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 11th November 2017, 04:10 PM   #3281
wasapi
Illuminator
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,567
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
No, you regard the legal and proper conviction of Jeffrey Macdonald of the slaughter by his own hands of his pregnant wife Colette and daughters Kim and Kris as a personal affront of some sort, disregarding facts and evidence which point to his guilt. There is no evidence you can cite without cherry-picking confessions from a mentally ill woman and a PTSD suffering veteran, both of whom also denied doing it and without any evidence of their presence in the Macdonald quarters the night of the murders.

We (yeah, me and talking for others) realize the victims here are Colette, Kim and Kris and that Macdonald's incarceration problem is one of his own making; so we're fine with him where he is. He's earned it. And he owes a bunch of days from 1970 - 1979 and the time he was released for the spurious "double jeopardy" ruling.

Your man crush is guilty. Get over it. You don't have a shred of evidence (and a confession is useless unless it fits the evidence, FYI) to back your bigoted claims that the prosecutors and judges were/are all 'crooked'. The only person dishonest here is Jeffrey Macdonald.
Thank you, really. I believe everyone else feels the same. You said it well!
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 12th November 2017, 03:40 AM   #3282
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Yeah, we know how he feels about the appellate system, the CID, FBI, and the DOJ, but none of the employees of these organizations left bloody bare footprints at the crime scene. None of the employees left bloody cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet. None of the employees had Kristen's blood on their reading glasses. None of the employees left their broken, bloody arm hair in Colette's left hand.
Footprints and bloody cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet and blood on the reading glasses and substituted hairs in the hand, and Mitchell and Stoeckley probably courting on a bridge somewhere is very weak supporting, and even manufactured evidence.

The problem with these sensational and unusual cases is that an accused person can be convicted in the court of public opinion by tabloid journalists before any trial starts. That happened to Michael Jackson in about 2005 when he was eventually found not guilty. The same thing is happening to the Ramseys and Burke now with regard to CBS in the JonBenet case.

There is a bit about this matter on the internet with regard to the administration of justice in India:

Quote:
Trial is very much effected by the Media sensation. Judges while making decision start considering Media criticism if they goes opposite from the view of the Media that’s why in mostly high profile cases verdict passes by media becomes the final verdict in trial courts.
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...-law-essay.php

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th November 2017 at 03:48 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 12th November 2017, 07:46 AM   #3283
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Footprints and bloody cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet and blood on the reading glasses and substituted hairs in the hand, and Mitchell and Stoeckley probably courting on a bridge somewhere is very weak supporting, and even manufactured evidence.

The problem with these sensational and unusual cases is that an accused person can be convicted in the court of public opinion by tabloid journalists before any trial starts. <snip of irrelevant drivel>
It's this sort of post that makes us realize how truly clueless you are about this case.

The circumstantial evidence (footprints/impressions/eyeglasses) were used to convict this heartless killer. It's what usually convicts them, even today.

The 'substituted hairs' exist only in your mind and macdonald's dreams. In fact, mac was claiming those hairs were those of the killer until DNA caught up with him and proved him right - they were his.

The comment about Mitchell and Stoeckley was sarcasm, meant to highlight the lack of ANY evidence that either were in the quarters that night and the myriad conflicting statements given by them - the only one of which that fit the evidence was that they weren't there that night.

In 1979, the perception of Macdonald was a poor, bereaved ex-Green Beret who had moved across the country and never remarried because of the trauma of hippies slaughtering his family. He wasn't in the 'tabloid press' because he wasn't that important. There was no "People" to take up his cause.

You don't understand this case or the evidence at all. Every statement you make proves my point. If it's not pro-man crush, it's wrong - and that's just not true. The totality of the evidence proves he did it. Man up, Henri and face the facts: nothing in Mac's story holds water, there were no intruders - except his wife, the two daughters and the coming son. They were the intruders to Mac and he slaughtered them in a fit of rage. He was telling his wife he was going to be unreachable in Russia for the month of the delivery when he was trying for leave to go visit an old girlfriend. And you're defending this POS. Sad. Pathetic.

Last edited by desmirelle; 12th November 2017 at 07:47 AM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:28 AM   #3284
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
He was telling his wife he was going to be unreachable in Russia for the month of the delivery when he was trying for leave to go visit an old girlfriend. And you're defending this POS. Sad. Pathetic.
The point is that if you are accused of murder, by law you can only be convicted on facts and evidence, not on false evidence or opinions that you don't like the accused, or think he is a womaniser, or TV companies and tabloid journalists and Joe McGinniss who want to make plenty of money from the case with best sellers and TV ratings.

Personally, I believe MacDonald was telling the truth about that trip to Russia. I believe the boxing coach, who is now deceased, was told to lie and that he was coached by Murtagh about any conversation he had with MacDonald about a proposed trip to Russia.

Quote:
A Right. I always went to the other gym. I think that was the day. I didn't think about it until a long time afterwards. I think that was the day when I spoke with the boxing coach at the boxing gym.
Q Was the boxing team going to Russia?
A Right.
Q Were you going to go with them?
A I told Sergeant Morgan, the boxing coach--he wanted me to go. I was to hear shortly.
Q Were there any other doctors that were going to go?
A Not that I know of.
Q Did you think you had a good chance to go?
A The guy said there should be no problems, as long as my group commander cleared it.
Q Colonel Kane?
A Right.
Q And you discussed it with him?
A I don't think I did directly. It was--I am not sure how it happened. The conversation came up at a staff meeting or something one day. I am not even sure I did. It might have been Captain Williams for me. One of the Lieutenant Colonels, said there shouldn't be any problem.
Q This is all conversation? You didn't make any formal application?
A No.
Q Did Colette know that you might go to Russia?
A Right.
Q Was she going to have the opportunity to accompany you?
A No.
Q What was any of the wives going on the trip at all that you know?
A No. I mean, I assume none were.
Q Did the team go?
A I don't know. I just dropped off my boxing gear before I got discharged.
Q How long was the trip going to be?
A 30 days.
Q Were you going to travel inside Russia or just going to be against Russian athletes or Russian soldiers?
A I don't know. I wasn't going to have battle. I was going to work out with them and be the team physician.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...interview.html

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th November 2017 at 09:32 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 12th November 2017, 02:39 PM   #3285
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that if you are accused of murder, by law you can only be convicted on facts and evidence, not on false evidence or opinions that you don't like the accused, or think he is a womaniser, or TV companies and tabloid journalists and Joe McGinniss who want to make plenty of money from the case with best sellers and TV ratings.

Personally, I believe MacDonald was telling the truth about that trip to Russia. I believe the boxing coach, who is now deceased, was told to lie and that he was coached by Murtagh about any conversation he had with MacDonald about a proposed trip to Russia.
The fact that Macdonald was convicted on facts and evidence seems to elude you, making my point for me. You refuse to believe anything against your man crush, you've ignored the fact that the press LIKED and was PRO macdonald both at the time of the murders and the time of the trial.

The boxing team went to the USSR in 1969; Macdonald was NOT part of the company that went. The boxing team was going to .....New Jersey that summer. Since the trip had nothing to do with evidence that Mac was guilty, only that he was a lousy husband, it's just proof of mac's lack of common decency.

Common sense should tell you (oh, wait......never mind, forgot for a moment who I was addressing).
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:34 PM   #3286
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Time To Decide

The 4th Circuit Court took 10 months to put forth the decision that the case be remanded to Judge Fox for further inquiry. Despite not being required to hold an evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox knew that the Circuit Court's sole focus appeared to be the "evidence as a whole," so what better way to resolve this issue than to hold an evidentiary hearing?

After getting their collective butts kicked at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense was not surprised when Judge Fox denied MacDonald relief/new trial. The defense appealed and oral arguments were heard in late January 2017. That was a little over 10 months ago, so there is a good chance that a decision will come down in the next few weeks.

If the 4th Circuit Court abides by the standard of proof in this case (e.g., Court stated that the defense faced a "daunting" task), inmate will be out of viable legal options. Sure, he can appeal to the Supreme Court, but I doubt they would hear the case. It would appear that inmate's 36 year relationship with the correctional system will continue until he is worm food.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 12th November 2017 at 11:41 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 09:42 AM   #3287
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
There needs to be sufficient evidence in the MacDonald case. The real culprits need to be thoroughly and properly investigated, not just an opinion by silly old Judge Fox, along with the rubber stampers from the 4th Circuit judges. It's like this funny idea that being innocent is not a ground for appeal.
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 13th November 2017, 06:14 PM   #3288
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,323
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There needs to be sufficient evidence in the MacDonald case. The real culprits need to be thoroughly and properly investigated, not just an opinion by silly old Judge Fox, along with the rubber stampers from the 4th Circuit judges. It's like this funny idea that being innocent is not a ground for appeal.
Hate to break it to you, but the appellate courts don't decide guilt or innocence. Their job is to review the trials and determine if there's a reason for a retrial regarding the way the original trial was conducted.

They don't review verdicts.

Never have, never will.

Are you suggesting they should make an exception for MacDonald, or that everyone in jail should get to appeal on the basis that they are innocent?

(They all are, you know. At least, to hear them tell it).

MacDonald's not special in that regard. He claims he's innocent. So what?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 13th November 2017, 06:19 PM   #3289
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,072
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There needs to be sufficient evidence in the MacDonald case. The real culprits need to be thoroughly and properly investigated, not just an opinion by silly old Judge Fox, along with the rubber stampers from the 4th Circuit judges. It's like this funny idea that being innocent is not a ground for appeal.
There was sufficient evidence for a jury of his peers to find him guilty.

The evidence has held up through numerous appeals, up to the US Supreme Court.

Therefore, the real culprit HAS been thoroughly and properly investigated, in accordance with the law.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 November 2017, 05:00 AM   #3290
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hate to break it to you, but the appellate courts don't decide guilt or innocence. Their job is to review the trials and determine if there's a reason for a retrial regarding the way the original trial was conducted.

They don't review verdicts.

Never have, never will.

Are you suggesting they should make an exception for MacDonald, or that everyone in jail should get to appeal on the basis that they are innocent?

(They all are, you know. At least, to hear them tell it).

MacDonald's not special in that regard. He claims he's innocent. So what?

Hank
The way the original trial was conducted was a mistrial. It was not an excellent court and the federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed. The point is that if you were wrongly convicted and put in prison for thirty years you would probably go raving mad, as well as facing financial ruin. Something needs to be done about it.

There is a bit about this on a criminal defense lawyer website. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer. I appreciate that appeals are highly technical with things like time limits:

Quote:
Habeas Corpus Writs

Frequently, prisoners who believe that they were wrongfully convicted will file writs of habeas corpus. This writ is a demand filed with an appeals court (or the U.S. Supreme Court) that the imprisoning authority show the legal grounds justifying detention.

A writ isn’t the same as an appeal, which is limited to the evidence produced at trial. Because a claim of factual innocence is, almost by definition, premised on new information not presented at trial, it typically cannot be made in an appeal. (But an “insufficiency of evidence” argument, which, if accepted, results in an acquittal, can be made on appeal.) Prisoners often file concurrent appeals, challenging their conviction, and writs, challenging the conviction based on new matter.
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 14th November 2017, 05:48 AM   #3291
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
okay everyone pay attention - especially henri - the US Army Boxing Team DID NOT GO TO RUSSIA in 1969. Apparently some are forgetting that this was the HEIGHT of the Cold War. No US Military Entity would have gone (even if invited) to the USSR at that time. IF a boxing event between US Army and Soviet Army had been planned it would have occurred in NEUTRAL TERRITORY. The boxing team was SCHEDULED AND WENT to New Jersey. Inmate wanted to go so that he could screw one of his lovers (the same girl he left lingerie for the night of his wedding rehearsal).

I am still waiting for the troll to explain exactly how someone could have gotten a piece of inmate's body hair, exactly the same size and portion as the "mystery hair" and have it covered in Colette's blood without inmate knowing about it.....that is the only way a "switch" of hairs could have taken place......and since the troll always claims it was Brian Murtagh who switched the hairs I REALLY REALLY want him to explain how BM managed this magical feat without inmate being aware! Since inmate despised the LilVipr wouldn't he have reported him for something if he ever came close enough to his person to snatch a piece of body (arm or leg since it was limb hair) hair off his person? AND how did he do it while inmate was in prison but NOBODY ever saw this happen? (I mean they didn't see BM going to visit inmate NOR steal a limb hair from his body)
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 November 2017, 05:59 AM   #3292
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 12
Oh, don't be so silly, Byn - of COURSE the finding was manufactured to show it was the ice pick baby killer. Murtagh is all powerful and easily made that happen.
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 08:04 AM   #3293
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
Oh, don't be so silly, Byn - of COURSE the finding was manufactured to show it was the ice pick baby killer. Murtagh is all powerful and easily made that happen.
I didn't wear my hip-waders to the office today....roflmao!
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 November 2017, 09:12 AM   #3294
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The way the original trial was conducted was a mistrial.
No it was not. The original trial has withstood all of the peer reviews (ie Appeals including the 7 trips to the US Supreme Court). If it had been unfair, biased, or whatever you claim it to have been then it would have been proven as such during one of the many appeals that inmate lost.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was not an excellent court and the federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed.
inmate had his presumption of innocence, he had his trial by a jury of his peers. he was able to have witnesses cross-examined, he was able to have evidence reviewed by his own experts. the fact that Bernie et al waited, and only reviewed limited evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution. All evidence was made available, the Federal Rules of Prosecution and the Federal Rules of Evidence were followed meticulously. Judge Dupree kept the damage that Bernie Segal was doing to a minimum (Bernie was insulting to the jury and witnesses). The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted just over 6 weeks and the jury convicted him in just under 7 hours.

His conviction has withstood appeal after appeal include 7 trips to the US Supreme Court. It was a good trial, a fair trial, and inmate was rightfully convicted. Now it is long past time for him to stop tying up the legal system and serve the time that he was so justly sentenced to serve.

FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT
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 November 2017, 09:32 AM   #3295
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Murtagh was all powerful. Power corrupts. He has the judges in bed with the prosecution. He was able to coach the babysitter, Kalin, to change her mind by testifying there was an ice pick in the MacDonald apartment, and the same with Colette's mother with her perjury at trial. Murtagh also seemed able to get the boxing coach to deny he had a conversation with MacDonald about a proposed trip to Russia. It could all be an elaborate plan to frame MacDonald.

The FBI hair and fiber department has come under severe criticism in the past few years, including Malone, and nothing at all has been done about it. Al-Jazeera in English made a documentary about it a few years ago, but since then Al-Jazeera seems to have gone off the air in America and Britain.

The 4th Circuit judges have a ground for appeal in the clearly erroneous way Helena Stoeckley 's confessions were rejected and ignored by Judge Dupree at trial, and the way the psychiatric testimony was ignored because biased Judge Dupree didn't want a battle of the experts. Also fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald, or the blood evidence, was never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI lab.

The black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and her biceps were concealed from the jury at trial, as were the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers at the crime scene with no known source. You have to be a real expert to give an opinion in a courtroom, or else it's a mistrial.

As the prominent advocate Norman Birkett once said "Juries are notoriously uncertain, and what one jury might decide another jury on the same facts might decide differently to-morrow."
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 14th November 2017, 11:32 AM   #3296
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
seriously? so now Brian Murtagh is more powerful than even the Great Oz of Emerald City? The only person at trial who perjured himself was inmate.

The original trial has withstood all of the peer reviews (ie Appeals including the 7 trips to the US Supreme Court). If it had been unfair, biased, or whatever you claim it to have been then it would have been proven as such during one of the many appeals that inmate lost.

inmate had his presumption of innocence, he had his trial by a jury of his peers. he was able to have witnesses cross-examined, he was able to have evidence reviewed by his own experts. the fact that Bernie et al waited, and only reviewed limited evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution. All evidence was made available, the Federal Rules of Prosecution and the Federal Rules of Evidence were followed meticulously. Judge Dupree kept the damage that Bernie Segal was doing to a minimum (Bernie was insulting to the jury and witnesses). The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted just over 6 weeks and the jury convicted him in just under 7 hours.

His conviction has withstood appeal after appeal include 7 trips to the US Supreme Court. It was a good trial, a fair trial, and inmate was rightfully convicted. Now it is long past time for him to stop tying up the legal system and serve the time that he was so justly sentenced to serve.

The black wool fibers and the blonde synthetic wig hairs WERE UNSOURCED and therefore were, are, shall forever remain USELESS forensically speaking. The prosecution did not use those fibers against inmate. IF the defense believed they had any probative value then THE DEFENSE should have asked that they be entered as evidence. The fact that the DEFENSE didn't enter these items as evidence is further proof (although most sentient beings do not need it) that unsourced equals useless.

The Judges of the 4th Circuit Court DO NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE. The 4th Circuit Court decides if there is merit to any appeal. They have already said there are no grounds for further appeal in re: the DNA testing. The last Appeal hopefully will have a decision soon......
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 15th November 2017, 04:20 AM   #3297
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Are you suggesting they should make an exception for MacDonald, or that everyone in jail should get to appeal on the basis that they are innocent?

(They all are, you know. At least, to hear them tell it).

MacDonald's not special in that regard. He claims he's innocent. So what?

Hank
I fully appreciate that most people who are prosecuted are guilty, and others are not completely innocent. The trouble is that mistakes are made, and serious ones, as happened in the MacDonald case and in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's a lack of vision which is why many people think there is more to the death of JFK than just Lee Harvey Oswald.

I have still not got over the fact that the father of the murdered little girl Riley Fox made a false confession to the police, and he was imprisoned, until the DNA of another man, the real culprit, was later found about a year later, and he was imprisoned.

The execution, or imprisonment of an innocent person is a crime committed by the state and it must be punished.
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 15th November 2017, 05:48 AM   #3298
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I fully appreciate that most people who are prosecuted are guilty, and others are not completely innocent. The trouble is that mistakes are made, and serious ones, as happened in the MacDonald case and in the JonBenet Ramsey case. <snip of irrelevance>

.
Yes, mistakes were made in the Macdonald case. But the mistake to rush to hold the Article 32 hearing before all the evidence was processed actually worked out in the favor of justice. Had Mac been tried for murdering the wife and kiddies in 1970, he'd have gotten maybe 20 years, it would have been sliced down by the review and the affirmed sentence would be something like a decade - if that. Unfortunately, the military did not take domestic violence seriously for nearly two decades after the captain slaughtered his wife, unborn son, and two daughters. So, in this case, the mistakes made worked out perfectly and he got as close to the sentence he deserves as legally possible.

JonBenet is derailing the thread. But since you brought it up, I feel sorry for Burke, since your track record is to back the killer and you're rooting for him.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 01:25 PM   #3299
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Troll Soft Shoe

While the landlord soft shoes his way around the inculpatory evidence in this case, he continues to ignore the flip side of that pancake. Where is the trace evidence linking a member of the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven to the crime scene? DNA? Nope. Hairs? Nope. Prints? Nope. Fibers? Nope. Inmate is the lone perp. Case closed.

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 17th November 2017, 05:40 PM   #3300
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,323
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I fully appreciate that most people who are prosecuted are guilty, and others are not completely innocent. The trouble is that mistakes are made, and serious ones, as happened in the MacDonald case
Begging the question. Look it up.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...and in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
Refresh my memory. Who was convicted in that case?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...It's a lack of vision which is why many people think there is more to the death of JFK than just Lee Harvey Oswald.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Oswald did it. And I find you employ many of the same tactics as conspiracy theorists.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have still not got over the fact that the father of the murdered little girl Riley Fox made a false confession to the police, and he was imprisoned, until the DNA of another man, the real culprit, was later found about a year later, and he was imprisoned.
And this has exactly -- nothing -- to do with MacDonald's conviction.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The execution, or imprisonment of an innocent person is a crime committed by the state and it must be punished.
So now we put the jury in jail in McDonald's stead?

Sorry, that's just weird.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 November 2017, 05:50 PM   #3301
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,323
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The way the original trial was conducted was a mistrial.
The judge, the jury, the defense, and the prosecution all would disagree with you on that.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was not an excellent court
In the U.S., the accused has a right to a speedy trial, not to an excellent one.
Your argument reduces to not just McDonald, but everyone, is entitled to "an excellent court". Since by definition (whatever definition you choose to use) some courts will be above average, some average, and some below, you are claiming most accused don't have "an excellent court". So what?



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...and the federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed.
You would think if that was actually the case, he would have won on appeal at least once.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that if you were wrongly convicted and put in prison for thirty years you would probably go raving mad, as well as facing financial ruin. Something needs to be done about it.
About what? You're back to begging the question.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit about this ..
Relevance to the case under discussion? None.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 18th November 2017, 03:37 AM   #3302
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The judge, the jury, the defense, and the prosecution all would disagree with you on that.

In the U.S., the accused has a right to a speedy trial, not to an excellent one.
Your argument reduces to not just McDonald, but everyone, is entitled to "an excellent court". Hank
You have tunnel vision. If a judge and prosecutor deliberately breaks the federal rules of evidence and procedure, and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense, then it's a mistrial. The same thing if a jury is proven to not be impartial, as in the Macdonald case.

Justice Marshall had a few words to say about the speedy trial matter in the MacDonald case at the Supreme Court in 1982:

http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/...56/1/case.html

Quote:
The Justice Department did not convene a grand jury until August, 1974, more than two years later. The Court of Appeals charged this delay to Government "indifference, negligence, or ineptitude." United States v. MacDonald, 531 F.2d 196, 207 (CA4 1976) (MacDonald I). On January 24, 1975, MacDonald was indicted by a civilian grand jury on three counts of murder, the same charges that the military authorities had dropped. Trial commenced in the summer of 1979.

Confronted with these facts, the majority reaches the facile conclusion that the speedy trial right is not implicated at all when the same sovereign initiates, drops, and then reinitiates criminal charges. That conclusion is not justified by the language of the Speedy Trial Clause or the teachings of our cases, and it is hopelessly at odds with any sensible understanding of speedy trial policies. I must dissent.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th November 2017 at 03:39 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 November 2017, 05:50 AM   #3303
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You have tunnel vision. If a judge and prosecutor deliberately breaks the federal rules of evidence and procedure, and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense, then it's a mistrial. The same thing if a jury is proven to not be impartial, as in the Macdonald case.
<snip>
And when did the highlighted occur? (Apart from your dreams, that is.) When was PROVEN that the jury was not impartial?
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 09:58 AM   #3304
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,900
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
And when did the highlighted occur? (Apart from your dreams, that is.) When was PROVEN that the jury was not impartial?
The MacDonald private investigator Shedlick obtained affidavits from three different witnesses in about 1987 indicating that the foreman of the jury at the MacDonald trial in 1979 was overheard saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the so-called impartial judge and jury trial had even started. This is one such affidavit:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...clr_james.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 03:49 PM   #3305
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The MacDonald private investigator Shedlick obtained affidavits from three different witnesses in about 1987 indicating that the foreman of the jury at the MacDonald trial in 1979 was overheard saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the so-called impartial judge and jury trial had even started. <snip - again>
I seriously have to question your ability to understand the English language when I ask when was it proven (with the implications of a court involvement) and you reply with "obtained affidavits" as if that proved anything other than some person said something years later and either believed their memory was correct or was counting on no one calling them on a lie.

When was the court hearing that determined these "affidavits" were accepted in court as proof of jury bias or tampering? When was the jury foreman questioned in court and the jury verdict invalidated for this pre-existing determination? This would be 'proving' the jury was not impartial. Affidavits are useless for this unless accepted in a court. (Sorry for the multi-syllable words.)
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 10:28 AM   #3306
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,323
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You have tunnel vision. If a judge and prosecutor deliberately breaks the federal rules of evidence and procedure, and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense, then it's a mistrial. The same thing if a jury is proven to not be impartial, as in the Macdonald case.
You still don't get the logical fallacy of Begging the Question, do you?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.


More info at the link.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Justice Marshall had a few words to say about the speedy trial matter in the MacDonald case at the Supreme Court in 1982:

http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/...56/1/case.html
Nor about the logical fallacy of a red herring.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.


More info at the link.

In addition, all this was covered with you in the past and shown to be untrue (just check the thread). For example, here's my prior rebuttal to the Marshall argument.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2019

Going around another time doesn't mean your claims suddenly become more true.

Your repetition of the same points from months ago is known as a fringe reset.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 Yesterday, 05:30 AM   #3307
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Going around another time doesn't mean your claims suddenly become more true.

Your repetition of the same points from months ago is known as a fringe reset.

Hank


roflmao! many of us refer to henri's "lather, rinse, repeat" style of argument. It is ineffectual and annoying, plus completely predictable. When you can win an argument with one of your "fantasy narratives" move on to the next for a bit, when that fails move to the next, when you run out of them go back to the top and start 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 Yesterday, 06:40 AM   #3308
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 12
We also call it "SSDD" - Same "Stuff", Different Day.
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM   #3309
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
"Final Vision" will air on ID channel on 10 December 2017. It's the story of the murder of the pregnant Colette Macdonald and her two daughters at the hands of her husband/their father and the subsequent battle to bring the story to the public through the eyes of Joe McGinnis - who was contracted by the killer to document the trial that ultimately found him guilty.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:16 AM   #3310
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
We also call it "SSDD" - Same "Stuff", Different Day.
LOL I like the quotes to indicate that we don't always use the most polite terms. How about "same meat, different gravy" to describe the nonsense?
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 Today, 06:29 AM   #3311
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 12
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 02:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.