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 17th June 2019, 02:27 AM   #1481
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
I fully appreciate that there are murderers who are obviously guilty and definitely bad proclaim their innocence, or they are not completely innocent. The point is you decide according to the EVIDENCE and not according to manufactured or fabricated and false evidence. The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice. If silly old Judge Fox had independent judgment he would never have allowed prosecutor Murtagh to get away with it. There is a bit of waffle about all this at this website:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-...pleaded-guilty

Quote:
The reminders that you get from your attorney will make you believe that they work for the prosecution. I have heard, “jury trials are unpredictable,” “innocent people are convicted by juries all the time,” “(whatever the maximum time for the charged crime) is a long time to be locked up,” “I don’t want to see you do too much time,” “you can just get this behind you.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th June 2019 at 02:29 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 03:19 AM   #1482
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Waffle is correct!

Youíre on the wrong side of this one, but as youíre so interested in actual proven evidence, read the trial and appeal transcripts for the past nearly 50 years.

If you still canít put 2 + 2 together, Iím sorry but thereís no hope.

Anyway, JmcDís still guilty and in a cage where he belongs.
GiSEQ 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 17th June 2019, 11:14 AM   #1483
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Evidence

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I fully appreciate that there are murderers who are obviously guilty and definitely bad proclaim their innocence, or they are not completely innocent. The point is you decide according to the EVIDENCE and not according to manufactured or fabricated and false evidence. The MacDonald case is a gross miscarriage of justice. If silly old Judge Fox had independent judgment he would never have allowed prosecutor Murtagh to get away with it. There is a bit of waffle about all this at this website:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-...pleaded-guilty
At the 1979 trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. The EVIDENCE presented by the prosecution included inculpatory hairs, fibers, blood, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage. This EVIDENCE led to the jury convicting inmate of 3 counts of murder in less than 7 hours. In 2006, the AFIP released DNA test results of 29 exhibits and some of those results strengthened the prosecution's case at trial. The main piece of inculpatory DNA EVIDENCE was a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. According to the government AND the defense, the presence of a splinter from the club in Colette's left hand indicated that the wielder of the club was the source of the broken, bloody limb hair. The AFIP's DNA test results determined that inmate was the source of that broken, bloody limb hair. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th June 2019 at 11:17 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 18th June 2019, 02:59 AM   #1484
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The main piece of inculpatory DNA EVIDENCE was a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. According to the government AND the defense, the presence of a splinter from the club in Colette's left hand indicated that the wielder of the club was the source of the broken, bloody limb hair. The AFIP's DNA test results determined that inmate was the source of that broken, bloody limb hair. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The point is that the information Murtagh and Stombaugh came up about the hair in Colette's left hand was radically different from that of Browning at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. Browning was supposed to be a qualified forensic chemist. You don't have to be a lawyer, or 4th Circuit judge, to find this suspicious and it is only because the public and internet posters are ignorant of forensics that it is accepted without question:

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

Quote:
A To the best of my knowledge, it was. I'm not sure. I'm trying to think. I don't remember any unknown hairs found at the time. Now, in exhibit E5, there was a lot made, a lot to do over E5, which was Mrs. MacDonald's left hand. It contained two long hairs which I identified. They were identical to the knowns that I had from Mrs. MacDonald's clothing. Let me find that right quick. And there was one unknown darker hair which I think was -- again, there was a lot of speculation as to whether or not that could have been Captain MacDonald's hair. On E5 I said debris removed from Mrs. MacDonald's left hand. Vial contained one green single strand of nylon fiber. This was identical to the green fiber of the multicolored rug in the north bedroom. This was heavily bloodstained, and I have down here one short medium brown head hair...…….

I also have here two blonde human head hairs, bloodstained, and one wooden splinter similar to the wood of the club. Now, this one short medium brown head hair which I have under the question mark turned out later on, I think, to be a body hair or a limb hair -- some -- it was darker and all. But it was human, but it was a limb hair. And this was the hair that they were trying to get samples from Captain MacDonald to examine. In this same exhibit, I also had two fine blonde human head hairs that I identified readily. They were bloodstained and I identified readily as being from Colette MacDonald. Her own hair. This was in exhibit E5. At the trial,3 there seemed to be some -- the defense objected, of course, to the way I got the knowns from Mrs. MacDonald's body, that the blonde hairs present could have been from the blonde woman that he claimed was also in the house, that the blonde hair in Colette MacDonald's hand was identical to the blonde hair known that I removed from some of her winter clothing. Using that as a known, it was Colette MacDonald's hair and no one else.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th June 2019 at 03:11 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 01:28 PM   #1485
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Wrong Again

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that the information Murtagh and Stombaugh came up about the hair in Colette's left hand was radically different from that of Browning at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. Browning was supposed to be a qualified forensic chemist. You don't have to be a lawyer, or 4th Circuit judge, to find this suspicious and it is only because the public and internet posters are ignorant of forensics that it is accepted without question:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-browning.html
Your limited knowledge of the evidence in this case frequently results in you distorting the documented record. Dillard Browning's description of CID Exhibit E-5, mirrored the descriptions put forth by Janice Glisson and Paul Stombaugh. Browning, Glisson, and Stombaugh all described this exhibit as being a broken, bloody limb hair. Glisson's drawing of this broken, bloody limb hair is included in Fatal Justice. According to the AFIP's test results, this broken, bloody limb hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th June 2019 at 01:32 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:15 AM   #1486
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Your limited knowledge of the evidence in this case frequently results in you distorting the documented record. Dillard Browning's description of CID Exhibit E-5, mirrored the descriptions put forth by Janice Glisson and Paul Stombaugh. Browning, Glisson, and Stombaugh all described this exhibit as being a broken, bloody limb hair. Glisson's drawing of this broken, bloody limb hair is included in Fatal Justice. According to the AFIP's test results, this broken, bloody limb hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF don't you have the urge to say "this is a recording" or "repetition 1,932"? You have told henri this at least that many times over the last 10 or more years on the boards!!!!
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 20th June 2019, 12:17 PM   #1487
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Some Things Never Change

Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
JTF don't you have the urge to say "this is a recording" or "repetition 1,932"? You have told henri this at least that many times over the last 10 or more years on the boards!!!!
BYN: In the early days (e.g., 2003-2006), the Landlord of MacFantasy Island regurgitated the MacDonald Camp's position on the broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. Their position was that Greg Mitchell was the most likely source of this broken, bloody limb hair and that the AFIP's DNA test results would confirm this prediction. In 1999, Fred Bost told me that this broken, bloody limb hair was THE most important DNA exhibit in this case.

It's important to note that he also backed away from his original position that "someone" altered the hair by cutting it in half. Bost had obviously been told (e.g., Peter DeForest??) that the AFIP's description of this exhibit matched the descriptions put forth by Browning, Glisson, and Stombaugh. Glisson included the following notations above and under her drawing of this hair.

#13 One hair bloody E-5 Approx 1 inch curved worn end broken end

The Landlord has basically thumbed his nose at reality and conflated two debunked claims.

1) From 1970-2000, the descriptions of the hair (e.g., distal portion, broken end, bloody, 1 inch in length) were uniform. This proved beyond ALL doubt that the hair viewed by Browning, Glisson, and Stombaugh was NOT altered.

2) This hair nor any other hair found at the crime scene matched the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. This proved beyond ALL doubt that Mitchell never stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th June 2019 at 12:27 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 June 2019, 03:40 AM   #1488
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,586
The Army CID screwed up the initial investigation.
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 June 2019, 01:57 PM   #1489
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
No Chance

There are rumblings from the MacDonald Camp that inmate's wife will be presenting a corrected brief to the United States Supreme Court in the near future. Considering that inmate's case was heard by the Supreme Court in 1977 and 1982, the chances that his case is heard again are slim and Slim left town.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 09:37 AM   #1490
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Mrs. inmate presented an error filled brief that was returned to her for corrections on 5/24/19. Apparently the USSC does not give it any numbers or identification of any kind if there are any errors in the brief. (includes formats, typo, etc). inmate/mrs. inmate have 60 days from the date the brief was returned to refile.

However, there is very little chance that the USSC will re-hear inmate. His legal machination days are over.
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 July 2019, 11:42 AM   #1491
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 80
This time even the 4th Circuit commented on how thin inmate's petition was. I don't see the USSC spending any time on this again.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 12:25 PM   #1492
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 870
Scott and JTF most everyone agrees with our assessment of inmate's chances; I asked an attorney who used to post on the boards (in re inmate's case) what he thought and he agrees inmate is done in the courts. despite the few desperate clingers on belief to the contrary the only way inmate gets out is through (1) parole, (2) compassionate release, or (3) death.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 01:18 PM   #1493
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 80
Inmate's only chance to convince the investigators and prosecutors that he really was "innocent" would be to use sodium Pentothol or sodium amytal. But he said reliving it would be too traumatic.

But then, as prep for this trial, he undergoes hypnosis where he allegedly relives the whole thing! So, why not at that point undergo a sodium exam, with both prosecutors and defendant lawyers present? Because he's guilty. Otherwise he'd have no reason not to, since he had willingly relived the event already anyway.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 02:36 PM   #1494
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
They Knew They Had Their Man

After completing their 4/6/70 interview with inmate, CID agents Franz Grebner, William Ivory, and Robert Shaw knew they had their man. Ten minutes after completing this interview, inmate called Grebner and told him he would not take a CID administered polygraph exam. A month later, Bernie Segal hired polygraph expert John Reid and the test results were deemed inconclusive. MacDonald told interviewer Jeffrey Elliott that the results were due to the fact that he was "frantic with worry."

Several weeks later, polygraph expert Cleve Backster administered a polygraph exam to MacDonald. Backster concluded that MacDonald had flunked the exam. In 1973, a friend of MacDonald's approached famed attorney Vincent Bugliosi to inquire about Bugliosi representing MacDonald. One of Bugliosi's stipulations was that MacDonald take a polygraph exam. MacDonald's refusal to take a polygraph exam coupled with information gathered about the Government's case against MacDonald, resulted in Bugliosi refusing to represent MacDonald.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th July 2019 at 02:38 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 Yesterday, 11:56 AM   #1495
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 80
Even Sirhan Sirhan later tried to claim he was "innocent". Just something murderers do, I guess.

A story goes that Napolean visited a prison and as he met each man they told him how innocent they were. But then, one prisoner said, "No, my emperor, I am truly guilty of the crimes that put me here". Napolean immediately called for the head guard and said, "Release this man immediately, before he corrupts all the innocent men in here!"

Last edited by ScottPletcher; Yesterday at 11:58 AM.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:56 AM.
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.