
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 April 2019, 09:23 AM   #1149
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Stombaugh and Murtagh did not "outwit" the Judges and certainly not those of the 4th Circuit Court since that is an appeals court. The trial was held in the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. There was no made up evidence. Since the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh in great portions of his testimony then you must think they were no good too!

Now answer the question Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?
Stombaugh was just an ordinary FBI man, like an ordinary constable. He was never qualified to testify in a federal court about blood evidence for a start. That was an irregularity. It's absurd to say that the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh, and neither did Glisson on the prosecution side. The 4th Circuit judges and the jury were outwitted by Stombaugh because he was a con artist and in the FBI. There is an interesting opinion about Stombaugh at this website, which I consider to be true:

www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence

Quote:
Stombaugh Humbug

Subsequent to his Warren Commission testimony, Stombaugh's credibility as an expert witness would be widely questioned. And not just by the "research" community... As detailed in the 1998 book Tainting Evidence, Stombaugh was the prosecution's chief forensic expert in the 1979 trial of Jeffrey MacDonald. Here, once again, Stombaugh found fibers that had eluded others. Subsequent to CID lab technician Dillard Browning's inventorying a vial of fibers, Stombaugh inspected the vial, and found that two of the fibers were, astonishingly, a hair from one of the victims, Colette MacDonald, magically wrapped around a fiber from her father (and suspected killer) Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. Now this suggested a struggle, and MacDonald's guilt. And was quite convenient, wouldn't you say? The authors of Tainting Evidence, not to mention MacDonald's defense team, found this highly suspicious, anyhow.

Perhaps even more suspicious, and damaging to MacDonald, for that matter, was Stombaugh's testimony that MacDonald's blood-stained pajama top indicated some of the blood stains were made before the top was cut and torn in MacDonald's supposed struggle with his wife's killers. This more than suggested that MacDonald had murdered his wife, and then staged the attack on himself.

According to the CourtTV Crime Library, "When Segal (MacDonald's defense attorney) asked for the photographic evidence to support this dangerous new theory, Stombaugh was not able to prove it in court, but maintained that it was so. Thus, the jury heard very damaging new testimony, even though there was no way to refute it or disprove it during the trial. Years later, when the defense team finally got its hands on the Army's lab notes through the Freedom of Information Act, they found that the Army's "CID lab tech Janice Glisson years earlier had explored the same bloodstain theory and had come to a different conclusion. She had determined that the stain edges on either side of the rips did not intersect, that the pajama top was therefore, stained [after] it was ripped, not before."

After reading Stombaugh's testimony in the MacDonald trial, and noting his comments on his Warren Commission experience, it is hard not to share the suspicions of the authors of Tainting Evidence and the CourtTV Crime Library. When asked "In what subject did you testify or about what matter did you testify for the Warren Commission?" he replied "In that case I testified to hairs, fibers, and if I recall correctly, there was a blanket involved in that one which was used to cover the gun."

As we've just seen, Stombaugh's testimony did not positively link the blanket to the gun, but was much more conclusive in linking the gun to the shirt purportedly worn by Oswald. Can Stombaugh's "failure" to mention the true significance of his testimony, and that he had previously found fibers overlooked by others in a prominent murder investigation, have been entirely innocent? Sure. But there's certainly cause for suspicion.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 1st April 2019 at 09:27 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 1st April 2019, 10:41 AM   #1150
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting opinion about Stombaugh at this website, which I consider to be true:

www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence

JFK conspiracy website. Fail.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2019, 11:06 AM   #1151
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,440
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
JFK conspiracy website. Fail.
yep.

Originally Posted by Whip View Post
this thread really belongs in the conspiracy theory section now.
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 1st April 2019, 11:37 AM   #1152
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,196
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was somebody on TV yesterday saying that the main cause of wrongful convictions is bad science. That applies to the Macdonald case. Those military police were very inexperienced and they had never seen a dead body before, apart perhaps from Stombaugh who was an experienced charlatan and con artist. It was tunnel vision and manufactured evidence. Leads and suspects were disregarded. Trump could have pardoned MacDonald by now if he had a strong personality.
There was somebody on TV yesterday saying that amatuer crime buffs on the internet often suffer from delusional thinking.

See how easy that is?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 05:43 AM   #1153
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh was just an ordinary FBI man, like an ordinary constable. He was never qualified to testify in a federal court about blood evidence for a start.
Once again henri proves he doesn't know what he is talking about. The very fact that Stombaugh testified at multiple trials (including before the Warren Commission) is proof in and of itself that he was qualified. You see henri, IT IS THE COURTS THAT DECIDE WHO IS AN EXPERT AND CAN TESTIFY IN THAT CAPACITY. Therefore, Stombaugh was an expert ordinary though he may have been. Also, we do not have "constables" here we have Police Officers, Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs, Detectives.....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That was an irregularity.
No it was not.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's absurd to say that the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh, and neither did Glisson on the prosecution side.
No it is not absurd since IT IS FACT that both Thorton and Morton agreed with large portions of the testimony provided by Stombaugh. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is not true.

Since Glisson was not the expert called to testify on the items that Stombaugh testified to, her opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The 4th Circuit judges and the jury were outwitted by Stombaugh because he was a con artist and in the FBI.
The 4th Circuit IS NOT WHERE TRIAL WAS HELD. Trial was held in the District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina. Stombaugh testified and he was a qualified expert to do so. The jury deliberated and determined what weight to give his testimony and the testimony of everyone else. Inmate was convicted. Stombaugh was a decent man and he was a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation - the elite! He was not a con artist. The more you make these sorts of disparaging remarks the more it becomes obvious that you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy. I want to know WHY! That is the ONLY explanation for why in your mind everybody but inmate are liars, cheats, sneaks, and the like.....

So stop posting your ridiculousness and answer the question: "Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?"
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 2nd April 2019, 10:06 AM   #1154
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Once again henri proves he doesn't know what he is talking about. The very fact that Stombaugh testified at multiple trials (including before the Warren Commission) is proof in and of itself that he was qualified. You see henri, IT IS THE COURTS THAT DECIDE WHO IS AN EXPERT AND CAN TESTIFY IN THAT CAPACITY. Therefore, Stombaugh was an expert ordinary though he may have been.
It was an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

Segal had a bit to say about Stombaugh's credentials and qualifications during his turgid closing speech at the trial. A good judge would have acted drastically about this matter:

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

Quote:
You have this demonstration before you. You see how it was done. I only suggest to you that the rationality and the clearness of what was done is such a contrast to what Stombaugh said as "Take my word. I am an impressions expert." By the way, what is an impressions expert? He testified in 300 cases, he said, some of which, not all, hairs would be apparently his work and some of which he could recognize a hair as an expert in impressions, so he says.
"Mr. Stombaugh, would you tell me, please, the last case in which you were recognized as an expert in impressions?" "I can't remember." "Well, name me one case that you have ever testified as an expert in impressions?" "I can't remember." This is the same Paul Stombaugh who came into this Courtroom as the former head of the Chemistry Section of the physics and chemistry branch of the FBI, the man who got on the stand and said, "Yes, when I was at the University, I minored in chemistry." That was a very minor minor, because his transcript shows that he minored in physical education and his transcript shows, can you believe it, that the head of the chemistry section had a single course in chemistry in his years at the University. He had one other course in physics which he got a "D" for.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd April 2019 at 10:08 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 12:35 PM   #1155
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

What the hell does SAFETY have to do with this or any other verdict?

It was a more than SATISFACTORY VERDICT since this lying, cheating, narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer was convicted as he should have been since he was so blatantly and obviously guilty. IF you bothered to look at the evidence instead of trying to make up ridiculous conspiracy theories you'd see that he is guilty. The FACT that you seem to see everyone but inmate as untruthful is the BIGGEST PROOF that he is guilty.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Segal had a bit to say about Stombaugh's credentials and qualifications during his turgid closing speech at the trial.
Bernie's closing arguments were turgid - meandering, boring, alienating, bloated and lots of other adjectives but they were not effective or necessarily accurate. Too bad that Bernie Segal also did not get to determine someone's qualifications that rests solely with the Judge. Also, although Bernie TRIED to make light of Stombaugh's testimony all he ended up doing was marking it as even more important in the eyes of the jury. The jury and lots of witnesses at the trial saw what Bernie was apparently oblivious to - that he himself Bernie Segal was making a fool of himself and that by asking the same question over and over and receiving the same answer made Bernie look like an idiot and that is FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A good judge would have acted drastically about this matter:
The Honorable Judge Dupree did act appropriately. He vetted and accepted Paul Stombaugh as an expert witness. Once again by your comments you have proven that you HATE the VICTIMS in this case Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy....so answer my question WHY?
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 2nd April 2019, 03:19 PM   #1156
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
What the hell does SAFETY have to do with this or any other verdict?

"Unsafe verdict" is British and Commonwealth parlance for a questionable guilty verdict. But apparently Henri couldn't be bothered to explain that when you asked before.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 10:23 PM   #1157
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
The Consumate Troll

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Stombaugh was just an ordinary FBI man, like an ordinary constable. He was never qualified to testify in a federal court about blood evidence for a start. That was an irregularity. It's absurd to say that the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh, and neither did Glisson on the prosecution side. The 4th Circuit judges and the jury were outwitted by Stombaugh because he was a con artist and in the FBI. There is an interesting opinion about Stombaugh at this website, which I consider to be true:

www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
For the past 16 years, you've purposely ignored posts that directly challenge your dubious claims. Your most recent use of this tactic involves the work of Paul Stombaugh. Calling Stombaugh, "an ordinary FBI man," contradicts the FACTS listed in my post on Stombaugh's career in the FBI.

- He was an FBI agent for 25 years.

- He retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976.

- He testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases.

- He appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission.

- He lectured at Quantico on hair and fiber analysis.

- His work on the MacDonald Case has stood the test of time as evidenced by inmate's inability to obtain a new trial.

Your ongoing claim that neither Thornton nor Morton agreed with Stombaugh's forensic analysis indicates that you equate fantasy with fact. At trial, Thornton agreed with Stombaugh's analysis of 3 bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet. Two impressions were sourced to inmate's right pajama cuff, and the third impression was sourced to Colette's left pajama cuff. For reasons only known to Thornton and Segal, Thornton did not even look at the bloody impressions that Stombaugh sourced to inmate's left pajama cuff and Colette's right pajama cuff. During cross-examination, Morton admitted that one of the bloody impressions matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. Despite this admission, Morton claimed the source of the impression was a bloody palm.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 2nd April 2019 at 10:31 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 3rd April 2019, 02:23 AM   #1158
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
There is an interesting opinion about the MacDonald case at this website:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...-of-injustice/

Quote:
The belief that Dr. MacDonald, (or anyone) would stab himself in the chest is a bogus one set forth by army investigators. It’s funny how being a doctor is another reason that would point to his being guilty (the army would want you to believe.) It is not “universally accepted”, Dr. MacDonald had to have two operations on his chest and spent 9 days in ICU. There was never a motive for him to commit this crime no matter what the army, Joe McGinniss or Bob Stevenson would like you to think. The crime scene was a complete mess and the investigation was botched. Prosecutors Jim Blackburn and Brian Murtagh withheld evidence that could have cleared Dr. MacDonald of this crime. The army illegally pursued Dr. MacDonald when he was released from the army and told Freddy Kassab untruthful stories to get him to change his mind about Dr. MacDonald. I look forward to the day when he will be cleared like Michael Morton and hope the prosecutors in his trial will also have to pay.

Isn’t it amazing? Prosecutors are so sure of their convictions, yet in the Morton and MacDonald cases, prosecutors have fought the defendant’s right to test DNA evidence, and have kept them in prison for many more years. What are they are afraid of if they were so sure of Morton’s and MacDonald’s guilt? Cover up, anyone?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd April 2019 at 02:26 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 3rd April 2019, 02:31 AM   #1159
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
During cross-examination, Morton admitted that one of the bloody impressions matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff. Despite this admission, Morton claimed the source of the impression was a bloody palm.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The Morton testimony at the 1979 trial is a lot of highly technical legal mumbo-jumbo which was way beyond the comprehension of an average North Carolina jury, or 4th Circuit judge. The point is that it certainly proves that Morton and Thornton were in disagreement with that con artist Stombaugh.

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

Quote:
R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 3:44 p.m.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me show you, Mr. Morton, three photographs marked Government -- they are copies of Government 210, 212 and 211, which are all of the master bedroom and show the bedclothing we are talking about. Will you take a moment, please, and examine those, and I will ask you one single question?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you looked at those photographs?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at the pile of bedclothing there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is there anything in those photographs that would cause you to either change, add to or detract from your opinion as to how the fact that the impression on that sheet was made by a palmprint rather than a cuff as was testified to by Mr. Stombaugh?
A No; there is not.

THE COURT: Take a recess until 4:00 o'clock.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd April 2019 at 02:35 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 04:59 AM   #1160
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Morton testimony at the 1979 trial is a lot of highly technical legal mumbo-jumbo
the morphology of bloody fabric impressions is not highly technical nor is it mumbo-jumbo.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
which was way beyond the comprehension of an average North Carolina jury,
You have no idea what is within the comprehension of an average jury from any US State let alone North Carolina. Having said that, it is also untrue that the average American juror would be unable to comprehend bloody fabric impression morphology. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is an ostrich.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or 4th Circuit judge.
Why do you keep bring up the 4th Circuit Judges in relation to the trial? Let me tell you again and maybe this time you will FINALLY grasp 'THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES DID NOT PRESIDE OVER THE TRIAL AND THEREFORE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JURY AND/OR WHAT THE JURY UNDERSTOOD'. Also, most judges certainly have enough mental acuity to understand the morphology of bloody fabric impressions.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that it certainly proves that Morton and Thornton were in disagreement with that con artist Stombaugh.
And once again you are WRONG both Drs. Thorton and Morton agreed with large portions of Paul Stombaugh's testimony. The fact that Morton contradicted himself by refusing to admit that the fabric impression was of Colette's pajama top under Segal makes any of his testimony suspect. Stombaugh was a descent man and his work has withstood the test of time so he certainly is not a con artist.

Once again you prove that you hate the victims in this case, and I want to know WHY YOU HATE COLETTE, KIMBERLEY, KRISTEN, AND THE UNBORN BABY BOY SO MUCH?
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 03:47 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.