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: 3,590
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: 28
Waffle is correct!

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

If you still can’t put 2 + 2 together, I’m sorry but there’s no hope.

Anyway, JmcD’s 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: 1,236
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: 3,590
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: 1,236
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: 881
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: 1,236
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: 3,590
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: 1,236
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: 881
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: 84
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: 881
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: 84
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: 1,236
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 22nd July 2019, 11:56 AM   #1495
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 84
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; 22nd July 2019 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
Old 5th August 2019, 06:26 AM   #1496
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
well, 60 days have passed since the documents were returned to SMQ for corrections from the Clerk of the Court for the USSC. Has anybody heard anything? Did she file incorrectly AGAIN and have the documents returned for corrections AGAIN?
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 August 2019, 11:53 AM   #1497
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 84
Most likely. I don't think we see inmate ever giving up his phony quest to be "vindicated". But, as we've stated, I don't see the Supreme Court giving him yet another rare hearing with so little "new evidence" after he's had so many other hearing at the SC level.

Off-Topic
Btw, I've noticed a big push now by Pamela Smart supporters to get her released, while she still, very unconvincingly, proclaims her "innocence". One parole board member stated that he would have voted to let have a parole hearing (despite her LWOP sentence) except that she proclaimed her innocence in the petition, which he felt disqualified her from a parole hearing.
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 13th August 2019, 04:47 AM   #1498
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
well, SMQ filed on inmate's behalf for a Writ of Certiorari with the request for permission to file it forma pauperis.......(although Joe Z prepared the motion or at least part of it)
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 14th August 2019, 05:04 AM   #1499
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
Docket #19-5551....

geez, you have got to read it for yourself....I just cannot believe this.....
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 14th August 2019, 09:41 AM   #1500
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,071
Do you have a link?
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 12:37 PM   #1501
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx
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 14th August 2019, 04:39 PM   #1502
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,071
Thanks; I was using the general search.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 10:19 AM   #1503
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,071
I didn't read the whole thing; I couldn't stand to. It's the same old ridiculous garbage about unsourced hairs and fibers, hearsay confessions, inmate's wounds, etc., while, as always, ignoring or attempting to handwave away the mountain of inculpatory evidence.

That said, IANAL, but I think whoever wrote this may actually have something resembling a point about SCOTUS's needing to address the issue of claims of actual innocence. The problem, of course, is that in order to be a good test case, they'd need a defendant who's actually innocent. So I highly doubt they'll grant cert.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:08 PM   #1504
OneWhoCares
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 2
byn63,

Thank you for providing the links that Christina Masewicz shared with us on her discussion board.

Thank Goodness that Christina still shares these things with us as she sees fit.
OneWhoCares 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 August 2019, 08:35 AM   #1505
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,236
Rinse And Repeat

Just another addition to the rinse and repeat claims put forth by the MacDonald Camp in the past 36 years. They simply can't cope with the fact that inmate's "daunting burden," will not be met by regurgitating arguments involving unsourced household debris and hearsay testimony.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th August 2019 at 08:36 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 19th August 2019, 10:58 AM   #1506
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 84
The Jimmy Britt nonsense is still in there. It's the theater of the absurd. This is obviously just a hobby to them now, they can't be serious with this. Just a way to "punch back" at "the system".
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 21st August 2019, 01:39 PM   #1507
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,236
Jimmy "The Fabricator" Britt

SCOTT: Joey Z's listing of debunked nonsense has the feel of a child repeatedly asking his parents for ice cream in the hope that he will eventually get what he wants. In the case of Jimmy Britt, Joey leaves out the pesky FACT that Britt's 5 affidavits contained 27 falsehoods. Joey believes that if he repeatedly asserts that Britt is a reliable reporter, his client will eventually get what he wants. Fat chance.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2019, 07:01 AM   #1508
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
Any day now I expect to hear, what I think we all expect to hear, that the USSC has denied a Writ of Certiorari. Which is:

A type of writ, meant for rare use, by which an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion. The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it.
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 10th October 2019, 07:48 AM   #1509
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
Okay - as we thought Writ of Certiorari was denied by the USSC on October 7, 2019.
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 10th October 2019, 10:24 AM   #1510
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 84
Thanks for the update. Wow, somehow it still feels weird, given how this court in the past has always double-bent over backwards to give inmate more and more chances.
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 22nd October 2019, 05:11 AM   #1511
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
Wow! I really expected henri to make some kind of comment.....but, no comments from him since June! weird!
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 2019, 12:41 PM   #1512
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,236
Game Over

Even the Landlord of MacFantasy Island knows that the 10/7/19 decision by the USSC has effectively ended the legal phase of the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Sure, inmate can admit to the parole board (e.g., scheduled for 2020) that he is guilty of slaughtering his family, but the odds of the parole board forgetting that inmate has lied about this issue (e.g., stating he is factually innocent) for 50 years is 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 31st October 2019, 09:33 AM   #1513
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Even the Landlord of MacFantasy Island knows that the 10/7/19 decision by the USSC has effectively ended the legal phase of the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Sure, inmate can admit to the parole board (e.g., scheduled for 2020) that he is guilty of slaughtering his family, but the odds of the parole board forgetting that inmate has lied about this issue (e.g., stating he is factually innocent) for 50 years is slim and Slim left town.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I cannot help but think that some how some way inmate and smq will come up with some means of at least attempting to get him back into court...even though it would take some serious ignoring of the rules of law to get him a PFA at this point.
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 November 2019, 05:37 PM   #1514
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,236
Two Options

BYN: Inmate has two avenues for constructing and filing a legitimate PFA. The first would be new test results on evidentiary items that definitively link a known intruder suspect or suspects to the crime scene. All of the hairs collected at the crime scene and/or at autopsy were DNA tested by the AFIP, and the weapons/clothing were handled to the extent where Touch DNA testing would be a worthless endeavor.

That leaves inmate with DNA testing blood evidence, but that legal ship appears to have sailed for the 4th Circuit Court has already turned down inmate's request for additional DNA testing. Inmate's only option would be to unearth another Jimmy Britt, but Britt Part Deux would need to be FAR better than the original. Producing 5 affidavits that contain 27 proven falsehoods is not going to get you very far in a Court of Law.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 05:10 AM   #1515
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
agreed JTF to a point. the fact is the law governing second or successive appeals says that he would have to file for a PFA and whatever "new evidence" he came up with could not have been so much as mentioned in the court documents so the way I read it - DNA does not count.

I do not see them doing blood testing because in order to do that it would required the destruction of evidence and it is less than likely that any of the blood on the evidence belongs to anyone other than Colette, Kimmie, Kristy or inmate so what purpose would it serve?
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 11th November 2019, 04:20 PM   #1516
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 84
April 6, 1970 Tape

I still can't wait to hear the April 6, 1970 tape. [In a way, it's kinda troubling that I know that date by heart.] I wonder if it will ever be released?! Perhaps when inmate finally is deceased?!
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 16th January 2020, 09:26 PM   #1517
Papa TomGo
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 3
I have followed the Macdonald case from actually before the trial. I am from Santa Ana, Ca which is not far from both Long Beach (where he worked) and his condo. His case was big news in the area and there was actually a (kind of) family connection/interest in the case as two of my brothers (at separate times) had been treated by Macdonald in the E.R. at St Mary's while he was out on bail awaiting trial. Rick worked at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and got injured at work while Dave had a motorcycle accident just a couple of blocks from the hospital.

I came across these boards totally by accident one day and due to my long time interest in this case read this thread (both parts)and I must say that I am impressed with some people's thorough knowledge of the case. But I have to say that this henri character reminds me of John Cleese in the old Monty Python argument clinic skit where his only response to any point being made is "no it isn't"

Last edited by Papa TomGo; 16th January 2020 at 09:27 PM.
Papa TomGo 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 January 2020, 10:53 AM   #1518
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by Papa TomGo View Post
I have followed the Macdonald case from actually before the trial. I am from Santa Ana, Ca which is not far from both Long Beach (where he worked) and his condo. His case was big news in the area and there was actually a (kind of) family connection/interest in the case as two of my brothers (at separate times) had been treated by Macdonald in the E.R. at St Mary's while he was out on bail awaiting trial. Rick worked at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and got injured at work while Dave had a motorcycle accident just a couple of blocks from the hospital.

I came across these boards totally by accident one day and due to my long time interest in this case read this thread (both parts)and I must say that I am impressed with some people's thorough knowledge of the case. But I have to say that this henri character reminds me of John Cleese in the old Monty Python argument clinic skit where his only response to any point being made is "no it isn't"
Or the dead parrot routine, where the shop owner tries to convince the customer that the parrot is still alive. The shop owner in the skit is the role Henri's been playing for years now.

Hank (not Henri)
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant 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 January 2020, 04:14 PM   #1519
Papa TomGo
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Or the dead parrot routine, where the shop owner tries to convince the customer that the parrot is still alive. The shop owner in the skit is the role Henri's been playing for years now.

Hank (not Henri)
I hear you Hank, he's good a good laugh just like Monty Python.
Papa TomGo 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 January 2020, 06:11 AM   #1520
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 881
henri has been around a long time - he is laughable but also sad - over the years he has also been Albert Webb and Arthur Thorpe and a myriad other names on various boards.

Papa TomGo with your interest in the case how is it you have never found any of the discussion boards before now?
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 10:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.