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 April 2019, 07:19 AM   #1201
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's the 'professional' analysis of the fiber evidence by Stombaugh and Murtagh that makes me sick.
Only because you cannot get around how good Stombaugh was at his analysis. What makes me sick is that you somehow think Brian Murtagh had anything to do with the analysis of the hairs and fibers. Brian Murtagh was the PROSECUTOR. He did not handle evidence, he did not collect evidence, he did not analyze evidence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's their 'pajama -like' fibers on the wooden club murder weapon that are forensically insignificant,
the pj-like fibers were HIGHLY significant. the FACT that they were found on the murder club and placed in a vial meant that they were preserved for proper analysis. the other fibers were not analyzed until a later date and by the time other fibers were analyzed there were no items to match or source them to because the murdering lying sociopathic bastard had already gotten rid of or destroyed them all.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Blackburn used in court to sway the jury and convict and imprison MacDonald for the rest of his life.
which was perfectly proper - that is what prosecutors do - the introduce INCULPATORY EVIDENCE. That is the job of a prosecutor. the defense attorney can try and prove an item is not really inculpatory but in this case he would have failed.
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 April 2019, 07:47 AM   #1202
Strawberry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,102
I'm sure all this fibre evidence is solid, but I don't really need it to know that McDonald is a liar. As soon as I read his story that a group of murdering hippies did it while chanting "acid is groovy" and "kill the pigs" I knew he'd made it all up. Its the type of thing a straight laced army officer would imagine hippies to say while committing a drug fuelled massacre. I expect he'd been reading about the Manson family.

I doubt any real live hippy anywhere ever actually says acid is groovy or kill the pigs.
Strawberry 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 April 2019, 08:48 AM   #1203
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 342
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
I'm sure all this fibre evidence is solid, but I don't really need it to know that McDonald is a liar. As soon as I read his story that a group of murdering hippies did it while chanting "acid is groovy" and "kill the pigs" I knew he'd made it all up. Its the type of thing a straight laced army officer would imagine hippies to say while committing a drug fuelled massacre. I expect he'd been reading about the Manson family.

I doubt any real live hippy anywhere ever actually says acid is groovy or kill the pigs.
I said it sounded like the Archies gone deeply deeply wrong.

Major Major 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 April 2019, 08:59 AM   #1204
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
I'm sure all this fibre evidence is solid, but I don't really need it to know that McDonald is a liar. As soon as I read his story that a group of murdering hippies did it while chanting "acid is groovy" and "kill the pigs" I knew he'd made it all up. Its the type of thing a straight laced army officer would imagine hippies to say while committing a drug fuelled massacre. I expect he'd been reading about the Manson family.

I doubt any real live hippy anywhere ever actually says acid is groovy or kill the pigs.
I have discussed this 'groovy' business before now. Helena Stoeckley was a strange woman and it's not MacDonald's fault that she was chanting it at the time of the MacDonald murders. He just reported on what happened. You may be too young to remember the word being used, or remember the word 'cool' being used all the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA0bTAxwXPM
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 11th April 2019, 09:14 AM   #1205
Strawberry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,102
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have discussed this 'groovy' business before now. Helena Stoeckley was a strange woman and it's not MacDonald's fault that she was chanting it at the time of the MacDonald murders. He just reported on what happened. You may be too young to remember the word being used, or remember the word 'cool' being used all the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA0bTAxwXPM

He made it up. He read something about the Manson family and thought this would sound like a realistic story that would fool everyone. Which it did for a short space of time, but it didn't take long for anyone with sense to smell a rat.
Strawberry 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 April 2019, 10:09 AM   #1206
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
New York Four

Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
He made it up. He read something about the Manson family and thought this would sound like a realistic story that would fool everyone. Which it did for a short space of time, but it didn't take long for anyone with sense to smell a rat.
Inmate's hippie home invader story is a combination of the Manson murders and the physical descriptions of the New York Four. The NYF had rented a house in Fire Island with Jeffrey MacDonald's brother, Jay, in the summer of 1969. Jeffrey MacDonald had visited his brother during that summer and was seen conversing with people who matched the descriptions of the New York Four at the Shortstop Bar in Long Island. Joseph Lee was an African-American male, Gary Burnett and Kenneth Barnett were Caucasian males, and Annette Cullity was a Caucasian female. Lee was seen wearing an army field jacket and Cullity was known to wear a floppy hat and hip boots. The number of intruders, their racial make-up, and their clothing items all matched the descriptions of inmate's hippie home invaders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 11th April 2019 at 10:12 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 11th April 2019, 10:36 AM   #1207
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
There is a sensible website about all this Esquire magazine article nonsense in the MacDonald case at:

https://everything2.com/title/Mispla...frey+MacDonald

Quote:
A recent copy of Esquire magazine seemed especially incriminating for it included an article on the Manson murders, which were in the press at the time. This magazine was also handled by the CID agents, contaminating that piece of evidence. There was a bloody smear on one of the pages, which was attributed to MacDonald, but was not originally there the night of the murders. The CID agents never admitted handling the magazine later; furthermore, MacDonald’s original prints on the magazine were worthless because he lived at the apartment! (Potter and Bost 47) Yet the CID misinterpreted them as more evidence that MacDonald was lying.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th April 2019 at 10:37 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 11th April 2019, 10:51 AM   #1208
Strawberry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,102
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a sensible website about all this Esquire magazine article nonsense in the MacDonald case at:

https://everything2.com/title/Mispla...frey+MacDonald
That doesn't impress me much. The Manson murders were the biggest news story of the day, whether or not he read that particular article is completely irrelevant.

@JTF - who were the New York Four? Did they commit some other crime, or were they just four people he accused?
Strawberry 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 April 2019, 11:21 AM   #1209
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
@JTF - who were the New York Four? Did they commit some other crime, or were they just four people he accused?
Strawberry - the New York 4 were four friends of inmate's brother Jay that had rented a house together in Fire Island NY during the summer of 1969. inmate used their descriptions when he first described the alleged hippie home invaders. Later inmate tried to make the people Helena accused of being involved fit the descriptions.

It is laughable that anyone believes Helena was involved because he was shown a photo of Helena very early in the investigation and he said basically "she has a distinctive nose, I'd have remembered that nose" or in other words No she isn't the woman I saw (besides the fact that he described the woman as blonde and Helena was not a blonde).

What a surprise a female in 1969 wearing floppy hats and knee high boots! Shocking! Oh, right, no it isn't a surprise or shocking in any shape, manner, or form because all you have to do is add mini-skirts or short shorts and you have the female uniform of the day!
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 April 2019, 11:48 AM   #1210
Strawberry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,102
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Strawberry - the New York 4 were four friends of inmate's brother Jay that had rented a house together in Fire Island NY during the summer of 1969. inmate used their descriptions when he first described the alleged hippie home invaders. Later inmate tried to make the people Helena accused of being involved fit the descriptions.

It is laughable that anyone believes Helena was involved because he was shown a photo of Helena very early in the investigation and he said basically "she has a distinctive nose, I'd have remembered that nose" or in other words No she isn't the woman I saw (besides the fact that he described the woman as blonde and Helena was not a blonde).

What a surprise a female in 1969 wearing floppy hats and knee high boots! Shocking! Oh, right, no it isn't a surprise or shocking in any shape, manner, or form because all you have to do is add mini-skirts or short shorts and you have the female uniform of the day!
Thanks. So they were just four people whose description he used for his bolloxology then, I see.


The insertion of that charlatan Ted Gunderson into this case doesn't endear me to the defense either. One of the most pernicious purveyors of Satanic Panic, a phenomenon that has only ever served to convict the innocent and allow the guilty to go free. Helena Stoeckley sounds like exactly the kind of one he would manipulate into a false confession.
Strawberry 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 April 2019, 08:31 PM   #1211
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Gunderson's Role

Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Thanks. So they were just four people whose description he used for his bolloxology then, I see.

The insertion of that charlatan Ted Gunderson into this case doesn't endear me to the defense either. One of the most pernicious purveyors of Satanic Panic, a phenomenon that has only ever served to convict the innocent and allow the guilty to go free. Helena Stoeckley sounds like exactly the kind of one he would manipulate into a false confession.
Shortly after being hired by inmate, Gunderson tracked down Helena Stoeckley, and the information that Stoeckley provided to Gunderson was included in a 1984 appeal for a new trial. The government responded to this and other appeal issues in a 91-page report. In comparing audiotapes of Stoeckley's interviews with Gunderson to the typed transcripts, the government concluded that "it became apparent that these were not transcripts of recorded interviews but rather questions and answers which had been extracted from the tapes, arranged in a sequence designed to delete conflicting responses by Stoeckley and blended into a transcript like statement, which Stoeckley later initialed."

The government also states that during certain audiotapes, "Stoeckley had come perilously close to contradicting her previous whereabouts." The following note to his secretary made it clear that Gunderson was concerned about Stoeckley's disjointed statements.

"June, this is all we're going to record on this tape. I'm going back and try to pick up the mistakes that I made on the other tapes. So, in order to avoid confusion, that's the end of this tape. Don't type anything more off of it."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 11th April 2019 at 08:32 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 12th April 2019, 02:35 AM   #1212
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
S
It is laughable that anyone believes Helena was involved because he was shown a photo of Helena very early in the investigation and he said basically "she has a distinctive nose, I'd have remembered that nose" or in other words No she isn't the woman I saw (besides the fact that he described the woman as blonde and Helena was not a blonde).
MacDonald half-suspected at one time that the MacDonald murders might be connected to an unpleasant incident before the murders when he punched his brother's drug dealer in the face in a New York bar. MacDonald is not a professional criminal investigator, but Detective Beasley was, and he suspected the Helena Stoeckley group from the start. Mazerolle came from the New York area.

Helena Stoeckley was wearing a blonde wig and her blond wig fibers were found at the crime scene. It all happened so quickly and MacDonald was knocked unconscious, so that any positive identification by him became difficult. It was clearly erroneous for the very bad Judge Dupree to prevent the jury from hearing of the numerous Stoeckley, and even Greg Mitchell, confessions.

There is some background to all this at this website:

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/b4...y-r-macdonald/

Quote:
After all of these individuals had testified without the presence of the jury, the District Court excluded the evidence. It ruled the statements inadmissible hearsay because untrustworthy. In addition, the Court rejected MacDonald's attempt to use the statements as impeachment on the grounds that it was not impeachment, properly so called, and in any event, was excludible under Rule 403 as unduly confusing and prejudicial.
B
34
Relying on Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), MacDonald complains that the exclusion of the testimony of these seven "Stoeckley witnesses" deprived him of due process. He also maintains that Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3) explicitly supplies an exception to the hearsay rule and authorized admission of the Stoeckley witnesses' testimony.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th April 2019 at 02:41 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 April 2019, 04:55 AM   #1213
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald half-suspected at one time that the MacDonald murders might be connected to an unpleasant incident before the murders when he punched his brother's drug dealer in the face in a New York bar.
no he didn't; he USED people from various events in his life to try and place the blame for his horrific actions on somebody else. The time was prime because the entire nation was caught up in the Helter Skelter fear. However, inmate made more than one mistake in telling his tales including the fact that HIPPIES would have left the bodies where they fell, there was not sufficient lighting for him to have been able to give such detailed description, he was NOT wearing his glasses, he alleged to have been knocked unconscious and thus he could not have remembered all the things he claimed he did.

Much of what inmate did shows consciousness of guilt and then trial proved his guilt.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald is not a professional criminal investigator, but Detective Beasley was, and he suspected the Helena Stoeckley group from the start.
who gives a damn what inmate was or was not? NOBODY. We do care that he has been rightfully convicted of the brutal vicious slayings of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy. We are still waiting for you to tell us why you hate them so much.

Detective Beasley was already deeply diminished in capacity due to the inorganic brain disease that was causing lesions in his brain. PEB confabulated and NONE of his input into this case carries any credibility.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Mazerolle came from the New York area.
So what? Mazerolle was in jail and could not have been part of any hippie home invaders. But WE all know that there were no hippies involved. Hippies would have left the bodies where they dropped and inmate would have been just as brutalized as Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Helena Stoeckley was wearing a blonde wig and her blond wig fibers were found at the crime scene.
Helena may or may not have been wearing a blonde wig that night, but it is doubtful because Greg M didn't like how she looked in it. Also, even if she was wearing her blonde wig SHE was not the alleged female intruder because her wig was a "bob" not long. Her nose was still distinctive and inmate didn't recognize a picture of her and COMMENTED that he'd have remembered that nose.

HOWEVER, the biggest issue is that cosmetic wigs WERE NOT MADE OF SARAN IN 1970. The blonde hair-like fibers were saran and were matched to doll wigs in the FBI Exemplar collection. Saran could not be made into a tow fiber which was required for making cosmetic wigs in that era.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It all happened so quickly and MacDonald was knocked unconscious, so that any positive identification by him became difficult.
I pray that the victims did not suffer a long time, but it is very likely that they suffered a lot at the hands of inmate when he brutally, savagely, and viciously beat and stabbed Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy. Once again you show contempt for the victims with your posts. Why do you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much?

Inmate was not knocked unconscious. IF he had been he'd have been unable to remember what happened and he could not have given any description. He is a lying, cheating, sociopathic familial slaughterer who brutalized his precious family and left them dead and laughed about it. What can you possibly see to admire in this inmate?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was clearly erroneous for the very bad Judge Dupree to prevent the jury from hearing of the numerous Stoeckley, and even Greg Mitchell, confessions.
There was no "very bad" Judge Dupree there was a distinguished jurist who worked hard to keep Bernie Segal from damaging inmate's chances before the jury. Bernie's brash and condescending behavior towards the jury could have been seriously injurious to inmate. However, Judge Dupree's decision to NOT let hearsay witnesses testify was reasonable and fair. The majority of the appeals Judges agreed. Helena Stoeckley lacked credibility. She was a pathetic, drug addled teenager who had a penchant for telling tall tales. The fact that no evidence supports her or any other hippy being at the apartment that night confirms that inmate was the sole perp.

Now tell us why you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy so much....
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 09:44 AM   #1214
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
HOWEVER, the biggest issue is that cosmetic wigs WERE NOT MADE OF SARAN IN 1970. The blonde hair-like fibers were saran and were matched to doll wigs in the FBI Exemplar collection. Saran could not be made into a tow fiber which was required for making cosmetic wigs in that era.
That has never been proved. Malone has been proved to be a total liar, and he was making it up. Unfortunately Helena got rid of her blonde wig after the MacDonald murders so the matter has never been proved one way or the other. Personally, I have always thought the wig was some kind of joke shop or witchcraft shop cheap wig, possibly manufactured in the Far East, and manufactured from a multitude of fibers. I agree there is no real proof of that either. The matter was discussed on a forum in 1998:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...me/yWXMUY8k-Nk

Quote:
I assume you mean Helena Stoeckley, Frank. She was with the killers but
apparently took no part in the murders. She was seen before and after by
numerous witnesses including one of the MP's on the way to the murder scene.
The MP risked his own freedom by talking about it after he was ordered not to.
Helena has since died but there are numerous interviews available. She was
even polygraphed a number of times by the FBI. She passed when she told of
being in the MacDonald apartment the night of the murders, failed when she
developed amnesia as she did at the criminal trial.
Helena left evidence of her presence by fibers from a blond wig. FBI
hair-and-fiber expert Michael Malone submitted a perjurious affidavit
affirming the prosecution's claim that the fibers were doll hair from Mattel
dolls owned by MacDonald's daughters despite denial by a Mattel expert who
had refused to sign the affidavit. She complained of the pressure she
suffered in her own affidavit after she refused to sign a false affidavit.
Judge Fox last year turned down an appeal based on the false affidavit for an
evidentiary hearing on numerous showings of falsified and suppressed evidence
and was upheld on appeal this year.
Appeals courts are not much interested in evidence of innocence. Procedure is
their thing. Procedure has nothing to do with factual guilt or innocence.
Thank God for DNA. It is almost unique in being physical evidence that
appeals courts will seriously consider.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th April 2019 at 09:47 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 April 2019, 02:12 PM   #1215
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Trolling Tactics

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald half-suspected at one time that the MacDonald murders might be connected to an unpleasant incident before the murders when he punched his brother's drug dealer in the face in a New York bar. MacDonald is not a professional criminal investigator, but Detective Beasley was, and he suspected the Helena Stoeckley group from the start. Mazerolle came from the New York area.

Helena Stoeckley was wearing a blonde wig and her blond wig fibers were found at the crime scene. It all happened so quickly and MacDonald was knocked unconscious, so that any positive identification by him became difficult. It was clearly erroneous for the very bad Judge Dupree to prevent the jury from hearing of the numerous Stoeckley, and even Greg Mitchell, confessions.

There is some background to all this at this website:

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/b4...y-r-macdonald/
For the past 16 years, you've consistently jumped from topic to topic in order to avoid addressing the devastating rebuttals to your fantasy case narratives. I realize that this tactic is your bread and butter, but your disjointed arguments do not paint your hero in a positive light. Speaking of disjointed and erroneous arguments...

At trial, Stoeckley admitted that she wasn't wearing her roommate's blond wig on 2/17/70, because her boyfriend (e.g., Greg Mitchell) did not think it looked good on her. One of the blond synthetic fibers found in Colette's hairbrush matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the fibers matched a cosmetic wig from that massive collection. The defense has NEVER formulated a rebuttal to those points of emphasis.

In regards to inmate's well-deserved reputation as a serial fabricator...

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

Again, I'm challenging you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

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 13th April 2019, 02:52 AM   #1216
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

At trial, Stoeckley admitted that she wasn't wearing her roommate's blond wig on 2/17/70, because her boyfriend (e.g., Greg Mitchell) did not think it looked good on her. One of the blond synthetic fibers found in Colette's hairbrush matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the fibers matched a cosmetic wig from that massive collection. The defense has NEVER formulated a rebuttal to those points of emphasis.
Helena Stoeckley was lying through her teeth at the MacDonald trial in 1979. It's what is known technically as perjury. Some people, like 4th Circuit judges, are no good at telling if somebody is telling the truth or not.

The matter of the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers at the crime scene was discussed with MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate once:

http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/...?cuecard=47887

Quote:
Mr. HARVEY SILVERGLATE (Jeffrey MacDonald's Attorney): Good morning.
LAUER: How much of your push for a new trial is based on the Justice
Departments report on the FBI crime lab and its handling of evidence in other cases?
Mr. SILVERGLATE: Well, we are looking to reopen the motion from the trial proceedings based on the crime lab information. The actual motion for a new trial is based on a huge quantity of evidence that shows that MacDonald didn't do the crime, evidence, which was hidden for decades in government files in which over the years we have pulled out through the Freedom Of Information Act.
LAUER: But over the years other courts have turned down an appeal based on that evidence, so this new evidence based on the crime lab handling of evidence must be what you think is important enough to get this case reopened?
Mr. SILVERGLATE: Yes, because you see a few years ago the court turned down the motion for new trial because it said that the key piece of evidence that we discovered in the government file, which was 22 and 24-inch blond synthetic fibers, were not from a wig, because Agent Malone filed two affidavits saying the material they were made from, Saran, was never used to make wigs. It was used only to make doll hair.
LAUER: And you found what?
Mr. SILVERGLATE: We found in a four-year investigation that Malone did a field--did field interviews of experts all over the country, was told that these fibers very likely were wig fibers, that Saran was used for wigs, and he couldn't find an expert to say otherwise, and so he filed his own affidavit saying that Saran was not used for wigs.
LAUER: Do you think that Michael Malone lied in his written testimony in the MacDonald case?
Mr. SILVERGLATE: Yes, Michael Malone lied, and Michael Malone lied under oath.
LAUER: What chance...
Mr. SILVERGATE: And--and I might add, the court specifically dismissed our motion for a new trial based upon Malone's perjured affidavit testimony.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th April 2019 at 02:56 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 13th April 2019, 03:24 PM   #1217
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Rriigghhtt

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Helena Stoeckley was lying through her teeth at the MacDonald trial in 1979. It's what is known technically as perjury. Some people, like 4th Circuit judges, are no good at telling if somebody is telling the truth or not.

The matter of the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers at the crime scene was discussed with MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate once:

http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/...?cuecard=47887
I wasn't aware that Stoeckley was charged with perjury? Just another "fact" that is culled from your wild imagination. I noticed how you stayed away from Bernie Segal perjuring himself at the 1979 trial. He claimed that Stoeckley told the defense team she was present at the crime scene, yet Wade Smith told Judge Dupree that Stoeckley made no such claim.

Silverglate got his butt kicked at the 1992 oral arguments session before the 4th Circuit Court. Six years later, he got an additional kick when this same court denied inmate relief. The 3 judge panel found Silverglate's unsourced fiber argument to be "specious" evidence. In 4 years of research, Silverglate's team was unable to produce a cosmetic saran wig used for human wear.

In regards to inmate's well-deserved reputation as a serial fabricator...

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

Again, I'm challenging you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th April 2019 at 03:28 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 14th April 2019, 02:15 AM   #1218
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I wasn't aware that Stoeckley was charged with perjury? Just another "fact" that is culled from your wild imagination. I noticed how you stayed away from Bernie Segal perjuring himself at the 1979 trial. He claimed that Stoeckley told the defense team she was present at the crime scene, yet Wade Smith told Judge Dupree that Stoeckley made no such claim.
Wade Smith now doesn't remember if Helena Stoeckley confessed to Segal. The trouble is there is no video or recorded evidence of what she said to Segal. The point is she was quite happy to confess to numerous other people, including her own lawyer Leonard, as long as she didn't have to save her own skin by confessing in a courtroom. The jury were never informed about it thanks to Judge Dupree who made some sort of silly remark, something like she was a poor befuddled creature.

The matter is explained at this website:

https://bret1111.blogspot.com/2010/1...macdonald.html

Quote:
In addition, Segal claimed to have located the woman MacDonald witnessed in the floppy white hat at the scene. Her name was Helena Stoeckley, the daughter of a retired army colonel, and she was a well-known drug user in the area of Fort Bragg. Several witnesses claimed that Stoeckley had admitted to them that she had been involved in the crime. Plus, several witnesses remembered Stoeckley wearing similar clothing during the time frame of the incident just as MacDonald had described.

During a six-week pre-court marshal hearing, Col. Rock learned that Helena Stoeckley had made statements suggesting she had been involved in the killings. It was revealed that Stoeckley was a narcotic informer for army military police and local law enforcement.

Stoeckley admitted to army investigators that she had been wearing a floppy hat, blonde wig and boots on the night of the murder. She later admitted that she had burned the hat, wig and boots, fearing they would incriminate her in the crime. She also claimed she was on drugs at the times of the incident and had no alibi for that evening.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th April 2019 at 02:18 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 14th April 2019, 02:32 AM   #1219
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
I'm not an expert on legal history, but I do know that witnesses in the past, even in murder trials, have perjured themselves as a matter of course. I also don't know what penalties these witnesses have ever suffered, if any. FBI lab technicians have never been caught or punished for perjury.

There is a bit about this matter at this website:

https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/perjury/

Quote:
Perjury in Texas
According to Texas Penal Code 37.02, perjury occurs when a person, with intent to deceive and knowledge of the statement’s meaning:
Makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required to be made under oath; or
makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
In addition to lying in court, perjury also could include lying on your tax return, during a deposition or in an affidavit.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th April 2019 at 02:34 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:02 PM   #1220
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Wrong Again

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Wade Smith now doesn't remember if Helena Stoeckley confessed to Segal. The trouble is there is no video or recorded evidence of what she said to Segal. The point is she was quite happy to confess to numerous other people, including her own lawyer Leonard, as long as she didn't have to save her own skin by confessing in a courtroom. The jury were never informed about it thanks to Judge Dupree who made some sort of silly remark, something like she was a poor befuddled creature.

The matter is explained at this website:

https://bret1111.blogspot.com/2010/1...macdonald.html
Hate to break it to you, but Smith was in the room when Stoeckley was being interviewed by Segal, and he was clear with Judge Dupree that Stoeckley did not confess to being present at the crime scene. You can spin your fantasy narratives until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that Segal lied to Judge Dupree about Stoeckley making inculpatory statements during the defense team interview.

In regards to inmate's well-deserved reputation as a serial fabricator...

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

Again, I'm challenging you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th April 2019 at 01:03 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 15th April 2019, 05:31 AM   #1221
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That has never been proved.
Yes it has been proven. Wig makers specifically stated that saran could not be made into a tow fiber in the late 60's early 70's and therefore cosmetic wigs could not be made of saran.

In all the years since inmate slaughtered Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy not one single cosmetic wig made of saran from that era has been found. Doll wigs, Costume wigs, and mannequin wigs could be made from saran. Despite exhaustive efforts to locate a cosmetic wig made of saran by various defense persons none has ever been located BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Malone has been proved to be a total liar, and he was making it up.
Not so henri and besides that Malone was not involved in the trial of inmate only the appeals. He did not lie and certainly has never been proven to have lied.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Unfortunately Helena got rid of her blonde wig after the MacDonald murders so the matter has never been proved one way or the other.
Even if Helena had been wearing her wig that night it still wouldn't have made her match the description inmate gave. Helena's wig was a "bob" like below - no way that could be described as long and stringy:

https://www.wigs.com/collections/bob...nt=32275835466

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I have always thought the wig was some kind of joke shop or witchcraft shop cheap wig, possibly manufactured in the Far East, and manufactured from a multitude of fibers.
well that is not likely because (1) there was no witchcraft shop in the area and (2)joke shops don't usually carry wigs and (3) a costume or "cheap" wig would not have survived frequent wearing since they are not designed to be worn all the time and (4) wiglets, hair pieces, falls, etc were common accessories for women in the 1960s as were wigs but cosmetic wigs could not be made from saran (although hair pieces could be since they didn't require a tow fiber) and (5) Helena's wig was a "bob" which cannot be called long and stringy.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree there is no real proof of that either. The matter was discussed on a forum in 1998:
There is no proof of your theories there is proof that Helena's wig was a cosmetic wig and a bob cut and thus could not have been made of saran. Also, doll wigs were made of saran and the saran fibers were matched to doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection. Just because you don't like that FACT doesn't make it any less TRUE.

Once again you have proven that you hate Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy - now tell us why?
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 03:31 PM   #1222
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
The only thing Helena said with more consistency than "I don't remember what I did that night, I was high" was: "I wasn't wearing my wig that night because my boo didn't like it" and, yeah, I'm paraphrasing. But she ALWAYS said she wasn't wearing the wig, although she could be talked into admitting the lie that she was there. And as high as she was, her fingerprints should have been everywhere in the quarters. Segal even showed her pictures so she'd know what the crime scene looked like in an attempt to get her to confess. Her response: more or less, "Nobody on acid would do that, maybe on uppers."
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 15th April 2019, 05:29 PM   #1223
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Household Debris, Serial Fabricator, And Challenges

One could write a short story on why the unsourced saran fibers (e.g., household debris) were a non-issue. Stoeckley didn't even own a blond wig, but she would occasionally borrow her roommate's (e.g., Kathy Smith) blond wig. The wig was a cosmetic wig and since is was only an ear-length wig, it would be an unlikely source for fibers measuring 22 and 24 inches in length. As mentioned in previous posts, Stoeckley denied under oath that she was wearing her roommate's blond wig on 2/17/70.

In 1974, Paul Stombaugh analyzed every fiber and hair collected at the crime scene, and he made the following notation regarding the blond saran fibers.

"Synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

In 1990, FBI Special Agent Robert Webb analyzed the fibers and concluded that the 24-inch and nine-inch saran fibers differed in chemical composition to the 22-inch saran fiber. This indicated that the three saran fibers came from two different source materials. In terms of dolls being the source material for the three saran fibers, Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection, and Kimberley had several dolls of her own. In 1990, hair and fiber expert Michael Malone matched the 24-inch saran fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the saran fibers matched any wig exemplar in the FBI's reference collection. There were also two platinum-colored synthetic hairs found in hairbrushes at the crime scene and Malone matched these synthetic hairs to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald.

In regards to inmate's well-deserved reputation as a serial fabricator...

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

Again, I'm challenging the Landlord to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 15th April 2019 at 05:33 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 15th April 2019, 07:40 PM   #1224
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
A few queries...

I'm new to this forum, but have followed this case since the 1980's. As a new mother with 3 children, then and now, the horror of this crime has never gone away. So a few questions:

- why is it so difficult for people to accept that men kill their wives, partners and children? It's an epidemic that there is no answer to. To accept this fact would enable you to reasonably look at the facts and evidence.

- why would the hundreds of people (investigators, police, the judicial system etc.) involved in the case over the last 49 years, all be conspiring to frame Jeffrey Macdonald? He's just another in a long line of blokes who murder their families.

- with the overwhelming facts and evidence presented and accepted by the legal system in the last 49 years, to continue to ignore this is really embarrassing for anyone who clings to the supposed conspiracy. Time to wake up. Maybe the conspiracy theorists are just lonely and need this outlet to pass the time.

I read in a newspaper article a few years ago the following statement, that I think sums up this case in the simplest way:

"Someone in that house wearing his pyjama top, with his blood type, with his footprints, killed those people. Everything that’s come out since then hasn’t really contradicted the physical evidence of the case.”
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 15th April 2019, 08:37 PM   #1225
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Welcome

Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
I'm new to this forum, but have followed this case since the 1980's. As a new mother with 3 children, then and now, the horror of this crime has never gone away. So a few questions:

- why is it so difficult for people to accept that men kill their wives, partners and children? It's an epidemic that there is no answer to. To accept this fact would enable you to reasonably look at the facts and evidence.

- why would the hundreds of people (investigators, police, the judicial system etc.) involved in the case over the last 49 years, all be conspiring to frame Jeffrey Macdonald? He's just another in a long line of blokes who murder their families.

- with the overwhelming facts and evidence presented and accepted by the legal system in the last 49 years, to continue to ignore this is really embarrassing for anyone who clings to the supposed conspiracy. Time to wake up. Maybe the conspiracy theorists are just lonely and need this outlet to pass the time.

I read in a newspaper article a few years ago the following statement, that I think sums up this case in the simplest way:

"Someone in that house wearing his pyjama top, with his blood type, with his footprints, killed those people. Everything that’s come out since then hasn’t really contradicted the physical evidence of the case.”
Welcome to the forum. In response to your questions...

1) In regards to this case, the difficulty in accepting inmate's guilt was due to several factors. This includes inmate being white, good looking, charming, and intelligent. Inmate was further helped by the Manson murders occurring just 6 months prior to inmate's horrific act and the bad press received by the Army CID for their case presentation at the Article 32 hearings.

2) The conspiracy nonsense was put forth by inmate's advocates and they felt it was the only way to combat the mass of inculpatory evidence in this case.

3) Inmate sunk himself when he claimed that he removed his torn pajama top after "finding" his wife dead in the master bedroom. Inmate's claim was contradicted by the FACT that fibers from his torn pajama top were found under bodies, bedcovers, adhering to one of the murder weapons, and under Kristen's fingernail. Inmate's claim also contradicted the FACT that Kimmie's blood was found on the garment and that his wife's blood was found on the garment in 10 locations BEFORE the garment was torn down the left front seam.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 15th April 2019 at 08:43 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 16th April 2019, 04:39 AM   #1226
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
I'm new to this forum, but have followed this case since the 1980's.
Welcome to the discussions.

Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
As a new mother with 3 children, then and now, the horror of this crime has never gone away. So a few questions:

- why is it so difficult for people to accept that men kill their wives, partners and children? It's an epidemic that there is no answer to. To accept this fact would enable you to reasonably look at the facts and evidence.
Sadly, even now there are people who do not want to believe that a father would kills his children or that an allegedly loving husband would kill his wife. In this case part of the problem stems from inmate being considered "a golden boy" intelligent, a doctor, "attractive" etc. (I personally find him smarmy but that might just be due to the fact that I know what he did).

Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
- why would the hundreds of people (investigators, police, the judicial system etc.) involved in the case over the last 49 years, all be conspiring to frame Jeffrey Macdonald? He's just another in a long line of blokes who murder their families.
only in inmate's own mind was he ever important enough to become the target of such a wide reaching conspiracy. However, there was someone on the defense team that believed inmate was part of a PsyOps experiment to create a super soldier. The problems with this theory are numerous but it was expounded to explain the conspiracy.

The problems with the PsyOps "super soldier" theory include:
1. the USArmy (if they were doing such experimentation) would have chosen soldiers without family in case anything went wrong.
2. the USArmy would not have chosen a Medical Doctor for such training.
3. the USArmy would not have been able to keep knowledge of such experimentation within the Army units responsible it would have long since been common knowledge.

Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
- with the overwhelming facts and evidence presented and accepted by the legal system in the last 49 years, to continue to ignore this is really embarrassing for anyone who clings to the supposed conspiracy. Time to wake up. Maybe the conspiracy theorists are just lonely and need this outlet to pass the time.
I have pointed out to the most conspicuous conspiracy theorist/troll several times that as Benjamin Franklin once stated "Three men may keep a secret only after two of them are dead".
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 16th April 2019, 07:54 AM   #1227
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Inmate's claim was contradicted by the FACT that fibers from his torn pajama top were found under bodies, bedcovers, adhering to one of the murder weapons, and under Kristen's fingernail. Inmate's claim also contradicted the FACT that Kimmie's blood was found on the garment and that his wife's blood was found on the garment in 10 locations BEFORE the garment was torn down the left front seam.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's a lie. Glisson was in disagreement with Stombaugh about all that and she was a qualified serologist, unlike Stombaugh. There were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon. They were black wool fibers with no known source which was not discovered by the defense until after the trial. It was specious evidence.
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 16th April 2019, 08:17 AM   #1228
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
I read in a newspaper article a few years ago the following statement, that I think sums up this case in the simplest way:

"Someone in that house wearing his pyjama top, with his blood type, with his footprints, killed those people. Everything that’s come out since then hasn’t really contradicted the physical evidence of the case.”
That's being sparrow brained. It's truly outrageous. Have you ever heard of a man murdering his wife and children over a violent argument about bedwetting? I agree that assaults on women can be treated with absurd leniency but nobody is going to persuade me that Colette murdered one of the little girls, like the Bob Shaw of the Army CID theory without facts. The forensic psychiatrist, Sadoff, testified that he was fairly certain MacDonald didn't do it but the jury were never informed about that. The footprint evidence is a load of rubbish. MacDonald never denied they could be his footprints. It doesn't prove anything.

There is a bit about this sort of thing in that English Justice book by an anonymous solicitor published in 1932:

Quote:
Women magistrates, too are even more prone than men to convict on insufficient evidence in charges of offences against children, a class of case where the evidence needs exceedingly careful sifting...….. Success is obtained
by cunning and trickery rather than by clear thinking and knowledge of the law.
Perjury is very rife in the courts, and has few risks.
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 16th April 2019, 04:46 PM   #1229
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Wrong Again

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a lie. Glisson was in disagreement with Stombaugh about all that and she was a qualified serologist, unlike Stombaugh. There were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon. They were black wool fibers with no known source which was not discovered by the defense until after the trial. It was specious evidence.
You conveniently skipped over the FACT that Bernie Segal did not cross-examine CID Lab Technician Terry Laber at the 1979 trial. What was the nature of Laber's testimony?

The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette on top of the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom. The pocket was stained in six locations with Colette MacDonald's Type A blood. CID chemist Terry Laber analyzed the six Type A blood stains on the pocket.

At the 1979 trial, Laber stated that "the pajama top was soaked with blood over the entire area where the pocket had been." In contrast to the pajama top, the pocket was lightly stained with blood, and all six stains were located on the outside or face of the pocket. None of the stains, however, soaked through the double-layered fabric.

Laber also labeled each blood stain found the pocket with a number designation. The following are the blood stains that Laber identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial:

•Area 1: Light smearing stain on the pocket
•Area 2: Smear and spatter stains along the beading
•Area 3: Soaking stain along the pocket's edge
•Area 4: Soaking stain
•Area 5: Soaking stain
•Area 6: Soaking stain

Laber concluded that the totality of the evidence indicated that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood before the pocket was torn from the jacket.

Segal was also unable to put a dent in Paul Stombaugh's testimony regarding the presence of four bisected Type A blood stains found on inmate's pajama top. In terms of the trace evidence found on the club, there were several animal hairs, 2 unsourced dark woolen fibers, and 2 blue cotton fibers that were sourced to inmate's pajama top.

In regards to inmate's well-deserved reputation as a serial fabricator...

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

Again, I'm challenging you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 16th April 2019 at 04:49 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 16th April 2019, 05:34 PM   #1230
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
If you have children, you will have experienced times of overwhelming tiredness and frustration that push you to the limit. I think JMcD reached that point and argued with his wife, and unfortunately Kimberly was injured in that fight. He reached the point of no return in his mind.

This compulsive liar and serial adulterer, at that moment, decided on a course of action to set himself free. Men who kill their families have this in common, no surprises here.

With respect to the footprint evidence that JMcD admitted was probably his, the most compelling issue is, with the 3 people who he said committed these crimes and the blood in each bedroom - WHERE are their footprints??

This is not a hard case to work out, just a simple, overwhelmingly sad instance of another male wanting a different life.

Trying to steer this in another direction with mumbo jumbo is insulting to yourself and to the victims. JMcD just isn't worth it.
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 April 2019, 02:25 AM   #1231
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
You conveniently skipped over the FACT that Bernie Segal did not cross-examine CID Lab Technician Terry Laber at the 1979 trial. What was the nature of Laber's testimony?

The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette on top of the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom. The pocket was stained in six locations with Colette MacDonald's Type A blood. CID chemist Terry Laber analyzed the six Type A blood stains on the pocket.

At the 1979 trial, Laber stated that "the pajama top was soaked with blood over the entire area where the pocket had been." In contrast to the pajama top, the pocket was lightly stained with blood, and all six stains were located on the outside or face of the pocket. None of the stains, however, soaked through the double-layered fabric.

Laber also labeled each blood stain found the pocket with a number designation. The following are the blood stains that Laber identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial:

•Area 1: Light smearing stain on the pocket
•Area 2: Smear and spatter stains along the beading
•Area 3: Soaking stain along the pocket's edge
•Area 4: Soaking stain
•Area 5: Soaking stain
•Area 6: Soaking stain

Laber concluded that the totality of the evidence indicated that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood before the pocket was torn from the jacket.
I agree that it was a mistake by Segal at the trial not to cross-examine Laber about the pajama pocket. That created a bad impression on the jury who assumed in their little minds that any mention of blood meant that MacDonald was obviously guilty. Segal needed his former partner from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970, Eisman, who had a through grasp of the whole business of the MacDonald case forensics:

The pajama pocket business was explained by Fred Bost in his short study:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html

Quote:
CLAIM 7 -- THE TORN PAJAMA POCKET

In conjunction with the "tear through the stain" theory, the government argued to the jury that the pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top had been stained with a spot of Colette's blood and torn loose during an initial bedroom fight between her and her husband. His pajama top then became stained at the place where the pocket was missing, while the pocket itself, with no further stains, lay forgotten on the floor.

There is only one physically certain fact concerning the displacement or movement of the pajama pocket -- it was found on top of the thrown back corner of the little throw rug in the master bedroom (review lower left portion of SHORT #5). Photographs show that the corner of the throw rug was turned up by the foot of Colette MacDonald (SHORT #25). This means the pajama pocket could have settled on the thrown back portion of the rug only after that particular movement of her body was completed. She and the room were already bloodied, so the pocket could have become bloodstained as it was moved to the thrown back section of the little rug. Thoughtless movement did occur within that room among a large number of persons (SHORT #26 & 27). As with the pajama pocket, bloody fibers were found on top of the thrown back corner of the little rug ( SHORT #28). The knife on the floor, seen pointing in one direction by a witness, was later photographed pointing in another direction (SHORT #29 & #30). People crowded into the cramped 12-by-16-foot space of the furniture filled room and changed positions frequently. The loose pocket could have been kicked around easily.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th April 2019 at 02:27 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 03:05 AM   #1232
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
With respect to the footprint evidence that JMcD admitted was probably his, the most compelling issue is, with the 3 people who he said committed these crimes and the blood in each bedroom - WHERE are their footprints??
The footprint evidence is confusing and the Army CID lab technicians disagreed about it among themselves. The real culprits were wearing shoes. Even Christina who is very anti-Macdonald seems confused about the matter. This is what she posted about footprints on a MacDonald forum in 2010:

Quote:
What's that crap about footprints in the area where Inmate fell unconscious, and how the writer fails to mention that it was a footprint of a bare foot in Colette's blood found exiting Kristen's room (yet none of Colette's blood was on the floor of that room). Oh, and that it was examined on site and matched to Inmate. All that traipsing around by people with wet boots in that hallway, yet somehow that piece of evidence survived.
If those 4th Circuit judges had been intelligent and judicially minded MacDonald might have been released years ago, or never convicted. It looks as though the corrupt lab technicians will never be prosecuted for perjury. There is a bit about that perjury matter in that book English Justice by an anonymous solicitor published in 1932:

Quote:
Publicity has, in the past, greatly added to the risk that perjury would be detected. Prosecutions for perjury are usually against witnesses for the defence. Adverse comment on this is unfair, for, however low a view may be taken of the police, no one has yet suggested that the balance of criminality is not to be found among the accused...….

A usual type of perjury, and one difficult to expose, is where a story is told true in every respect but one. The false point, is of course, of the utmost importance.
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 April 2019, 04:02 AM   #1233
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,845
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Have you ever heard of a man murdering his wife and children over a violent argument about bedwetting?
I seem to recall seeing a movie about 40 years ago on TV about something like that.

We named our first child Kristen because of that movie.

Hank
__________________
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

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th April 2019 at 04:15 AM.
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 April 2019, 04:12 AM   #1234
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,845
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that it was a mistake by Segal at the trial not to cross-examine Laber about the pajama pocket. That created a bad impression on the jury who assumed in their little minds that any mention of blood meant that MacDonald was obviously guilty.
Interesting. How many of the jurors did you speak to before reaching this conclusion?

Were those sworn statements, take under oath?

Are there published transcripts of the jury interviews you conducted that you can link to?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for the jurors and telling us what they were thinking.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?

Hank
__________________
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 April 2019, 05:09 AM   #1235
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a lie.
No it is FACT henri

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Glisson was in disagreement with Stombaugh about all that and she was a qualified serologist,
Glisson would not have "disagreed" with where the CID Crime Scene techs did or did not find fibers. Glisson was not qualified as a fiber expert or qualified to determine fabric impressions and STOMBAUGH WAS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE COUNTRY.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
there were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon.
Yes there WERE pajama fibers found on the murder weapon and then removed and placed in a pill vial for further examination. Just because you don't like the FACT that there were pj fibers on that murder club doesn't make it untrue.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They were black wool fibers with no known source which was not discovered by the defense until after the trial.
It was NEVER a question of either/or about fibers on the murder club. the black wool fibers were not removed for further examination because they were deemed insignificant. IT WAS NOT INSIGNIFICANT that fibers from inmate's pajama's were found on the murder club.

The black wool fibers are STILL insignificant because they are unsourced and therefore forensically useless as you have been told ad nauseum. The defense COULD have discovered the fibers existence IF they had reviewed the evidence immediately rather than Bernie playing games attempting to get evidence shipped all the way across the country for review. THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Among other reasons why murder evidence is not shipped all over the place is "chain of custody" and the chance that items could get lost and/or contaminated. The black wool fibers are useless and the pj fibers were examined and confirmed they were part of inmate's pjs.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was specious evidence.
No it was not...http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...notes-csc.html

the notes say (already removed)
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 17th April 2019, 06:08 AM   #1236
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
assumed in their little minds
Stop projecting.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 06:36 AM   #1237
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Fred Was Wrong

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that it was a mistake by Segal at the trial not to cross-examine Laber about the pajama pocket. That created a bad impression on the jury who assumed in their little minds that any mention of blood meant that MacDonald was obviously guilty. Segal needed his former partner from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970, Eisman, who had a through grasp of the whole business of the MacDonald case forensics:

The pajama pocket business was explained by Fred Bost in his short study:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html
I spoke with Fred about the 10 Type A blood stains found on inmate's pajama top BEFORE the garment was torn down the left front seam/sleeve. For whatever reason, he ignored the following excerpts from the 1979 trial.

In regards to the 6 Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, Brian Murtagh and James Blackburn presented the following analysis during their closing arguments at the 1979 trial:

Murtagh: From the photograph, you can see that the rug is turned up and that we appear to have the pocket upside down. I also ask you to recall, you have seen this rug and that there is no blood found on this piece of rug. Now, you may recall the testimony of Mr. Laber, the chemist from the CID lab in 1970, as to the testimony concerning the pocket from the pajama top. Mr. Laber, I believe, testified to not only the blood type of the 6 stains which was Type A, the same type as Colette, and I would ask you to find that it is Colette's blood on the pocket, but also that the stains were of two types —that there was smear on Area Two which is white beading and that the larger stains were contact or soaking stains. From that, I would ask you to find that Colette's blood was on the pocket before it was torn because as you recall, the stains do not penetrate the double layers of the fabric by the seams.

Blackburn: We know that the pocket was on the floor. I asked him about that and he said that he could think of a number of ways that it could be kicked over there and torn off when the pajama top was torn. Well, okay, but it is upside down and it has got Type A blood coming from the outside in and it is not spatter —it is contact. How did that happen? You recall Terry Laber's saying that in his opinion, that Type A blood got on there prior to the pocket being torn off and yet it didn't bleed from the inside out, but it bled from the outside in.

Fred Bost claimed that the 4 bisected blood stains found on the left side of the pajama top never existed, and that at the 1979 trial, Stombaugh could not point out the blood stains by sight. The following is the initial exchange between James Blackburn and Paul Stombaugh at the 1979 trial regarding the blood stains on the pajama top which could be seen with the naked eye.

Blackburn: Now, if you would, sir, maybe place it back up on the stand a little bit higher so everyone can see. Now, what examination, if any, did you conduct with respect to the blood-stained areas of that pajama top?

Stombaugh: The next question the CID wanted answered was whether or not this pajama top was torn before or after bloodstains were placed on it. In examining the torn areas to determine this, you look for a stain that has been placed on an object and then torn through. The contours of the edges would be the same. We found stained areas where such had occurred. These areas were up here in the left shoulder and down the sleeve area down at the cuff, and the cuff area, and in the left seam. These stains had been placed on there and then later on more blood added, but the stains were heavier and were easily visible at the time of the examination.

Blackburn: I wonder, sir, if you could maybe move the little table over here in front of the jury and maybe take the pajama top off the mannequin, or leave it on, whichever is best, and point out the areas to which you are referring.

Stombaugh: I am going to have to locate them first, Mr. Blackburn.

Blackburn: Maybe the jury could stand up.

Stombaugh: One of the stains is located right here. It is in a continuation. There is a larger stain on this side. Here is a small stain that was on there before it was torn. Here is in the cuff area of the left sleeve slightly up from the cuff area, I would say 2 to 3 inches. Up about 5 inches above that is another one, and then up in the shoulder area in this area here you can see a continuation of the stain from this portion which would be the left portion of the sleeve to the back portion where it was torn through. I found another area. This stain continues —

Blackburn: Before you start, for the record tell us.

Stombaugh: This is on the left side seam between the front left panel and the left side of the back panel. The continuation of this stain here, the heavier stain, and it comes around to here. At the time I examined it, I put some white marks on it, and another stain is just below that near the base of the stain and is a continuation of this stain here.

Blackburn: So it is your testimony that the blood got on the pajama top in those areas prior to its being torn; is that correct?

Stombaugh: That is correct.

In regards to inmate's well-deserved reputation as a serial fabricator...

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

Again, I'm challenging you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas (e.g., not ideas culled from blogs and websites) with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th April 2019 at 06:38 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 17th April 2019, 08:07 AM   #1238
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Interesting. How many of the jurors did you speak to before reaching this conclusion?

Were those sworn statements, take under oath?

Are there published transcripts of the jury interviews you conducted that you can link to?

I'm curious on what basis you make this claim, speaking for the jurors and telling us what they were thinking.

Surely you must have something. You wouldn't just make this up, would you?

Hank
This is what I have posted on this forum about this matter of MacDonald case juror opinions in 2013:

Quote:
This is an interesting opinion about the MacDonald case trial jury and Fred Thornhill from a 1999 opinion on the internet:

>Who has said anything about a "reluctant jury"?
The jurors.

"During a 1988 interview, Fred Thornhill confided that if the holdouts
had continued to resist, he, not totally convinced himself, might have
swung the other way..." He blamed his vote on a "lack of defense."

"Arnold Clary, another of the jurors interviewed in 1988, said that
throughout the trial he wanted to acquit MacDonald."

Neither of these two were the final holdouts. The last of two holdouts
was Eddie Parker who recalled, "A few us didn't believe he was
guilty." Later Parker said, "I still don't think Doctor MacDonald's
guilty. I try to put it out of my mind. I don't feel like he's
guilty, and I'll tell anybody I don't feel like he's guilty."

All the quotes above are taken from "Fatal Justice," pp. 246-247.


>I have a friend who personally
>knows one of the jurors, and this woman on the jury said the jury found it
>obvious he was guilty and they found his whole demeanor to be one of a guilty
>man.
Think it might have had anything whatever to do with the prosecution
hammering MacDonald with the lack of blood where Dr. MacDonald said he
was stabbed and bludgeoned into unconsciousness? The prosecution knew
that blood had been found there. The jurors agreed that was a key
point.

>Someone must be lying.

Yes indeed. It has been proven over and over the prosecution lied."
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 April 2019, 08:14 AM   #1239
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
snipped
When will we see your explanation of how "little white lies" on the part of your mancrush - claiming that he had committed murder - are acceptable when you accuse everybody and their dog of lying about the evidence in this case?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 08:31 AM   #1240
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I spoke with Fred about the 10 Type A blood stains found on inmate's pajama top BEFORE the garment was torn down the left front seam/sleeve. For whatever reason, he ignored the following excerpts from the 1979 trial.

In regards to the 6 Type A blood stains on the pajama top pocket, Brian Murtagh and James Blackburn presented the following analysis during their closing arguments at the 1979 trial:
As far as I can judge, Glisson was the experienced serologist, not Stombaugh or Laber or Shirley Green. Murtagh and Blackburn might just as well have asked a used car salesman about those fabric impressions and bloodstains. It was an obvious irregularity.

This is what Segal had to say about the matter in his turgid closing speech at the MacDonald trial and it's true:

Quote:
MR. SEGAL: Well, members of the jury, that is up to you to recall the qualifications of Mr. Stombaugh. One thing that is probably beyond any doubt is that he never had another University level course after he left the University. He said that from the time he left college and graduated with a Bachelor's degree, he never took another course. That is the person who comes in here -- none of what he has to answer anyway -- he comes in here and says, "I am an eyeballer. I am an expert eyeballer." What can he see that you can see as well as he can? What else did he say?

You remember the situation where he says, "This blood stain was made after the pajama top was torn"? The story is interesting for this point also. I said, "Do you mind showing me, please, where exactly -- do you mean these lines took place before or after? Show me?" He stared hard and he circled it red for the Government and yellow for me. We all stared at it. It is one of the exhibits that we have lying around here. I said, "I can't see that well. There is some better way." He said, "Oh, a light box." Lo and behold, he produced the light box for us. Take the pajama top and put it on and what did he show us? He looked and he looked and he said, "I can't see."

Now, that is the kind of evidence that you are being asked to say that Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption has been stripped from him. That is the new evidence. That is the difference between 1970 and 1979. Paul Stombaugh and Shirley Green coming here and doing sticks and coming here and doing their impressions and coming here with just unbelievable and incredible and unsupported opinions, none of which they have ever performed any demonstrations or experiments on. What is scientific method? Remember, we asked Shirley Green, "What is scientific method?" Her response was, "Doing things a scientific way." That wasn't meant to embarrass her, but it was meant to show you that there are scientists who know something about criminal investigation and the solutions to crime.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00 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.