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 28th December 2020, 03:39 PM   #2201
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In the past 8 years, this mass of inculpatory evidence has stood strong and even inmate knows that the legal phase of this case is finally over.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's as maybe but the fact is that MacDonald is innocent.That's a criticism of the administration of justice in America. I dread to think what it's like in other countries. It's another miscarriage of justice case which doesn't have a happy ending, which happy endings you usually find happen in Hollywood movies when they portray this sort of case with actors.

There is a fair and just account of the MacDonald legal position at the moment at this website:

https://www.distractify.com/p/jeffrey-macdonald-update

'MacDonald was reportedly up for parole in May of 2020, but he is still in prison. According to a 2017 article from People, he would have to admit to the murders in order to get released. He has never confessed to the killings.'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th December 2020 at 03:41 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2020, 02:57 AM   #2202
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's as maybe but the fact is that MacDonald is innocent.That's a criticism of the administration of justice in America. I dread to think what it's like in other countries. It's another miscarriage of justice case which doesn't have a happy ending, which happy endings you usually find happen in Hollywood movies when they portray this sort of case with actors.

There is a fair and just account of the MacDonald legal position at the moment at this website:

https://www.distractify.com/p/jeffrey-macdonald-update

'MacDonald was reportedly up for parole in May of 2020, but he is still in prison. According to a 2017 article from People, he would have to admit to the murders in order to get released. He has never confessed to the killings.'
At the 1979 trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items which included inculpatory blood, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric and non-fabric impression evidence. The defense was unable to produce a single evidentiary item that was DEFINITVELY sourced to a known intruder suspect. The jury didn't buy the ridiculous hippie home invader story put forth by inmate, but they were impressed with the mass of inculpatory evidence in this case. In 2005, inmate went before the parole board for the first time, but he attempted an end run around the parole system by seeking a pardon. The result of this ruse was that inmate was denied parole AND the board ruled that inmate couldn't apply for parole again until 2020. In 2006, DNA test results provided further proof of inmate's guilt, inmate did not apply for parole in 2020, and he is attempting ANOTHER end run around the parole system. This end run involves inmate seeking a Compassionate Release based on allegedly "serious" medical issues. This reminds me of a quote from the late, great CID agent Peter Kearns.

"You can ask any con who has served time with MacDonald and they will tell you who he really is. A con knows when he is dealing with another con and that's what MacDonald is. He's a con artist."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th December 2020 at 03:03 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 29th December 2020, 09:35 AM   #2203
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
This reminds me of a quote from the late, great CID agent Peter Kearns.

"You can ask any con who has served time with MacDonald and they will tell you who he really is. A con knows when he is dealing with another con and that's what MacDonald is. He's a con artist."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF's hero Kearns was a lousy detective. It was people like Stombaugh and Malone and Shirley Green of the FBI who were con artists, and others were liars.

I wrote about Kearns and his pseudo opinions on this forum in January 2014. It's like a broken record:

Henri McPhee 11th January 2014 09:57 AM

'I'm sorry if it wasn't you who mentioned footprints but you people all seem to say the same sort of thing. I fully appreciate that footprints can have forensic significance but they are rather like fingerprints. Murder investigators hope to find footprints but they do not expect to find footprints unless the murderers get careless.

Kearns of the Army CID was not an experienced homicide detective and he did not get it right in the MacDonald case. He was the goon who was 'sure' MacDonald was lying about Kristen wetting the bed and so he ordered the urine stain to be tested after eighty weeks to somehow prove it was Kim's. You don't have to have an expert opinion to know that a test like that can't possibly be scientifically correct.

Kearns then went to New York to tell the Kassabs that MacDonald was a womanizer. The point is that though you might be a pro-Nazi Catholic, being a womanizer is not necessarily relevant to a murder investigation. What about President Kennedy and Clinton and Hollande of France then?

The blood and fiber evidence is very far from being overwhelming. I agree there was blood supposedly found in strange places, but it can be unfair to ask MacDonald to explain that. It could have come from the murder weapon dripping blood from different victims. He had nothing to do with it. The pajama-like fibers is extremely weak evidence and highly controversial.

There is a bit about this matter on an internet website:


"A small brown hair in Colette's left hand.(59) This hair was tested and matched neither MacDonald nor anyone else present at the crime scene. (100)
Both Kimberly and Kristen had brown hairs found under their fingernails. CID lab reports indicate that these hairs did not match one another, nor did they match MacDonald. (59) Both hair samples remained unreported evidence.
In addition to the hair and fiber evidence on the victims, a twenty-two inch synthetic blond wig hair was found on a brush on the telephone seat near where MacDonald said he saw the blond female. (60)

The Boston Globe ran an article about the 1990 effort led by Harvey Silverglate to set aside MacDonald's conviction based on evidence suppressed at the first trial. Evidence outlined in the article includes black wool fibers on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and on one of the murder weapons, all discovered by FBI forensic expert James Frier. The black wool fibers, in addition to several other unidentified green, brown, and white wool fibers, were not matched to any clothes present in the MacDonald home, and were not disclosed by the prosecutor at the trial, according to the court filing. (1)

Fatal Justice states that during the MacDonald trial the prosecution released no evidence or lab reports to the defense. Because the prosecutor, Brian Murtagh, insisted that the lab reports held nothing to support MacDonald's claims, the judge refused to make Murtagh release the lab documents to the defense.(131) The Freedom of Information act released these reports years after the trial ended, providing MacDonald's defense team with a list of potential evidence which was not accurately released to the jury at the MacDonald trial, and therefore could form the basis for an appeal."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th December 2020 at 09:46 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2020, 11:10 AM   #2204
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Wow

HENRI: Inmate's legal fate appears to have locked you in a cognitive box that contains the remnants of a persona you created back in the early 2000's. Your decision to copy and paste a disjointed, bizarre post from 6 years ago is further evidence of your adherence to this persona.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th December 2020 at 11:16 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 29th December 2020, 01:15 PM   #2205
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,073
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's as maybe but the fact is that MacDonald is innocent.
Not according to the courts and juries that have heard and reviewed the evidence.
__________________
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 30th December 2020, 02:22 AM   #2206
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Not according to the courts and juries that have heard and reviewed the evidence.
The courts and juries who heard and reviewed the MacDonald case were violently prejudiced and biased. They came from North Carolina. I still think it's ridiculous that the trial judge Dupree heard the appeals. How would you like your case if you were in a legal tangle to be decided about guilt or innocence by Judge Dupree? It looks to me as though there are no juries in South Africa probably for that very reason. Juries must be presented with the full facts at trial.

The in bed with the prosecution judges argument seems to be that even if evidence of innocence is presented to a court then that would not change the mind of a jury. It's absurd and is the sort of thing that happens in China or Iran.

This is the sort of legal waffle that was presented at MacDonald appeals to explain why the moon is made of green cheese. It's ridiculous. Celebrities like Elton John and David Beckham should have more to say about this if they had the brains.

This is from that idiot Circuit Judge Donald Russell about the MacDonald case. Can you honestly say you agree with this?

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...A_opinion.html

"MacDonald's counsel argues that government concealment of this evidence at trial prevented counsel from later discovering and then raising the evidence in the first habeas petition. While MacDonald may have an argument for cause at trial, the argument is inapposite here. Counsel's possession of the relevant documents prior to the first habeas petition negated any concealment claim. We find that MacDonald has made no credible showing of cause.

Having dispensed with the cause and prejudice exception, we now determine whether MacDonald has shown that dismissal of his petition would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. This is a difficult showing to make. Courts are instructed to grant review under this exception only in "extraordinary instances." McCleskey, 111 S.Ct. at 1470. We find that this case does not constitute such an instance. The evidence raised here, when considered with all the trial evidence, simply does not rise to a "colorable showing of factual innocence" necessary to show a fundamental miscarriage of justice. It neither supports MacDonald's account of the murders nor discredits the government's theory. The most that can be said about the evidence is that it raises speculation concerning its origins. Furthermore, the origins of the hair and fiber evidence have several likely explanations other than intruders. The evidence simply does not escalate the unease one feels with this case into a reasonable doubt.

We have carefully reviewed the voluminous record of evidence in this case, beginning with the original military Article 32 proceedings through the present habeas petition, which contains over 4,000 pages. Yet we do not find anything to convince us that the evidence introduced here, considered with that previously amassed, probably would have raised reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th December 2020 at 02:30 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 30th December 2020, 07:12 AM   #2207
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Still Waiting Part 1004

HENRI: Again, still waiting (e.g., 17 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. Meanwhile, the evidence that was collected and analyzed by the CID, FBI, and AFIP has kept inmate in prison for 39 of the past 41 years.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2020, 09:01 AM   #2208
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: Again, still waiting (e.g., 17 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect. Meanwhile, the evidence that was collected and analyzed by the CID, FBI, and AFIP has kept inmate in prison for 39 of the past 41 years.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Well how would you like to be told by Kearns that you were under suspicion while Stoeckley and Mitchell were only questioned to eliminate them? It would be farcical if it wasn't for the tragedy involved. The judges involved in the MacDonald case came from North Carolina but they can't help it. The FBI needs to learn how to solve difficult murders. How about a bit of brilliant detection, or even routine police work?

That silly fool North Carolina Circuit judge Donald Russell supported by senior Circuit Judge Butzner had a spurious argument in 1992 that MacDonald couldn't appeal under the recent McCleskey law claiming that MacDonald lawyers were told about the suppressed exculpatory evidence before 1985. That is computerised crap. It reminds me a bit of Saudi Arabia justice:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...03_murphy.html

8. 'In addition to the above, during the course of my most recent review of O'Neill's files, I came across an internal memorandum which further confirms that O'Neill's office never received Glisson's confirmatory synthetic hair lab note. This memo, dated June 30, 1986, from an employee named Steve Kapiloff to O'Neill, entitled "Jeffrey MacDonald, FOIA Request, Summary of Materials," appears to have been written in response to a request by O'Neill for an inventory of all FOIA materials that had been received by O'Neill's office as of that date. (A copy of this memo is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) Kapiloff's review encompassed FOIA materials received by O'Neill from the Department of Justice, the Army, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons and the Internal Revenue Service. On page three of the Kapiloff memo, the following appears with respect to FOIA disclosures by the Army CID:
It appears as though the Department of the Army (DOA) sent all of the materials requested to MacDonald. The material sent does contain some deletions. In a letter dated 12/19/83 BON [Brian O'Neill] requested that the deleted material be released. No reply to this request was in the file. A memo in the files says that 3,048 documents (it must mean pages) were sent by DOA. 59 documents (pages) were denied, then reconsidered and sent.'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th December 2020 at 09:09 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 30th December 2020, 09:25 AM   #2209
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Colonel Rock got it right with regard to the MacDonald case in 1970. That thick North Carolina Judge Donald Russell claims he read thousands of pages of the Article 32 transcript and examined the fiber evidence, and he then claims it proves MacDonald guilty. I don't believe him. Judges seem to know zilch about forensics anyway. There was an IRA bombing case mentioned on another thread on this forum where washing up liquid on a towel was mistaken for gelignite, or dynamite:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...rt32_rock.html

'RECOMMENDATIONS

In the interest of military justice and discipline, it is mended that:

(1) All charges and specifications against Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald be dismissed because the matters set forth in all charges and specifications are not true. There are no lesser charges and/or specifications which are appropriate.

(2) That appropriate civilian authorities be requested to investigate the alibi of Helena Stoeckley, Fayetteville, North Carolina, reference her activities and whereabouts during the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, based on evidence presented during the hearing.'

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th December 2020 at 09:28 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 30th December 2020, 09:25 AM   #2210
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,073
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The courts and juries who heard and reviewed the MacDonald case were violently prejudiced and biased.
Don't get mad. They weren't working your side of the street.

Whatever you think of Kearns aside, his observation is spot-on.

Cons have no difficulty in recognizing their own, or in recognizing cops - even old retired farts like me. It's funny seeing the recognition in a person's face when they realize their ******** isn't working.
__________________
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 30th December 2020, 09:51 AM   #2211
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post

Whatever you think of Kearns aside, his observation is spot-on.

Cons have no difficulty in recognizing their own, or in recognizing cops - even old retired farts like me. It's funny seeing the recognition in a person's face when they realize their ******** isn't working.
I agree that anybody can have a funny feeling if somebody is a bad character maddened by drink, including inmates in prison. The trouble is some people have no good in them at all and they are often sexually attractive. They often manage to obtain early release, or probation, because of that and are then able to murder again. It's a question of judgement of character and judges and police and inmates, and even juries, are not necessarily good at that. The police are apt to jump to conclusions.

I don't think MacDonald will ever murder anybody if he is released, apart perhaps Murtagh.

It did make me cross when Fox News were accusing Burke Ramsey in the JonBenet Ramsey case. That seems to have been settled out of court. Others, including the Portuguese police were accusing the parents of Madeleine McCann of her murder in best selling books which also made me cross.

This is some gossip from the internet about what inmates think about MacDonald:

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/25...r-green-beret-

"I knew someone who knew one of his fellow inmates. He said McDonald was well liked in prison. He was a doctor, so he tried to help his fellow inmates, although I believe his license was revoked, so he had to be careful. Apparently, he was considered to be a friend to all.

The person I knew also had an interest in true crime and had followed his story extensively. It was their opinion that he was guilty, but very intelligent and therefore able to con people to some extent about it."

—Anonymous

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th December 2020 at 10:01 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 30th December 2020, 12:09 PM   #2212
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,073
Classic HM "evidence."

"I knew someone who knew one of his fellow inmates."

And Anon to boot - maybe some anonymous person who once drove through North Carolina might might have something interesting to say on the subject.
__________________
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 1st January 2021, 02:38 AM   #2213
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
These silly, and even corrupt, North Carolina judges in the MacDonald case, who can't concentrate sufficiently to listen to the evidence remind me of pundits on TV shows discussing mass surveillance in America and Britain and China. None of them ever mention telephone tapping or electronic eavesdropping which I consider to be very relevant. I assume it must be because of orders from TV executives, or their advertising department, and they are really only interested in the price of Bitcoin. Poor Assange and Snowden.

Great care has to be taken that the court, whatever its nature, is not in any way personally interested in the matter before it. It is regarded by our law as of the greatest importance that the administration of justice should be above any possible suspicion of bias.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2021, 08:01 AM   #2214
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Cricket Noises

No word yet on whether inmate's 2nd attempt at an end run around the parole system has reached a conclusion. In 2005, inmate went before the parole board for the first time, but he attempted an end run around the parole system by seeking a pardon. The result of this ruse was that inmate was denied parole AND the board ruled that inmate couldn't apply for parole again until 2020. In 2006, DNA test results provided further proof of inmate's guilt, inmate did not apply for parole in 2020, and his current end run attempt involves inmate seeking a Compassionate Release based on allegedly "serious" medical issues.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 3rd January 2021 at 08:04 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 8th January 2021, 01:19 PM   #2215
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
No word yet on whether inmate's 2nd attempt at an end run around the parole system has reached a conclusion. In 2005, inmate went before the parole board for the first time, but he attempted an end run around the parole system by seeking a pardon. The result of this ruse was that inmate was denied parole AND the board ruled that inmate couldn't apply for parole again until 2020. In 2006, DNA test results provided further proof of inmate's guilt, inmate did not apply for parole in 2020, and his current end run attempt involves inmate seeking a Compassionate Release based on allegedly "serious" medical issues.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

But he deserves NO compassion (as I strongly suspect you'll agree). He brutally murdered his own wife and children. THEY are the victims, not inmate (although inmate's defenders try to make inmate the "victim").

Henri, we're past all the stuff you're whining about. "Bad" judges, "bad" prosecutor(s), blah blah.

You/inmate must give us PROOF (ALMOST) BEYOND DOUBT that someone else killed his family. Inmate now has to PROVE that he is INNOCENT, not just "not proven guilty" (which he was anyway). Of course that's never going to happen.

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 8th January 2021 at 01:21 PM.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2021, 06:05 PM   #2216
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Inmate's Burden

Inmate and his defense team have had more chances (e.g., 8 appellate hearings) to meet that "daunting burden," than any murderer in history. He knows that the legal phase (e.g., appellate system) of his case is over, so he is now seeking a Compassionate Release. As Scott pointed out, he showed his family no mercy or compassion, so this latest end run around the parole system will simply be another failed attempt at shirking his duties at the Cumberland Correctional Center.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 8th January 2021 at 06:08 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 9th January 2021, 10:31 AM   #2217
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,018
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
More about Ron Harrison from the grand jury:

And, as I recall, Jeff asked somebody -- Colette, maybe -- "Where is the ice pick?" He was the host and couldn't find it right away.
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Inmate is hosting a party at his residence and asks Colette or another guest, "Where is the ice pick?" yet the CID's conclusion that inmate owned an ice pick is a lie? Hilarious.
I honestly can say I've never turned to my wife and asked where she parked the Volkswagen, especially since we don't own a Volkswagen. Asking for the location of something that doesn't exist is not the sign of a mentally stable person. Is it Henri's argument that MacDonald was mentally unhinged?

There's only one reason to ask about the location of the ice pick .. you know it exists and it's gotta be around somewhere.

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; 9th January 2021 at 10:33 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 9th January 2021, 10:46 AM   #2218
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,018
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He [Kearns] was the goon who was 'sure' MacDonald was lying about Kristen wetting the bed and so he ordered the urine stain to be tested after eighty weeks to somehow prove it was Kim's.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Kearns just knew MacDonald did it because of a urine stain which he ordered to be reinvestigated after ninety weeks!
Eighty, ninety, what's the the difference?

Do I hear one hundred? One hundred weeks? Anyone?

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 9th January 2021, 02:34 PM   #2219
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Eighty, ninety, what's the the difference?

Do I hear one hundred? One hundred weeks? Anyone?

Hank
This urine stain was one of many inculpatory evidentiary items that were not presented at the 1979 trial. Why? Well, the prosecution didn't want to overwhelm the jury with data, so they focused on THE most inculpatory evidentiary items in this case. In his 1998 Vanity Fair article on this case, Robert Sam Anson reported that the prosecution presented about 60 percent of their case file at the 1979 trial. The remaining 40 percent of the prosecution's case file coupled with the inculpatory DNA test results demonstrates the open and shut nature of inmate's guilt.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 9th January 2021 at 02:36 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 9th January 2021, 07:47 PM   #2220
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,121
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I honestly can say I've never turned to my wife and asked where she parked the Volkswagen, especially since we don't own a Volkswagen. Asking for the location of something that doesn't exist is not the sign of a mentally stable person. Is it Henri's argument that MacDonald was mentally unhinged?

There's only one reason to ask about the location of the ice pick .. you know it exists and it's gotta be around somewhere.

Hank
That question can also be evidence that MacDonald's later claim he didn't own an ice pick was a lie.

Also I am completely baffled. Virtually everyone at the time who had a freezer had an ice pick to remove ice that accumulated. It would have been very strange if MacDonald didn't have an ice pick!!
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2021, 12:50 AM   #2221
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
That question can also be evidence that MacDonald's later claim he didn't own an ice pick was a lie.

Also I am completely baffled. Virtually everyone at the time who had a freezer had an ice pick to remove ice that accumulated. It would have been very strange if MacDonald didn't have an ice pick!!
Inmate attempted to sell the Manson murder narrative (e.g., multiple intruders, multiple weapons) by denying that he owned any of the weapons found at the crime scene. Inmate knew that he couldn't sell a story that involved multiple home invaders suddenly deciding to obtain weapons from inside an unfamiliar domicile.

1) The Geneva Forge knife was a paring knife with a dull, bent blade. Analysis of the blade by FBI forensics expert, Paul Stombaugh, demonstrated that this knife made the two cuts in Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. In 1970, Pamela Kalin told CID investigators that when she was babysitting the MacDonald children, she remembered seeing this knife in the kitchen.

2) The Old Hickory knife was also a paring knife with an extremely sharp, straight blade. Analysis of the blade by Stombaugh demonstrated that this knife made the cuts in the pajamas worn by Colette and Kristen MacDonald. CID investigators traced the knife to either the Post Exchange on Fort Bragg or Pope Air Force Base.

3) The ice pick appeared to have been wiped clean of blood. Analysis of the blade by Stombaugh demonstrated that this weapon made the puncture holes in the pajamas worn by Jeffrey, Colette, and Kristen MacDonald. Three individuals came forward to state that they either saw the ice pick in the MacDonald residence or heard Jeffrey MacDonald mention that he owned an ice pick. During the 1979 trial, Mildred Kassab and Pamela Kalin testified to having seen an ice pick at the MacDonald residence. Ron Harrison was Jeffrey MacDonald's best friend at Fort Bragg, and he told both CID investigators and the Grand Jury that Jeffrey MacDonald was looking for an pick during a Thanksgiving visit. Harrison added that he used his own pocketknife to pry some ice apart after Jeffrey MacDonald couldn't locate the ice pick.

4) The club was a weathered piece of wood measuring 31 inches in length. In 1970, Fort Gordon labs matched paint found on the club to paint found on the sidewalk in the back of the MacDonald residence. In 1971, CID investigator William Ivory removed a wooden slat underneath Kimberley MacDonald's bed. Grain pattern analysis proved conclusively that the club had been sawed from one end of a piece of wood that had been used to make the bed slat. The club itself bore traces of Colette's Type A blood and Kimberley's Type AB blood. Two pajama seam threads were found stuck to the club in Colette's blood. Additional trace evidence found on the club included two unsourced dark woolen fibers, multiple fibers sourced to a throw rug in the master bedroom, and several unsourced animal hairs. Autopsy records concluded that the blunt trauma injuries to Colette and Kimberley were the result of blows from the club. Wooden splinters from the club were found in Colette's left hand, under her body, on top of the master bed, under the bedcovers in Kimberley's room, and on top of the bed in Kristen's room. No wood splinters were found in the living room where Jeffrey MacDonald claimed he was struck with the club.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 10th January 2021 at 12:53 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 10th January 2021, 12:51 AM   #2222
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
But he deserves NO compassion (as I strongly suspect you'll agree). He brutally murdered his own wife and children. THEY are the victims, not inmate (although inmate's defenders try to make inmate the "victim").

Henri, we're past all the stuff you're whining about. "Bad" judges, "bad" prosecutor(s), blah blah.

You/inmate must give us PROOF (ALMOST) BEYOND DOUBT that someone else killed his family. Inmate now has to PROVE that he is INNOCENT, not just "not proven guilty" (which he was anyway). Of course that's never going to happen.
The point is that under the British and American judicial system, from which it is descended, you are theoretically innocent until proved guilty. It's not like the Chinese or Iranian or Saudi Arabian system where you are guilty and then have the 'daunting burden' of proving your innocence.

I fully appreciate that juries have been wrong in the past. There was a famous murder trial in England in the 1930's in which a 'worthless creature' called Mancini was acquitted.Then he confessed to the murder on his deathbed. There was the OJ Simpson case in America. I remember my elder sister saying that she was once on a jury in a nasty case in which a father was accused of sexually assaulting his daughter. The little girl was asked in court if she knew the difference between right and wrong and truth and lies, My sister then implied that the father was acquitted. I do have my doubts about that case.

An extremely competent judge should be able to ask a jury why they came to a verdict and decision. If as in the MacDonald case they replied that there were no fibers in the living room or they didn't believe MacDonald about the ice pick or knives, or that the real culprits were never detected or that they had decided to convict before the trial started then that should be noted for an appeal or mistrial.

In the MacDonald case there were bad and bent judges and crooked and biased lawyers and bad police work, and the jury was wrong. Justice Marshall at the Supreme Court in 1982 was a good judge but he was outnumbered by bad judges. In the JonBenet case in America there were at least one or two good detectives like Lou Smit and Steve Ainsworth. In the Madeleine McCann case at least the German police seem to be on the correct murder trail.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th January 2021 at 12:56 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 10th January 2021, 01:30 AM   #2223
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
There is more about this matter of miscarriages of justice in that English Justice book by an anonymous police court solicitor published in 1932:

"It would be unfortunate were juries in criminal cases to be abolished. Apart from their possible value as a protection against the oppression of the executive, juries bring the ordinary citizen in contact with the administration of the criminal law. Men and women are compelled, to some extent at least, to realise their responsibilities. But unless some means of reform can be be found, juries in criminal trials will go the same way as they have in civil cases.

It is a useful exercise for any man or woman to read the evidence speeches, and summing up, in say, three or four of the "Notable British Trials" series, and then consider whether it is possible to be at all certain that the verdict was right. When doing this the editorial comments should be ignored, and the reader should bear in mind that the jury were not able able to read the evidence in comfort, re-reading at choice, but had to listen to it being slowly given and taken down during weary hours in a stuffy atmosphere. It should also be remembered that it is very unlikely that any of the jury were as intelligent and judicially minded as the reader...........

That there are comparatively few murder trials is not a reason for ignoring the possibility of miscarriages of justice. The hanging of an innocent man makes a whole nation responsible for a shocking crime. Would not Mr.Wallace have been hanged had it not been for the Court of Criminal Appeal? And have there not been others, who have been hanged, as to whom there is, to say the least, some doubt?

There are many other crimes beside murder. They are tried by juries who are undoubtedly satisfied with a lower degree of certainty than in murder cases. Owing to the incompetence of juries many guilty men escape. But many innocent men are convicted, and this is a worse evil, though the innocent who are convicted are not so numerous as the guilty who are acquitted."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th January 2021 at 02:03 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 10th January 2021, 01:41 AM   #2224
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
No wood splinters were found in the living room where Jeffrey MacDonald claimed he was struck with the club.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I have always understood that MacDonald thought he was hit by a baseball bat. It's simply not true to say that he claimed he was struck with the club. In any case it all happened so quickly, according to MacDonald only a few seconds. A baseball bat would not shed wood splinters anyway.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th January 2021 at 02:05 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 10th January 2021, 01:57 AM   #2225
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In 1970, Pamela Kalin told CID investigators that when she was babysitting the MacDonald children, she remembered seeing this knife in the kitchen.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't think that is quite correct either. From the babysitter Kalin being cross-examined by Wade Smith at the 1979 trial:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...in_pamela.html

Q Do you remember whether during the grand jury proceedings you had lunch with any lawyers?
A No.
Q You did not?
A No.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, let me ask you to refresh your recollection and state whether or not it isn't true that in February of 1970 you were interviewed by the CID and told them that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick anywhere in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q Do you remember that?
A No; I had no recollection of any of the weapons -- not just the ice pick.
Q You had no recollection at all on February 19, 1970, of ever seeing an ice pick in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q And then you were interviewed -- weren't you -- by the FBI and told them a few days after this event occurred that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick in the house; do you remember that?
A No.
Q But you do remember telling the CID that you had never seen an ice pick?
A I believe they came over to our house.
Q Do you remember now talking with them?
A Yes.
Q You remember?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember telling any of the lawyers for Dr. MacDonald, for example, a Mr. Malley, that you had never seen an ice pick at their house?
A I don't remember.
Q But you do recall that you had said on a number of occasions that you never saw an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th January 2021 at 02:00 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 10th January 2021, 04:49 PM   #2226
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Get Over It

The legal phase of the MacDonald Case has come to an end. Smerling admitted as much to several interviewers prior to the release of his 5 part series on FX. On 12/21/18, the 4th Circuit Court ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. By a vote of 3-0, the 4th Circuit concluded that...

"Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear MacDonald's appeal of the 4th Circuit's 12/21/18 decision, and they denied MacDonald's petition for Habeas Relief on 10/7/19. In terms of an emotional finality, the 4th Circuit's decision brings peace to Colette's brother (e.g, Bob Stevenson) and vindication to Brian Murtagh and dozens of CID/FBI/DOJ staff members who helped to bring a mass murderer to justice.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 10th January 2021 at 04:57 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 11th January 2021, 02:44 AM   #2227
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The United States Supreme Court refused to hear MacDonald's appeal of the 4th Circuit's 12/21/18 decision, and they denied MacDonald's petition for Habeas Relief on 10/7/19. In terms of an emotional finality, the 4th Circuit's decision brings peace to Colette's brother (e.g, Bob Stevenson) and vindication to Brian Murtagh and dozens of CID/FBI/DOJ staff members who helped to bring a mass murderer to justice.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I am in disagreement with the United Stares Supreme Court. It's one reason why Assange and Prince Andrew are so worried about the situation there.

Bob Stevenson is a fool though I suppose he can't help it. The CID were lousy detectives and Stombaugh and Shirley Green of the FBI manufactured evidence. The judges in the MacDonald case were bad judges. Malone of the FBI is a forensic fraud. Murtagh is a crooked lawyer involved in the obstruction of justice. The jury was wrong. It reminds me a bit of some of the worst excesses of Nazi or Soviet justice.

I fully appreciate that accused people can be under suspicion because they are as guilty as hell, or not completely innocent, but that is no excuse for prosecuting and convicting an innocent man with quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate once remarked in about 2014 that MacDonald had little hope of ever getting out out of prison which i consider to be a public scandal and tragedy.

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

"The first of these general principles is that a person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. This is a basic principle of English law, and it should constantly be kept in mind. It is almost impossible to over-emphasise its importance, for any infringement may overthrow our whole system of criminal justice. For instance, our method of trial by the alternate presentation of the two sides of a case to a judge and jury, or a bench of magistrates, instead of by an inquiry such as takes place in a Coroner's Court, would have to be reconstructed if the presumption of innocence were not maintained. It is implied in Magna Charta itself, and once a man has been tried he cannot be put on trial again for the same offence.

Another vitally important principle is that the best possible evidence should be given which implies the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. Most people know the famous ruling of Mr. Justice Stareleigh, in the case of Bardell v Pickwick, that what the soldier said is not evidence. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts. Leading questions, that is questions which suggest their own answer, must not be put to a witness by the party calling the witness. Previous convictions must not, except in certain exceptional instances, be disclosed during the hearing of a case."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th January 2021 at 02:47 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 January 2021, 04:46 PM   #2228
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Cricket Noises

Similar to his 5 year silence on Judge Fox's decision to deny inmate a new trial, Errol Morris has not uttered a word about Marc Smerling's 5 part FX series. My assumption is that he was embarrassed by being exposed as a biased and uninformed author/researcher of this case.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 12th January 2021 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 13th January 2021, 02:32 AM   #2229
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Similar to his 5 year silence on Judge Fox's decision to deny inmate a new trial, Errol Morris has not uttered a word about Marc Smerling's 5 part FX series. My assumption is that he was embarrassed by being exposed as a biased and uninformed author/researcher of this case.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I think Errol Morris was a useful counter balance to the lies in the Joe McGinniss breach of contract book. He got a bit unstuck over the Britt testimony, but Britt only became involved because of what he considered to be the inaccuracies in the McGinniss book.

The trouble, as far as I can judge, is that these bad American judges consider that all the past false evidence and biased Judge Dupree rulings in the MacDonald case are now settled in stone, even though the Supreme Court has now said the 'evidence as a whole' should be considered. It's the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence.

There is a fair and just article about Errol Morris at this website:

https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-bu...macdonald-case

"Janet Malcolm also published “The Journalist and the Murderer” in 1990 examining McGinniss’ actions as journalist as he tried to gain MacDonald’s confidence.

Morris’ look at the case is distinctive because of the doubt it casts about MacDonald’s guilt—suggesting that two others who allegedly later confessed to the crime could have been two of the hippies that MacDonald told authorities he saw in his home that night.

“He will leave you 85 percent certain that Mr. MacDonald is innocent,” one reviewer wrote in the The New York Times. “He will leave you 100 percent certain he did not get a fair trial.”

Morris leads the viewer through the case again in the new FX docuseries directed by Marc Smerling as he’s interviewed by filmmakers.

“Certainly in this case, the mystery is about what happened in that house. I went into it with the hope that I could crack it, that I could come to some kind of conclusion, but you don’t know whether truth is going to be difficult to find unless you try to find it,” he said.

Morris later acknowledged that although he believes MacDonald could be innocent of the heinous crimes, he also can’t know for sure.

“We have all of these myths about our system, how it works, the importance of a level playing field, fairness, equality before the law. Here you have a tangled mess of people all trying to figure out what’s real and what’s make believe. What really happened versus what we think really happened,” he said."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th January 2021 at 02:45 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 January 2021, 02:42 AM   #2230
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Americans need to be fair minded and be able to concentrate sufficiently to listen to the evidence in the MacDonald case. There is a bit about the presumption of guilt which applies to the MacDonald case at this website. You decide according to the evidence not according to appearance or opinions:

https://law.jrank.org/pages/9362/Pre...Innocence.html

"Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th January 2021 at 02:47 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 13th January 2021, 06:47 AM   #2231
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
The Coward Couple

Joe McGinniss took apart Malcolm in Fatal Vision and he did the same to Morris in Final Vision. McGinniss' prose was so powerful that neither literary grifter responded in kind. Malcolm also refused to participate in Smerling's 5 part series, and once the government began to present their case at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Morris skipped town faster than you can say Roman Polanski.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th January 2021 at 06:48 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 13th January 2021, 09:37 AM   #2232
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Joe McGinniss took apart Malcolm in Fatal Vision and he did the same to Morris in Final Vision. McGinniss' prose was so powerful that neither literary grifter responded in kind. Malcolm also refused to participate in Smerling's 5 part series, and once the government began to present their case at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Morris skipped town faster than you can say Roman Polanski.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
As MacDonald's lawyer Gary Bostwick said McGinniss did it for the Bank of New England, not in order to establish the truth. McGinniss confessed at that 1987 breach of contract case that he didn't believe the amphetaminr psychosis theory himself though he still kept it in his book. How much else in the book didn't he believe? The MacDonald case is full of Irish lawyers and journalists with no principles.

it was difficult for Morris to become involved in that 2012 evidentiary hearing because it was never reported by the media in the same way as the original MacDonald trial. All I really know about it is that Ivory was cross-examined and that Glisson was supposed to attend the hearing but she never turned up. What was established by the defense lawyers is that Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, disclosed for the first time then that Stoeckley confessed to him and Leonard said that MacDonald was screwed.There was also another confession from Greg Mitchell from the Griffins which seemed pretty conclusive to me.

Judge Fox and his judge colleagues never had any intention of ever overturning the wrongful conviction. It's senseless.

Not everybody agrees with JTF about that Final Vision book by that drunken Irish son of a bitch McGinniss:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...2-final-vision

"Nancy Hand rated it did not like it
This is no different than the fake news on cnn

This writer forgot to add in all the things that can’t be explained away like the numerous people who saw this group of hippies around the McDonald house one being the wife of a Colonel, he doesn’t explain away how candle wax drips all over this apartment has no matching candles in it. He also forgets more than one person admitted to the crimes numerous times to numerous people. He forgets about the witness in the donut store who not only recalled the ...more"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th January 2021 at 09:42 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 January 2021, 01:26 PM   #2233
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
As MacDonald's lawyer Gary Bostwick said McGinniss did it for the Bank of New England, not in order to establish the truth. McGinniss confessed at that 1987 breach of contract case that he didn't believe the amphetaminr psychosis theory himself though he still kept it in his book. How much else in the book didn't he believe? The MacDonald case is full of Irish lawyers and journalists with no principles.

it was difficult for Morris to become involved in that 2012 evidentiary hearing because it was never reported by the media in the same way as the original MacDonald trial. All I really know about it is that Ivory was cross-examined and that Glisson was supposed to attend the hearing but she never turned up. What was established by the defense lawyers is that Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, disclosed for the first time then that Stoeckley confessed to him and Leonard said that MacDonald was screwed.There was also another confession from Greg Mitchell from the Griffins which seemed pretty conclusive to me.

Judge Fox and his judge colleagues never had any intention of ever overturning the wrongful conviction. It's senseless.

Not everybody agrees with JTF about that Final Vision book by that drunken Irish son of a bitch McGinniss:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...2-final-vision

"Nancy Hand rated it did not like it
This is no different than the fake news on cnn

This writer forgot to add in all the things that can’t be explained away like the numerous people who saw this group of hippies around the McDonald house one being the wife of a Colonel, he doesn’t explain away how candle wax drips all over this apartment has no matching candles in it. He also forgets more than one person admitted to the crimes numerous times to numerous people. He forgets about the witness in the donut store who not only recalled the ...more"
Yawn! Henri please stop pressing the reset button and regurgitating the same refuted claptrap, the same irrelevant nonsense that has been rebutted ages ago on this forum. MacDonald is almost certainly guilty has sin and where he belongs.

Oh and the opinion of someone who rates CNN has "fake news" about whether or not something is false cannot be taken seriously at all.
Pacal 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 January 2021, 12:02 AM   #2234
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Facts Win

Beginning with inmate's embarrassing performance at the 4/6/70 CID interview, his advocates have consistently argued that the mass of inculpatory evidence is not as significant as confessions and unsourced household debris. For example, in their motions to Judge Fox in the spring of 2006, the defense team appeared to take the stance that the absence of Greg Mitchell's DNA at the crime scene was not as important as the claims from several individuals that Mitchell confessed to them that he took part in these brutal murders.

In a similar vein, the defense motions focused on the early 80's confessions of Helena Stoeckley, while ignoring the fact that her DNA was not found at the crime scene. The defense also regurgitated evidentiary claims (e.g., unsourced hairs/fibers/wax drippings) that were deemed "specious" by the 4th Circuit Court. This reminds me of James Blackburn's classic line during his closing arguments at the 1979 trial. Blackburn stated that "I can only tell you from the physical evidence in this case that things do not lie. But I suggest that people can and do."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th January 2021 at 12:07 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 14th January 2021, 02:14 AM   #2235
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The defense also regurgitated evidentiary claims (e.g., unsourced hairs/fibers/wax drippings) that were deemed "specious" by the 4th Circuit Court. This reminds me of James Blackburn's classic line during his closing arguments at the 1979 trial. Blackburn stated that "I can only tell you from the physical evidence in this case that things do not lie. But I suggest that people can and do."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's a silly remark by the 4th Circuit Court to say that that the wax drippings were specious. The wax drippings were not MacDonald wax drippings and that's a fact. Unfortunately, the MacDonald murders happened about fifty years ago before DNA was used in crime detection. It still might be possible to find some real culprit DNA in something like that surgical glove fragment but the dishonest Murtagh and Blackburn, and Malone of the FBI have probably destroyed all that by now.

In some of these murder cases there are no fingerprints and no footprints and no DNA. That can be a problem if you are trying to prove your innocence.I don't think the blood evidence and autopsy photos prove MacDonald guilt. Your only hope is an alibi which can be difficult for MacDonald, or the Ramsey parents in the JonBenet case, or even Madeleine McCann's parents who were in or about the crime scene when it happened.

There is a bit about all this at this website:

https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate...is-no-dna.html

"The Justice Brandeis Law Project is different from Innocence Projects. Our project depends on the tools of investigative reporting, and is one of only a handful of projects investigating wrongful convictions that are staffed by journalists; the vast majority are staffed by lawyers who usually formally represent inmates.

Many experts say that DNA testing is not an option in the majority of cases in which people may claim to be innocent—evidence may have been lost, destroyed, or never collected or left in the first place.

That’s why journalism projects investigating suspected cases of wrongful conviction like the Justice Brandeis Law Project are necessary: In the absence of DNA, thorough, accurate investigative reporting may be the only way to bring some of these cases to the public eye—and to find the truth.

If, in the course of our investigation, we uncover information that suggests the inmate is in fact guilty, we will no longer pursue the investigation."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th January 2021 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 January 2021, 11:27 AM   #2236
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Yawn! Henri please stop pressing the reset button and regurgitating the same refuted claptrap, the same irrelevant nonsense that has been rebutted ages ago on this forum. MacDonald is almost certainly guilty has sin and where he belongs.

Oh and the opinion of someone who rates CNN has "fake news" about whether or not something is false cannot be taken seriously at all.
Forensic scientists should attempt to establish the truth in a murder case not attempt to just'find' evidence for the prosecution, like the FBI, so that a jury can be conned.That candle wax should be DNA tested by an honest forensic scientist. It always amazed me that TV stations like Fox news and CNN had deafening silence about electronic eavesdropping until it was time to threaten Assange and Snowden with life imprisonment for mentioning it. These channels have always been against MacDonald and the Ramseys, if not the parents of Madeleine McCann.

I agree with the criticism of that Final Vision book which is on the internet. This is a bit more detail. I don't know for certain if Mrs Kane the wife of the Colonel was involved but there could be a 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' aspect in which MacDonald was framed. As MacDonald's lawyer Gary Bostwick said McGinniss was in financial trouble when he wrote his Fatal Vision book. That should be taken into consideration:

"Fred and Nancy Hand
1.0 out of 5 stars This is no different than the fake news on cnn
Reviewed in the United States on 12 November 2020
Verified Purchase

This writer forgot to add in all the things that can’t be explained away like the numerous people who saw this group of hippies around the McDonald house one being the wife of a Colonel, he doesn’t explain away how candle wax drips all over this apartment has no matching candles in it. He also forgets more than one person admitted to the crimes numerous times to numerous people. He forgets about the witness in the donut store who not only recalled the car the hippies were in but the blood on the mans hands he washed off in the restroom there. I think he forgot to tell his readers he only changed his book to show McDonald guilty after his Publisher told him to because nobody would want to read about him being innocent. This book was very disappointing and I would not recommend it. As far as the case goes until every piece of evidence has DNA done I think a terrible injustice is being done here. I can imagine the person who called the McDonald house that night and spoke to Helena will forever wonder why they were not called to testify or why his phone records weren’t subpoenaed."

5 people found this helpful
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 January 2021, 07:23 PM   #2237
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
History Lesson

During closing arguments at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Brian Murtagh took apart the DNA arguments leveled by the defense and provided a thorough overview of the trial evidence to Judge Fox. Murtagh reminded Judge Fox that none of the 29 DNA exhibits matched the DNA profile of Helena Stoeckley and/or Greg Mitchell, and that the broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. John Stuart Bruce convincingly argued that in his 5 affidavits, Jimmy Britt lied on 27 separate occasions and that there wasn't a single defense or government witness who could corroborate any of Britt's dubious claims. In 2014, Judge Fox denied MacDonald relief and ruled that "MacDonald has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the murder of his wife and two daughters. Alternatively, the court finds that MacDonald has failed to adequately establish the merits of any of his claims."

The defense filed an appeal based on a DOJ report that concluded that on three separate occasions, government experts used language that was scientifically invalid. All three incidents focused on the experts use of the word "sourced" when comparing hairs under a microscope. Two of the incidents were found in singular lab reports and the third incident involved six lines of testimony at trial. Microscopic hair comparisons cannot source a hair to a specific person, so the best case scenario is that the hair exhibit is "similar" to an exemplar obtained from the accused or the victim. The government argued that the three mistakes did not alter the inculpatory nature of the evidence that convicted MacDonald at trial. In addition, DNA testing on the hairs in question did not result in a single exculpatory result. The DNA test result (e.g., Kimberley's DNA profile) of a bloody head hair confirmed the conclusion drawn by one of the government experts, the DNA test result (e.g., unsourced hair) of a pubic hair found under Colette's body contradicted the experts conclusion that its source was Jeffrey MacDonald, and the AFIP was unable to extract a DNA profile from a bloody hair that was microscopically sourced to Colette MacDonald.

On 5/18/15, Judge Fox ruled that he would not alter or amend his 7/24/14 decision. He concluded that the three inappropriate statements had no bearing on the mountain of evidence linking MacDonald to this horrific crime. In essence, using the word "sourced" instead of "similar" does not change the fact that Colette's blood was on her husband's pajama top in 10 locations before the garment was torn or that fibers from MacDonald's pajama top were found under Colette's body or that fibers from his pajama top were found under his children's bedcovers or that bloody impressions sourced to his pajama cuffs were found on bedding used to transport Colette and Kimberley to their bedrooms or that the Pajama Top Theory proved to a jury of his peers that MacDonald placed his pajama top on his dead wife's chest and stabbed her through the garment 21 times with the ice pick. The defense appealed Judge Fox's decisions to the 4th Circuit Court.

In 2018, the 4th Circuit ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. By a vote of 3-0, the 4th Circuit concluded that,

"Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear MacDonald's appeal of the 4th Circuit's 12/21/18 decision, and they denied MacDonald's petition for Habeas Relief on 10/7/19.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th January 2021 at 07:34 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 January 2021, 02:20 AM   #2238
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF;13361451

On 5/18/15, Judge Fox ruled that he would not alter or amend his 7/24/14 decision. He concluded that the three inappropriate statements had no bearing on the mountain of evidence linking MacDonald to this horrific crime. In essence, using the word "sourced" instead of "similar" does not change the fact that Colette's blood was on her husband's pajama top in 10 locations before the garment was torn or that fibers from MacDonald's pajama top were found under Colette's body or that fibers from his pajama top were found under his children's bedcovers or that bloody impressions sourced to his pajama cuffs were found on bedding used to transport Colette and Kimberley to their bedrooms or that the Pajama Top Theory proved to a jury of his peers that MacDonald placed his pajama top on his dead wife's chest and stabbed her through the garment 21 times with the ice pick. The defense appealed Judge Fox's decisions to the 4th Circuit Court.

[url
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com[/url]
That's a load of bollocks and it's a theory without facts. The Army CID theory from the start, and later supported by the FBI, was that MacDonald had a violent argument after Kim wet the bed and that Colette murdered one or two of the little girls and MacDonald and Colette hit each other with a hairbrush. I can't quite see how any reasonable fact finder can believe that. It would be farcical if it wasn't so serious. The blood evidence does not prove MacDonald did it and neither do the fibers on the murder weapon.

American judges need to pull their socks up. They need to be extremely competent judges. Judge Carnes in the JonBenet Ramsey case got it right. Her father Charles Carnes was supposed to have been a competent judge. This is from the Judge Carnes report on Boulder detective Steve Thomas which applies in a way to the MacDonald case:

https://jonbenetramseymurder.discuss...-2003-10460602

"Further whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support. (Id.) Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. (Smit. Dep. at 69.) In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the defendants killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th January 2021 at 02:23 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 15th January 2021, 01:45 PM   #2239
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Bellwether Fallacy

Considering the nonsense regurgitated by you know who, I thought it was a good time to reproduce the following post.

Shortly after Judge Dupree denied MacDonald (e.g., 1984-1985 evidentiary hearings) a new trial, his advocates (e.g., Fred Bost, Jerry Allen Potter, Ted Gunderson, Harvey Silverglate, and Errol Morris) put forth various conspiracy narratives involving the CID, FBI, and DOJ. This cognitive process is known as the Bellwether Fallacy, a common pattern of argumentation in conspiracy theories.

Most conspiracy theories are, to a large extent, theories of history. That is, history tells us that something happened, but a conspiracy theory says that some other (typically poorly defined) events unfolded instead to give us that evidence. Specifically, that something else happened instead and the evidence we have in hand is either selectively considered or has been manufactured by nefarious forces in order to keep us in the dark, lead us astray, and prevent us from determining what "really" happened. As such there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Historical events never leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives.

Hence historical lines of reasoning talk about preponderances of evidence. And so when we dispute a conspiracy theory, we point back to the preponderance -- the totality of available evidence that en masse suggests a particular cause. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.

A prime example of how MacDonald advocates become partners in this fallacy lay in Helena Stoeckley being the main ingredient in this cognitive stew. MacDonald advocates have relied on the statements made by Stoeckley in order to justify the position that unsourced trace evidence equals hippie home invaders. To MacDonald advocates, it doesn't really matter that unsourced synthetic fibers, hairs, dark woolen fibers, and candle wax were never linked to Stoeckley in any tangible sense.

It matters not to these same advocates that Stoeckley recanted several of her confessions and that she testified under oath that she has no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. It carries no weight with MacDonald advocates that none of her confessions match up with one another and there seems to be a collective shrug when it is pointed out that there isn't any evidence of her presence at the crime scene.

The only thing that matters to MacDonald advocates is that Stoeckley's CLAIMS make her involvement and the involvement of others in these horrific crimes a foregone conclusion. Stoeckley and her acquaintances have to be the perps because Stoeckley said so. They add that there is evidence of her presence at the crime scene, but the CID/FBI/DOJ have conspired to manipulate, distort, and suppress that evidence. All of the other more logical explanations for the household debris found at 544 Castle Drive are dismissed.

Those prosaic explanations have to be false because there is simply no getting around the fact that Stoeckley claims she was at the crime scene and that she named the "real" perps in this case. MacDonald advocates are so fixated on the unshakable notion that Stoeckley is a credible witness that they do not feel responsible for answering in detail the explanations favoring another explanation. Errol Morris ignored most of the physical evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction, so his bellwether was a two-fold process.

In essence, Morris created twin straw men. One is the credibility of Stoeckley's confessions and the other is the Pajama Top Theory. Morris believed that he had to cut down the government's "single most convincing" bit of proof, in order to propose that the other points would fall more easily or in a similar fashion. He was wrong. The 2012 evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the government's case remains rock solid and that regurgitating previously debunked claims does not provide the defense with the tools to meet their client's "daunting burden." In 2018, the 4th Circuit ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. By a vote of 3-0, the 4th Circuit concluded that,

"Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 15th January 2021 at 01:50 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 January 2021, 02:41 AM   #2240
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,889
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In essence, Morris created twin straw men. One is the credibility of Stoeckley's confessions and the other is the Pajama Top Theory. Morris believed that he had to cut down the government's "single most convincing" bit of proof, in order to propose that the other points would fall more easily or in a similar fashion. He was wrong. The 2012 evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the government's case remains rock solid and that regurgitating previously debunked claims does not provide the defense with the tools to meet their client's "daunting burden." In 2018, the 4th Circuit ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. By a vote of 3-0, the 4th Circuit concluded that,


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Personally, I have always found Greg Mitchell's confessions more convincing, Helena Stoeckley was as guilty as hell but she could lie like a politician if it was a matter of saving her own skin.

Judge Dupree seemed to be most insistent at the trial not to agree with Murtagh that the pajama top could be folded in several different ways as Murtagh insisted at the trial. That was probably to avoid successful accusations of a mistrial at a later appeal. The pajama folding experiment was the main FBI manufactured evidence after Colonel Rock cleared MacDonald at the Article 32 in 1970, The matter is explained accurately at this website:

https://dingeengoete.blogspot.com/20...macdonald.html

"Segal and Thornton continued to hammer away at the credibility of the government's key piece of evidence the evidence that allegedly was the basis of the entire indictment. This unscientific and unsupportable experiment which, after the lab notes were finally received from Freedom of Information Act documents, showed that the Army CID's forensic investigator had attempted the folding experiment, but found it couldn't be performed so that it suggested MacDonald's guilt unless they abandoned certain scientific measurements that Stombaugh had given them. Apparently, however, Stombaugh himself had no qualms about throwing out his own measurements to arrive at the results the prosecutors wanted.

Here then was the proof that government prosecutor said absolutely demonstrated that MacDonald was guilty. This was the "new" evidence that the prestigious FBI laboratory had used to demonstrate its prowess in solving this old murder case. Potter and Bost go into minute detail on the many ways in which the experiment was discredited, initially in the trial and even more so when the lab documents were finally released."

The MacDonald case needed an extremely competent judge.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th January 2021 at 02:45 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
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 11:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.