ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Reply
Old 14th October 2017, 01:42 PM   #3201
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 515
Helena Stoeckley stated that she WATCHED inmate slaughter his family. Obviously that must be the truth! So, inmate is indeed guilty!
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 02:23 AM   #3202
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,812
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
It's exactly what it means in the courtroom or in an investigation. Sources are judged by credibility - the term "reliable source: exists for a reason. Someone who can not be depended on to tell the truth can not be relied upon as a source.
The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part. MacDonald was convicted on manufactured evidence, and bad and possibly corrupt police work by the military police. It was never a complete investigation and the prosecution never proved their case. The prosecution were dishonest. All that stuff from Shaw about bodies being moved and Colette murdering one of the little girls was a load of bull, and it should have been squashed by the 4th Circuit judges.
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 October 2017, 02:44 AM   #3203
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,277
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence. Further ******** snipped
I'm a retired cop, and a stipulated expert witness in my field of experience and training.

If I was a proven liar, as the witnesses you wish to rely on, I'd have been out of a job.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by Agatha; 15th October 2017 at 05:30 AM. Reason: fix quote tags
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 15th October 2017, 04:08 PM   #3204
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 796
Nuff Said

In the spirit of critical thought...

In comparing audiotapes of Helena Stoeckley's interviews with Ted Gunderson to the typed transcripts, the government concluded that "it became apparent that these were not transcripts of recorded interviews but rather questions and answers which had been extracted from the tapes, arranged in a sequence designed to delete conflicting responses by Stoeckley and blended into a transcript like statement, which Stoeckley later initialed." The government also states that during certain audiotapes, "Stoeckley had come perilously close to contradicting her previous whereabouts."

The following note to his secretary made it clear that Gunderson was concerned about Stoeckley's disjointed statements.

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

The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the government's 91-page report to the 4th Circuit Court:

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html

Last edited by JTF; 15th October 2017 at 04:12 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 October 2017, 04:07 AM   #3205
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 515
Is it just me or has anyone else notice that Henri has NEVER replied to any of the numerous requests for an explanation on why he chooses to believe the nonsensical Helena confessions and he never ever at any time has considered her more logical confession? Of course, the I watched him kill his family confession would upset his prejudices but that is the only one of Helena's confessions that at least comes close to matching the evidence.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 05:45 AM   #3206
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9
And I am waiting for someone - anyone - to speak up in support of Henri. Hasn't happened in a very long time.
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:26 AM   #3207
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,812
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I'm a retired cop, and a stipulated expert witness in my field of experience and training.

If I was a proven liar, as the witnesses you wish to rely on, I'd have been out of a job.
To reply in two short paragraphs an expert in court can't give his opinions unless he is a real expert. Fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald were never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI, and Shaw was never an expert about Colette murdering one little girl, or bodies being moved. Malone of the FBI is a proven total liar and he was never out of a job, or has been convicted or punished, or sued.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:36 AM   #3208
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,812
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the government's 91-page report to the 4th Circuit Court:

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
There were numerous confessions by Greg Mitchell, and by Stoeckley, but those confessions became confused and circumspect when she was asked to confess officially, for obvious reasons. The Nashville cop Gaddis told Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial that he would have investigated further after what Helena told him about the MacDonald murders. You would care if you had an abstract sense of justice. More Gaddis testimony:

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

Quote:
A* Well, I have had several informants, and she is, by far, the best informant I have ever had.
Q* Now, at some time did you learn that she had previously lived in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area?
A* Yes, sir; I did.
Q* And when did you learn that, Officer Gaddis?
A* Well, it was -- I don't know the exact date when I learned that she lived in Fayetteville, but she came up to me one night and asked me if I could find out, through contacting the Fayetteville police, if she was still wanted in connection --

MR. BLACKBURN:* (Interposing)* OBJECTION.

THE COURT:* SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q* All right, the result of -- without telling us what she said, the result of whatever conversation you had with her at that time -- did you take any action as a result of that conversation?* Did you make any inquiries?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th October 2017 at 08:48 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 16th October 2017, 09:10 AM   #3209
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 297
Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
And I am waiting for someone - anyone - to speak up in support of Henri. Hasn't happened in a very long time.
DO NOT hold your breath or place a plastic bag over your head while waiting, Ygraine. Please, for me, as a personal favor.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:07 AM   #3210
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9
Ygraine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:31 AM   #3211
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 515
henri doesn't seem to grasp the VERY simple concept of being approved as an EXPERT witness. The PRESIDING JUDGE makes that determination. some conspiracy theorist from the UK (if that is really where henri is from) doesn't get to decide that AN EXPERT AS DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE is not an expert.

Paul Stombaugh was an expert in his field - among other proofs of that is the fact that the DEFENSE Expert Thorton agreed with major portions of Stombaugh's testimony.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:52 AM   #3212
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,812
Stombaugh of the FBI had never testified about fabric impressions in any deadly place like a courtroom before the MacDonald case. There are serologists, or blood experts, in the FBI but none attended the MacDonald trial. Stombaugh was never a blood expert.

I'm not thoroughly acquainted with the expert witness matter in America. I find it surprising that people like the so-called blood expert Judith Bunker were allowed to pontificate in American courts when they were clearly lacking in credentials. Similarly, the so-called handwriting expert Cina Wong in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's against the rules of evidence and procedure and the 4th Circuit judges should put their foot down about it.

In the UK the medical evidence is argued in court by medically qualified doctors. They would never allow an unqualified cop like Wambaugh to say that MacDonald was a sociopath. In a fatal road cash court case you have to be a real expert before you gave an opinion in court about the cause of death.

Segal had a bit to say about Stombaugh being unqualified in his 1979 closing speech. It's patently untrue to say that Dr. Thornton agreed with Stombaugh, except for one or two not relevant aspects:

Quote:
There is no basis for his opinion. It is sheer poppycock and there is no basis for the jury to consider this as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that portion of the Government's theory.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 08:53 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 Yesterday, 09:57 AM   #3213
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 515
Ahem - Paul Stombaugh WAS DEEMED AN EXPERT BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. What you believe or what Segal stated outside court was and is absolutely irrelevant. ALSO, Dr. Thorton agreed with much of Stombaugh's fabric impression testimony so obviously the DEFENSE expert felt he was an expert.

Paul Stombaugh was also deemed an expert at numerous other trials and hearings including the Warren Commission.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:44 PM   #3214
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 796
Facts. A Trolls Worst Nightmare

Paul Stombaugh retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976. Stombaugh testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. In terms of this case, not one, but two DEFENSE experts (e.g., Thornton and Osterburg) agreed with significant portions of his forensic analysis. In the real world, this is an admission that specific evidentiary items in this case inculpated inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 01:54 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 Yesterday, 05:49 PM   #3215
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 796
Inculpatory

The MacDonald defense team hired two respected forensics experts. John Thornton and Charles Morton both looked at specific impressions on the blue bedsheet. Their conclusions were as follows:

•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.

•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.

•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.

•Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.

•Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht..._evidence.html

During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal asked forensics expert James Osterburg his thoughts on the Pajama Top Theory. Osterburg was impressed with Stombaugh's analysis, stating "Holy Christmas, this is like a fingerprint." In essence, Osterburg was referring to the fact that the matching hole pattern on inmate's pajama top was akin to a fingerprint being matched to a known suspect. The Landlord of MacFantasy Island will respond with rinse and repeat arguments, but the opinions of experts (e.g., Stombaugh, Green, Thornton, and Osterburg) greatly outweigh the rambling narratives of a layman.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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