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 2nd December 2020, 09:29 AM   #2081
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,794
Eisman made a sensible comment about the pajama-like fibers at the Article 32 in 1970 in the cross-examination of Browning of the Army CID lab. This is important because Blackburn at the trial said that you can forget about the blood evidence and the autopsy photos and the suitcase and the urine stain and the hairbrush and the mystery blonde fibers and the eye glasses and Esquire magazine and the flower pot and the Valentine cards and the fabric impressions but the conclusive evidence was supposed to be the pajama-like fibers on the murder weapon:

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

"MR. EISMAN: But he is giving a chemical analysis saying that the thread was grossly similar to that found in the pajama top. This line of questioning merely goes to the fact that this could have been grossly similar to thread found on any other piece of clothing manufactured anywhere else. Since this witness does not know the name of the manufacturer, does not know whether or not there could have been other garments in the house that night, who had this thread, he cannot say to a scientific certainty that this particular thread came from this particular garment."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd December 2020 at 09:48 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2020, 02:09 PM   #2082
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Eisman made a sensible comment about the pajama-like fibers at the Article 32 in 1970 in the cross-examination of Browning of the Army CID lab. This is important because Blackburn at the trial said that you can forget about the blood evidence and the autopsy photos and the suitcase and the urine stain and the hairbrush and the mystery blonde fibers and the eye glasses and Esquire magazine and the flower pot and the Valentine cards and the fabric impressions but the conclusive evidence was supposed to be the pajama-like fibers on the murder weapon:

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

"MR. EISMAN: But he is giving a chemical analysis saying that the thread was grossly similar to that found in the pajama top. This line of questioning merely goes to the fact that this could have been grossly similar to thread found on any other piece of clothing manufactured anywhere else. Since this witness does not know the name of the manufacturer, does not know whether or not there could have been other garments in the house that night, who had this thread, he cannot say to a scientific certainty that this particular thread came from this particular garment."
Quoting testimony from the 1970 Article 32 hearing has always been a go to move for MacDonald advocates. This is done in order to avoid addressing the mass of inculpatory evidence compiled in the CID reinvestigation (e.g., 1970-1972) report. Clifford Somers was limited in what he could present at the Article 32 hearing, but he did an admirable job under the circumstances. The FBI didn't get involved in this case until 1971, and the analysis of the key pieces of evidence (e.g., pajama top theory, blood fabric impressions) that led to inmate's conviction didn't occur until 1974.

In 2007, I spoke with Janice Glisson on the phone, and one of the first points that she wanted to convey was the vast amount of evidence that was collected at the crime scene. Glisson stated that by the time the Article 32 hearings were underway, the Fort Gordon lab still had not completed their analysis of the evidence. When asked whether Army attorney Clifford Somers was hindered by the fact that test results were still pending, Glisson quickly stated, "Oh, yeah." She added, "We just didn't have time to finish the testing." Glisson stated that blood typing in this case was a tedious process, especially with the number of blood stains that were mixed.

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 3rd December 2020, 09:56 AM   #2083
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,794
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The FBI didn't get involved in this case until 1971, and the analysis of the key pieces of evidence (e.g., pajama top theory, blood fabric impressions) that led to inmate's conviction didn't occur until 1974.

In 2007, I spoke with Janice Glisson on the phone, and one of the first points that she wanted to convey was the vast amount of evidence that was collected at the crime scene. Glisson stated that by the time the Article 32 hearings were underway, the Fort Gordon lab still had not completed their analysis of the evidence. When asked whether Army attorney Clifford Somers was hindered by the fact that test results were still pending, Glisson quickly stated, "Oh, yeah." She added, "We just didn't have time to finish the testing." Glisson stated that blood typing in this case was a tedious process, especially with the number of blood stains that were mixed.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
When you say the FBI became involved, that was mainly old Stombaugh of the FBI and the crook Malone. Stombaugh only said it could be, and the same with the hairs and threads. JTF always says that Shirley Green, Stombaugh's unqualified assistant put the so-called two pajama fibers which convicted MacDonald to prison for the rest of his life in a separate vial. Personally I think that's a lot of cock and bull. and fabricated out of whole cloth, and the MacDonald defense were never allowed to see or verify it. It was black wool fibers with no known source.

There is a bit about this sort of thing at this website:

"David Raskin, a nationally renowned polygraph expert who’s given thousands of lie detector tests, many of them in high-profile cases, says MacDonald passed a polygraph he gave him in March 1986.

“I asked him three questions about the murders,” says Raskin, a retired University of Utah psychologist. “The results indicated a definite ‘truthful.’ He got a score of 14 plus — 6 plus or higher is considered truthful. Everything I’ve learned since then [about the evidence] confirms that finding.”

Other prominent supporters include Barry Scheck, co-founder of The Innocence Project, the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, and C. Ronald Huff, a high-profile criminologist at the University of California, Irvine, who has been studying wrongful convictions for the past 30 years.

“I believe that Dr. MacDonald did not murder his family and that this will ultimately be regarded as one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the modern era,” says Huff."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd December 2020 at 09:59 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 3rd December 2020, 10:01 AM   #2084
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,794
There is some interesting information about all this at this website:

"CHRONOLOGY, PAGE 4
1990 thru 2004
Important Events in the Life of Jeffrey MacDonald

October 18, 1990 The defense files a habeas corpus petition for MacDonald, charging prosecutor Murtagh with suppression of evidence.
December 31, 1990 The FBI Lab issues a report detailing re-examination of evidence, including debris from the murder club. Agent Michael Malone lists unsourced black wool fibers, but not pajama top fibers, as being on the club.
February 19, 1991 Murtagh signs an affadavit swearing he had no knowledge at trial of the existence of the black wool fibers.
March 27, 1991 MacDonald becomes eligible for parole. He refuses a hearing, maintaining his innocence.
April 16, 1991 The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case McClesky vs Zant, heavily restricts a defendant’s ability to get back into court, even with evidence of actual innocence.
June 26, 1991 Judge DuPree listens to oral arguments for a new trial based on the suppressed lab notes.
July 1, 1991 Jeff MacDonald is transferred to FCI Sheridan, OR
July 8, 1991 Judge Dupree denies the motion for a new trial, petitioned on October 19, 1990.
October 3, 1991 The defense appeals Judge DuPree’s ruling.
June 2, 1992 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against a new trial for MacDonald. They stated that the materials now introduced should have been presented by Brian O’Neill in 1984-85. Therefore, all rights to further appeals were forfeited.
November 30, 1992 The Supreme Court declines to review the lower court’s decision.
April 16, 1993-Jan 3, 1994 Former MacDonald prosecutor James Blackburn is disbarred, is indicted on 12 felony counts including changing court documents, and is sentenced to 7 years in federal prison."
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 December 2020, 11:38 AM   #2085
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,408
He's Going Nowhere

In the past 50 years, inmate has had over 20 lawyers research every aspect of the government's case, and they have looked into almost 20 intruder suspects. All of that time and money resulted in cricket noises. Not a single evidentiary item was definitively sourced to any of these suspects. No DNA, no hair, no fibers, no fingerprints, no bloody footprints, nothing, nada, zip. Inmate is right where he belongs.

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 Yesterday, 01:52 PM   #2086
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,062
I love how HP is convinced of Stoeckley et al guilt without any forensic evidence while insisting their man-crush is innocent while under a metric ton of forensic 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 Today, 02:34 AM   #2087
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,794
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Quoting testimony from the 1970 Article 32 hearing has always been a go to move for MacDonald advocates. This is done in order to avoid addressing the mass of inculpatory evidence compiled in the CID reinvestigation (e.g., 1970-1972) report. Clifford Somers was limited in what he could present at the Article 32 hearing, but he did an admirable job under the circumstances. The FBI didn't get involved in this case until 1971, and the analysis of the key pieces of evidence (e.g., pajama top theory, blood fabric impressions) that led to inmate's conviction didn't occur until 1974.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There was an episode of that Medical Detectives American show on British TV yesterday in which somebody said people lie but science doesn't lie. The trouble with that statement is that it ignores forensic fraud, and "old Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads" as Murtagh put it at a MacDonald trial Bench Conference. One reason no intruder forensics have been found apart from the black wool fibers with no known source, and the blonde synthetic wig-like hairs, is that investigators were never perhaps looking for intruder forensics.

The matter is discussed at this website. It's a serious matter when people get executed, or put in prison for the rest of their lives, on false evidence and false forensics:

https://slate.com/technology/2014/06...-innocent.html

"Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors’ hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned—or executed—due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. The most respected scientific organization in the country has revealed how deeply, fundamentally unscientific forensics is. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed. Without it, the number of falsely convicted will only keep growing."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 02:38 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 Today, 03:41 AM   #2088
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was an episode of that Medical Detectives American show on British TV yesterday in which somebody said people lie but science doesn't lie. The trouble with that statement is that it ignores forensic fraud, and "old Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads" as Murtagh put it at a MacDonald trial Bench Conference. One reason no intruder forensics have been found apart from the black wool fibers with no known source, and the blonde synthetic wig-like hairs, is that investigators were never perhaps looking for intruder forensics.

The matter is discussed at this website. It's a serious matter when people get executed, or put in prison for the rest of their lives, on false evidence and false forensics:

https://slate.com/technology/2014/06...-innocent.html

"Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors’ hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned—or executed—due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. The most respected scientific organization in the country has revealed how deeply, fundamentally unscientific forensics is. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed. Without it, the number of falsely convicted will only keep growing."
Your rationale for the lack of physical evidence linking the New York Four and/or the Stoeckley Seven to these murders is beyond bizarre. For the past 17 years, you've avoided addressing the FACT that not a single evidentiary exhibit was sourced to a known intruder suspect. Inmate's rotating band of lawyers attempted to puff up the significance of unsourced household debris, but inmate remained in his concrete bunker and he will die in that concrete bunker.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Today at 03:43 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.