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

Closed Thread
Old 26th January 2014, 09:32 AM   #521
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
The point is that Stombaugh's testimony is what convicted Dr. MacDonald and that testimony was speculation. It was hardly hard evidence which is what was needed. You must speak only to facts in a deadly place like a court and not to opinions, unless you are a real expert.

Stombaugh thought Colette hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush. Army CID agent Shaw thought Colette murdered the two little girls and CID agent Kearns thought Kim wet the bed, with no supporting evidence at all.

Even Judge Dupree mentioned at the trial this matter of speculation from the 1975 Grand Jury. Dupree mentioned in court in 1979 to Murtagh that it was 'Incompetent' which seems to be the legal term and that Murtagh should know that. Unfortunately after twenty years in charge of the case Judge Fox is still unaware of the irregularities at the MacDonald trial.

This is part of the speculation and load of bull from the MacDonald Grand Jury in about 1975. No wonder a Grand Jury can prosecute and convict a ham sandwich.:

MR. WOERHEIDE: That, of course, is pure speculation.

A Speculation, right.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Well, we can only speculate. We know what the evidence of the threads and the fibers and the garments and the sheet and the bed things and the club and the knives tells us, but you have to speculate as to, you know, just the details of how it was done.

JUROR: I would like your speculation on why you feel that his pajama bottoms probably had O type blood. I hadn't thought of that.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Because Kris was stabbed in her front and she was stabbed on her back, and she was stabbed very deeply, both on the front and the back, and you will notice that her body was down here over the edge of the bed, and there's a pool of blood on the floor and I think he sat on the bed, and he had her on his lap, across his lap while he was stabbing her.
Now, that's--you know--speculation, too.
But I think you would find O blood on his pajama bottoms if you had the pajama bottoms.

JUROR: Mr. Woerheide.

MR. WOERHEIDE: Yes, sir?

JUROR: As much blood as was in that house, if any intruders was in there, wouldn't they have stepped in there and let a shoe print other than a bare footprint?

MR. WOERHEIDE: I think, you know, especially if some intruder was running around, there was--there were quantities of blood, and it's very likely. It's very likely.

JUROR: As much blood as is in there, they would have had blood on them somewhere.

JUROR: In your speculation, then, Mr. Woerheide, assuming things went sort of this way, that Colette had anything to do with any of the killings whatsoever?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th January 2014 at 09:33 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 Back to Top
Old 26th January 2014, 05:52 PM   #522
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Documented Fact

Paul Stombaugh was allowed to speculate about certain evidentiary items at the Grand Jury hearings, but he was required to stick to documented fact at the 1979 trial. Stombaugh's analysis was so powerful that Defense experts John Thornton and James Osterburg, concurred with his conclusions regarding bloody fabric impression evidence and the Pajama Top Theory. Nuff said.

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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2014, 08:36 AM   #523
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
Dr. Thornton testified at the 1979 MacDonald trial that Stombaugh's pajama folding theory was impossible, contrived and conceptually unsound. It's true that Dr. Thornton did agree with Stombaugh that the pajama top might have brushed against the sheet, but that is not hard evidence when a forensic expert and the police are supposed to be looking for hard evidence. There was all sorts of contamination at the crime scene which the military police admitted at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970.

Osterburg was a New York police fingerprint expert. He was not qualified under the Federal Rules of Evidence to pontificate in a courtroom on fabric impressions, just like Stombaugh. It must be an expert opinion.

Osterburg testified at the 1979 trial that he was "totally mystified" by the Army CID fingerprint collection at the crime scene. That was unfair on Dr. MacDonald. Crucial evidence could have been missed. Judge Fox needs to pull his socks up. The MacDonald case can still be thoroughly and properly investigated if there was the money and political will.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st February 2014, 11:09 PM   #524
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Bloody Fabric Impressions

At the 1979 trial, Paul Stombaugh testified to bloody fabric impressions being present on a blue bedsheet that matched the morphology of the pajama cuffs from Jeffrey and Colette MacDonald's pajamas. Jeffrey MacDonald denies touching this bedsheet, yet two impressions from his right cuff and one impression from his left cuff were found on that bedsheet.

Stombaugh also testified to a bloody impression from Colette's left cuff and an impression from her right cuff being found on that same bedsheet. For whatever reason, John Thornton only analyzed three of the five bloody fabric impressions. He concurred with Stombaugh's conclusions regarding the two right cuff impressions from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas and the left cuff impression from Colette's pajamas.

The bloody fabric impressions in conjunction with massive direct bleeding stains from Colette, and blood stains from Kimberley MacDonald, demonstrated that Colette and Kimberley were carried in that sheet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st February 2014 at 11:13 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 Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 04:09 AM   #525
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
The point is that the theory of bodies being carried in a sheet was made up by the Army CID and by Stombaugh, who was never a forensic serologist, or qualifed to testify about the matter in court. That was against the Federal Rules of Evidence. Stombaugh was a former insurance salesman and a con artist.

As JTF points out Dr. Thornton and Morton did agree that the pajama top might have brushed against the sheet and that there might even have been some cuff impressions, but that was never hard evidence of any bodies being carried in the sheet. Both forensic experts were in disagreement with Stombaugh's theory of hand impressions on the sheet, or of any bare left shoulder impression, as Stombaugh insisted.

The matter was discussed at the 1979 MacDonald trial. Unfortunately, I think this was all too academic for a North Carolina jury and for Judge Fox. The public and the House of Commons only understand straight lines:

"Were you present in this court during the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh--Mr. Paul Stombaugh
--formerly of the FBI?
A Yes; I was.
Q Did you hear his testimony in regard to the sheet taken from the master bedroom of the MacDonald house?
A Yes; I did.
Q And I want to hand you this sheet again--211--and just let me leave this here for a few minutes and take these other things away. Were you present when Mr. Stombaugh testified that in the area he has marked "G" he found an impression in blood that he described as one which conforms to the right cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top?
A Yes; I was.
Q Now, based upon your own knowledge, information, experience, and your own examination in this matter, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the impression that Mr. Stombaugh identified as "G" was made or could have been made by the pajama cuff of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes; I do.
Q And what is your opinion, sir?
A That it was not.
Q It was not.
A That is correct.
Q By the way, I perhaps presumed something I hadn't fully stated. Had you examined that sheet you have in front of you prior to my handing it to you today?
A Yes; I have.
Q And have you examined the pink pajama top that has been identified as being taken from the body of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes; I have.
Q Now, with that as background, would you tell us, please, on what did you base your conclusion that the area "G" was not made by the pink pajama top cuff of Mrs. MacDonald?
A My examination of the area "G" showed that there was a strip of blood staining--apparent blood staining--which was approximately 3/4 of an inch wide which approximated the width of the cuff on the pajama top--


More about what Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's speculations:

Q Dr. Thornton, I would like to ask you about the areas that you had sort of gotten into, "C" and "D," which were described by Mr. Stombaugh at page 4141 of his testimony. I am going to ask your opinion about those.
He stated at that time that, "Area 'C' conforms to a bloody handprint." He then said, "Area 'C' on the sheet...conforms to a bloody left hand--the two portions of it, here, here and here." He said, "As to Area 'D,' it conforms to a bloody right hand." Let me ask you, first of all, do you agree with his opinion and his conclusion?
A No, I think that is exceedingly unlikely

More about what Chuck Morton thought about Stombaugh's testimony :

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Now, were you also asked--did you also hear the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh about areas "C" and "D" on the blue sheet?
A Those are the areas that he had identified as hand impressions?
Q Yes, sir?
A Yes; I did.
Q Now, having heard his testimony, having examined the sheet yourself, do you have an opinion as to whether or not those areas represent impressions made by a hand, either having blood on it or pressing on blood?
A I find no evidence in those areas that would be convicing that those were caused by hand impression.
Q Did you hear the testimony of Dr. Thornton in that regard earlier today?
A Yes; I did.
Q Do you agree or disagree with his explanation and his statement with regard to those areas, "C" and "D"?
A Yes. I think it is much more likely that that blood got in those areas by either flow--blood flow--or fabric transfer, a contact with another area of the fabric that caused the transfer.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me show you, Mr. Morton, three photographs marked Government--they are copies of Government 210, 212 and 211, which are all of the master bedroom and show the bedclothing we are talking about. Will you take a moment, please, and examine those, and I will ask you one single question?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you looked at those photographs?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at the pile of bedclothing there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is there anything in those photographs that would cause you to either change, add to or detract from your opinion as to how the fact that the impression on that sheet was made by a palmprint rather than a cuff as was testified to by Mr. Stombaugh?
A No; there is not.
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 Back to Top
Old 5th February 2014, 03:02 PM   #526
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Destroyed

At cross, Brian Murtagh hammered Morton to the point where his "expert" testimony was ignored by the jury. Morton agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions regarding the morphology, length, and width of the bloody fabric impression matching Colette MacDonald's right pajama cuff.

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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2014, 03:28 AM   #527
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
The point is it's legally inadmissible evidence. Success in a North Carolina courtroom is achieved by cunning and trickery and not by clear thinking or knowledge of the law. Americans are an emotional people.

JTF seems to think that Darlie Routier is guilty and that Steve Thomas in the Ramsey case is an experienced homicide detective, and that the CIA didn't murder President Kennedy, and that IRA brutal Irish murderers should have gone scot free for the sake of a peace agreement. I entirely disagree with him about that.

Murtagh might have swayed the jury with his 'hammering' of Morton at the 1979 but it doesn't influence me. I don't think it influenced the judge either.

This is part of Murtagh's cross-examination of Morton at the 1979 trial. It doesn't prove that bodies were carried in a sheet which the Army CID and prosecution made up to wrongly convict Dr. MacDonald. It's Nazi justice like in Egypt:

MR. MURTAGH: Does he agree or disagree?

MR. SEGAL: Let him talk about it, Mr. Murtagh.

THE COURT: Let's ask him just one of them, "Do you agree?" He can answer that "yes" or "no."

THE WITNESS: No; I do not.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q I am sorry?
A No. I do not agree.
Q That in terms of dimensions it does not conform?
A It conforms in a general way. But you can't just take the dimension by itself--one dimension--and say that that is a significant amount of agreement.
Q Well, let's take two dimensions. How about length and width?
A I did not look at the length that critically, because when I saw the ridge structure in there and the fact that it was not consistent with the ridge pattern of the fabric, it didn't seem that there was any point in going ahead and looking at the width.
Q Oh. Do I understand, then--

MR. MURTAGH: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Let him finish.

THE WITNESS: It would be like looking at the fact that two people were 6' 1" and then ignoring the fact that one of them was black and one of them was white. I mean, you know, you don't continue your comparison when there are obvious differences.

BY MR. MURTAGH:
Q Okay. Well, do I take it, then, that you did not measure, say, with calipers or some other device, the dimensions of this stain and compare them to the dimensions of the cuff of the pajama top?
A No; I did not.
Q Okay. You didn't do that length-wise or--
A (Interposing) That is correct.
Q Or the width?
A I measured the width with a ruler.
Q Okay. And did that conform?
A Yes, generally in the area of three-quarters of an inch.
Q Okay. Now, with respect to Dr. Thornton's testimony this morning, I believe he testified that area "F," which is not depicted in the photograph here, conformed to the left cuff or could have been made by the left cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top. Do you recall that, sir?
A I believe that is Jeff MacDonald's pajama top.
Q No, sir.
A Not Colette MacDonald's.
Q I don't believe it is Jeffrey MacDonald's. I will be happy to show it to you.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, either way. The only thing I asked him about were two other areas.
And I don't know what we are doing going into this particular matter he wasn't asked to examine, Your Honor.

MR. MURTAGH: I did not ask him that, Judge.

THE COURT: Proceed.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2014, 07:22 PM   #528
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,855
Is there a point to your post? I'm not seeing anything new here.
__________________
What a time to be alive! It's like the collapse of Rome but with WiFi

Basically, if the GOP doesn't want to be called the white supremacy party, they should stop acting like they are.
-Mumbles
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 02:43 AM   #529
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Conspiracy Buff

KATIE: Henriboy has been at this for the past decade. He is a conspiracy buff who believes that Jeffrey MacDonald, O.J. Simpson, Darlie Routier, Lee Harvey Oswald, and every other high profile psychopath has been railroaded by the MAN. In terms of the MacDonald case, he flat-out ignores the FACT that the jury only took 6 hours to convict MacDonald on three counts of murder. Their conviction was based on the 1,100 evidentiary items produced by the prosecution and the FACT that not a single evidentiary item was sourced to a KNOWN intruder suspect. No hairs, no fibers, no fingerprints, nothing, nada, zip.

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 Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 01:55 PM   #530
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Selective Analysis

In terms of the testimony of Charles Morton, he was one of two forensics experts who testified for the Defense at the 1979 trial. The odd thing about their testimony is that John Thornton agreed with Paul Stombaugh's conclusion that two bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet matched the right cuff from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top and a singular bloody impression matched the left cuff from Colette's pajama top.

For whatever reason, he didn't analyze the impressions that Stombaugh determined matched the left cuff from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top and the right cuff from Colette's pajama top. It gets weirder. Morton didn't analyze the bloody impression matching the left cuff from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top, but he did analyze the right cuff impression and concluded that it wasn't a bloody cuff impression. This selective analysis did the Defense no favors and rang hollow to the jury.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 4th March 2014 at 01:57 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 Back to Top
Old 7th March 2014, 03:56 PM   #531
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Stombaugh's Analysis

Paul Stombaugh labeled each bloody fabric impression found on the blue bedsheet with a letter designation. The following are the impressions that Stombaugh identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial:

Area A Jeffrey MacDonald’s right sleeve cuff

Area B Jeffrey MacDonald’s right sleeve cuff

Area C Bloody left hand impression

Area D Bloody right hand impression

Area E Bare left shoulder impression

Area E Jeffrey MacDonald’s torn left sleeve cuff

Area F Colette MacDonald’s left sleeve cuff

Area G Colette MacDonald’s right sleeve cuff

John Thornton and Charles Morton testified for the defense at the 1979 trial. Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F. Thornton and Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Area G and admitted that he never studied Areas A, B, E, and F, while Thornton admitted that he never studied the fabric impressions in Areas E and G. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding, and Morton admitted to 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.

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 Back to Top
Old 7th March 2014, 07:56 PM   #532
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
Is there a point to your post? I'm not seeing anything new here.
I think if you are waiting for Henri to make a clear, concise, and legitimate point, you are waiting in vain. Have some popcorn.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th March 2014, 11:14 PM   #533
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Sadly, Joe McGinniss died today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/bo...tics.html?_r=0
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 10th March 2014 at 11:16 PM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2014, 02:19 AM   #534
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,086
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
That's too bad. I didn't realize he was battling cancer.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2014, 08:28 AM   #535
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
That's too bad. I didn't realize he was battling cancer.
Damn. Me neither.
Tiktaalik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2014, 12:52 PM   #536
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Wow

Joe was an incredible writer, family man, and a good dude. Fatal Vision is one of the best true crime books ever written and exposed Jeffrey MacDonald as a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath. RIP, Mr. McGinniss.

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 Back to Top
Old 14th March 2014, 11:42 AM   #537
psychoticstate
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 9
I was very sorry to hear of the loss of Joe McGinniss. Fantastic writer - - Fatal Vision is one of the very best true crime books out there - - and crusader for justice. He won't be forgotten.

I would like to ask Henri, or any other supporter of MacDonald and his story, a legitimate question. I have read this thread through and while Henri has made many posts about how MacDonald was unfairly convicted, how North Carolina is biased, etc., I don't see actual proof and facts that MacDonald was innocent and/or unfairly convicted.

Henri, can you provide this? You may be of the opinion that MacDonald is innocent and that's your choice to make but you are so vehement in your defense of him, it seems you should have actual facts to back up your claims.

Thank you.
psychoticstate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 09:04 AM   #538
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
KATIE: Henriboy has been at this for the past decade. He is a conspiracy buff who believes that Jeffrey MacDonald, O.J. Simpson, Darlie Routier, Lee Harvey Oswald, and every other high profile psychopath has been railroaded by the MAN. In terms of the MacDonald case, he flat-out ignores the FACT that the jury only took 6 hours to convict MacDonald on three counts of murder. Their conviction was based on the 1,100 evidentiary items produced by the prosecution and the FACT that not a single evidentiary item was sourced to a KNOWN intruder suspect. No hairs, no fibers, no fingerprints, nothing, nada, zip.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
You decide on the evidence in any murder case and you follow the evidence. That evidence in the MacDonald case leads to Mazerolle and Greg Mitchell as the real culprits and not what the late Joe McGinniss made up about the case. Just because the lazy and incompetent Army CID decided from the start that Dr. MacDonald did it doesn't make it a fact.

I happen to think that OJ Simpson was guilty and that Amanda Knox was lucky to go free by sobbing in court in front of the American public on TV.

These judges need to be independent and impartial and extremely competent and not biased judges as in the MacDonald case. There has been an extraordinary decision by a Herbert Londoner judge recently when an Italian mafia man walked free because the judge said the prisons in Italy are too harsh for him to be extradited. It's absurd leniency. There was also a rumor on TV that an American Supreme court judge socialized with the Koch brothers in regard to legal work for American oil interests. There needs to be judgement and diplomacy.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 09:25 AM   #539
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,855
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You decide on the evidence in any murder case and you follow the evidence. That evidence in the MacDonald case leads to Mazerolle and Greg Mitchell as the real culprits and not what the late Joe McGinniss made up about the case. Just because the lazy and incompetent Army CID decided from the start that Dr. MacDonald did it doesn't make it a fact.

I happen to think that OJ Simpson was guilty and that Amanda Knox was lucky to go free by sobbing in court in front of the American public on TV.

These judges need to be independent and impartial and extremely competent and not biased judges as in the MacDonald case. There has been an extraordinary decision by a Herbert Londoner judge recently when an Italian mafia man walked free because the judge said the prisons in Italy are too harsh for him to be extradited. It's absurd leniency. There was also a rumor on TV that an American Supreme court judge socialized with the Koch brothers in regard to legal work for American oil interests. There needs to be judgement and diplomacy.
The evidence leads directly to Jeffery MacDonald, no one else.
__________________
What a time to be alive! It's like the collapse of Rome but with WiFi

Basically, if the GOP doesn't want to be called the white supremacy party, they should stop acting like they are.
-Mumbles
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th March 2014, 05:02 PM   #540
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Lone Perp

Henri knows that Greg Mitchell was cleared as a suspect by the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1981. He knows that Mitchell passed a polygraph exam, his prints were not found at the crime scene, and none of his DNA was found inside 544 Castle Drive. Henri also knows that Allen Mazerolle was in jail on 2/17/70. Guess who ratted him out to the cops? Yup, you guessed it, Helena Stoeckley.

Henri and other MacDonald advocates do not go where the evidence leads them. They studiously avoid the evidence because all of the SOURCED evidentiary items point directly at Jeffrey MacDonald as being the lone perp.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th March 2014 at 05:03 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th March 2014, 08:35 AM   #541
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
The FBI or Army CID never did a thorough or detailed investigation into Greg Mitchell, or Mazerolle, or any kind of extensive background check on them. It's true that some kind of female FBI agent interviewed Mazerolle after Dr. MacDonald had been put in prison. Mazerolle just replied what an awful person Helena Stoeckley was after giving his name and address.

At about that time Greg Mitchell had been telling witnesses about something that had happened at North Carolina and that he was badly scared and he was trying to get out of the country and that he had been interviewed by the SBI, which I think is the State Bureau of Investigation, without publicly giving details. Greg Mitchell died soon after, round about the same time as Helena Stoeckley.

Detective Beasley, who was a front-line detective, unlike the FBI or Army CID, always thought that Greg Mitchell and Mazerolle were involved. Unfortunately Dr. MacDonald ran out of money after being put into prison and his private detectives were then never able to take the next logical steps to interview people who know exactly what had happened and who are keeping a zippy on their lippies.

As JTF says that there don't seem to be forensics linking the suspects to the MacDonald murders. It's possible to get away with murder and bank fraud if you don't get caught. The investigation was bungled from the start. The police are apt to jump to conclusions.

There is a similar sort of miscarriage of justice in my own area at the moment. A female drama teacher was arrested for having consensual sex with a sixteen year old pupil, which she quite reasonably thought was within the law. Sex isn't illegal. The violently prejudiced magistrate then placed the case with the Crown Court because as she says she was unable to give sufficient punishment. Then because of the cuts and closures to legal aid that drama teacher is unrepresented in court. It's not fair and just.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th March 2014 at 09:03 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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2014, 09:00 AM   #542
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
The point is that Murtagh never proved beyond reasonable doubt with credible evidence that Dr. MacDonald did it with all that nonsensical rubbish about bodies being carried in a sheet, and Colette hitting Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush, and then Colette supposedly murdering the two little girls, and Kim supposedly having wet the bed instead of Kristen, as Dr. MacDonald said, and black wool fibers on the murder weapon supposedly being pajama fibers. It was just the same with Murtagh and the Lockerbie case.

The matter of Mazerolle and Greg Mitchell, who were known to the local police, was discussed at the 1979 MacDonald trial. This is part of it:

E X A M I N A T I O N 11:13 a.m.

BY THE COURT:
Q Let me ask you, Mr. Beasley, about several matters that either I didn't hear your answers, or you were not asked. You say you didn't arrest these people? Where did you detain them?
A At Helena's house.
Q Just out there in the driveway?
A Yes, sir; I stayed right out there. We was right out there in the street.
Q You kept them there for about an hour?
A Yes, sir.
Q You called in to the police department and asked them to get somebody on the radio, to get these people to come out there?
A That is correct.
Q After an hour, nobody showed up?
A Nobody showed up.
Q So you let them go?
A That is correct.
Q I assume you did get their names, didn't you?
A Yes, sir; I've got their names in the folder that is missing, Your Honor. We can't locate it anyplace. We have located these records, but that folder is missing.
Q Did you ever turn that folder over to the investigators?
A Yes, sir; it was turned over -- well, turned over to our office. Now, it was 1971 before I got any further contact with the CID and this folder was never requested. Had it been, they could have had it easily.
Q You never volunteered to let them have it?
A No, sir.
Q I see. And do you know whether or not any of these people were ever interviewed by the CID?
A To my knowledge, not one of them. The only one was Helena.
Q I say, do you know whether or not?
A To my knowledge; no, sir, except Helena Stoeckley.
Q Can you recall the names of any of the people that were with her that night?
A There was one name that I can remember -- his name was Greg Mitchell. And the other two I cannot. That name sounds familiar because he was one of the boys that was sort of in charge of a group of the hippie-type people there, and we had a special lookout on him. He lived somewhere here in North Carolina, but we can't find any records on him anywhere in our office.
Q As a result of any investigation that you ever made, do you know whether or not anyone was ever arrested or charged with anything in connection with these crimes?
A Not with the crimes, Your Honor, but the black man -- I signed a warrant for him and he was arrested and released on a $2,000 bond, and we have not seen him since. He never showed up and the case was nol pros'd in Superior Court.
Q What was he charged with?
A Possession of drugs. He was one of the men that I was looking for the day we hit the trailer with the other people that were supposed to have been there. The other three was not there -- or he wasn't there when we raided the trailer.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th March 2014, 02:57 PM   #543
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Link

MacDonald advocates rarely address the massive CID reinvestigation that arrived at the same conclusion as the FBI and the 1979 jury.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...stigation.html
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 03:55 AM   #544
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
I can't quite see why Gene Weingarten thinks Murtagh has an abstract sense of justice, except for the fact that the Washington Post now has close connections to the CIA. Aljazeera TV thinks Murtagh's prosecution in the Lockerbie case was plain wrong. Prosecutors must be whiter than white.

Dr. MacDonald was cleared at the 1970 Article 32 proceeding, and so to get revenge the Army CID did an 'extensive reinvestigation' as JTF puts it, which just involved manufactured evidence which would sway a gullible North Carolina jury, supported by the unqualified FBI con artist, Stombaugh.

Greg Mitchell was interviewed by Bill Ivory after the Article 32. Greg Mitchell just categorically denied everything and said that if he was with Helena Stoeckley that night he would have been at the Dunkin Donuts in Fayetteville, or the Village Shop. He said he was probably staying with his parents that night, which doesn't sound convincing to me. It should have been checked out.

Judge Dupree later said publicly that Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere! Mazerolle has never really been investigated, even though he went on the run after the MacDonald murders.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd March 2014 at 04:28 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 Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 04:23 AM   #545
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
There is some background to this from a 2003 Larry King show:

KING: You were convicted, a seven-week trial in 1979, but the U.S. Court Of appeals a year later reverses and frees you.

MACDONALD: Yes.

KING: Reversed on what count?

MACDONALD: Speedy trial. I won two different speedy trial appeals. Both were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until my case came up, the U.S. Supreme Court had...

KING: The prosecution appealed the court of appeals ruling in your favor...

MACDONALD: Correct.

KING: ... to the Supreme Court.

MACDONALD: Yes. And the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. They said that the years 1970 to 1975 didn't count towards speedy trial because I wasn't indictment from a federal grand jury.

KING: What did you do that year you were out?

MACDONALD: I practiced medicine in Long Beach. I was -- I'm an emergency physician. I had a circle of friends and my family and I practiced medicine at St. Mary Medical Center.

KING: They just came and rearrested you and brought you back to prison.

MACDONALD: March 31, 1982.

KING: Were you shocked at the Supreme Court?

MACDONALD: Shocked is beyond words. I had been out for about 18 months. I was back in practice. Again, I had a circle of friends. I was planning a life. I had moved my mother to the Long Beach area. She was very ill. And I was awakened at 7:00 AM in the morning with a call from the hospital, saying the FBI is here.

KING: The prosecution's contention, then, is that you harmed yourself in order to pull this crime off. As a surgeon, you would know where to inflict yourself...

MACDONALD: Well, they changed their story. Sometimes they say Colette must have injured me. Colette never injured me. We never had a fight. We never had a struggle.

KING: What was the motive?

MACDONALD: There is no motive, Larry.

KING: They never showed a motive?

MACDONALD: There never has been a motive.

KING: Did they not introduce testimony from people that you tended to be raged, that you could quickly react with a bad temper? Was that introduced?

MACDONALD: It's an excellent...

KING: I'm working from memory here.

MACDONALD: It's an excellent question. It was not introduced. It never happened. What you're referring to is what I've been facing for 33 years, and that's the legends of the case. What you're referring to is what Joe McGinniss said. Joe McGinniss made up some hypotheticals involving rage, put them in a book, and I've been paying for it ever since.

KING: He made it as hypothetical...

MACDONALD: Hypothetical.

KING: You mean to find a reason, then, for why you killed them.

MACDONALD: What if? What if?

KING: I see.

MACDONALD: OK? Everyone who's ever been to our house at Fort Bragg, every person who's ever known us has testified. I have seen every statement. There are no people who say that Jeffrey MacDonald has rages. I was practicing emergency medicine in a traumatic environment for 12 years. I've been in prison for 23.
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 07:49 AM   #546
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Child Killer

Getting back to reality, the CID's original investigation lasted over 6 weeks, the CID's reinvestigation lasted almost 3 years, and the FBI has done several investigations with the most recent being in 2009. The conclusions drawn from these investigations were uniform and pointed to Jeffrey MacDonald as the lone perp.

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 Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 08:17 AM   #547
trialwatcher
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
When is Judge Fox's decision likely to be?
trialwatcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 02:06 PM   #548
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Next Several Months

The government filed the last post-evidentiary hearing reply/memo on 9/23/13. In the past, Judge Fox took about 18 months to respond to significant issues in this case. Considering that this is the last major decision he makes in this case, I believe he will proceed with caution and care. IMO, his decision will be rendered sometime between April and September of this year.

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 Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 03:17 PM   #549
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,086
Originally Posted by trialwatcher View Post
When is Judge Fox's decision likely to be?
Welcome to the forum, Trialwatcher. I, too, love watching trials. You can find a few interesting trial related discussions here, such as Pistorius' trial, Shiren Dewani's case and Nyki Kish's case. If you feel really brave, wander into the Knox thread

This MacDonald case is a much easier one about which to form an opinion of guilt (or not), at least IMHO.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 03:47 PM   #550
trialwatcher
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
JTF - interesting, thanks. I wonder how JM has the mental energy to continue this for so long! You'd think he'd eventually lose all energy and just want to hide away in his prison cell...evidently not!

Thanks for the welcome Ampulla! The Shrien Dewani case is certainly going to be interesting...if there is indeed a trial!
trialwatcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2014, 04:02 PM   #551
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,418
Originally Posted by trialwatcher View Post
JTF - interesting, thanks. I wonder how JM has the mental energy to continue this for so long! You'd think he'd eventually lose all energy and just want to hide away in his prison cell...evidently not!
....
That's easy to answer. Somebody sitting in a prison cell doesn't have anything to do but plot a way out one way or another. All he needs is to have one idiot judge swallow one lame argument, and he might get a new trial. Then it would be anybody's guess whether enough of the original evidence, witnesses etc. would still be around to guarantee a conviction.

It also wouldn't surprise me if after 40 years MacDonald has convinced himself that he really didn't do it. The mind is funny like that.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2014, 05:44 AM   #552
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Burden Is On Inmate

After 18 months of freedom, MacDonald returned to prison in 1982, and his rotating band of lawyers have had their collective asses kicked in the appellate system. In terms of how Judge Fox has factored into this ass kicking, he denied MacDonald a new trial in 1995 and 2006.

There is little chance that he will do a 180 in 2014, especially when you consider how the government took apart the defense at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The government proved that Jimmy Britt was a serial fabricator and that the DNA test results were more indicative of guilt than innocence.

At this point in the case, the burden of proof is on MacDonald, and that burden is "extraordinarily high." The defense has to prove actual innocence which equates to no reasonable juror voting to convict MacDonald of murder. The defense has not come close to meeting that burden.

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 Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 06:30 AM   #553
psychoticstate
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post

It also wouldn't surprise me if after 40 years MacDonald has convinced himself that he really didn't do it. The mind is funny like that.
I think MacDonald has rationalized what he did - - i.e., it was Colette's fault because she started an argument or Kimmy's fault because she wet the bed and caused him to explode - - but I think he knows and remembers full well what went down that night.

I do think MacDonald has convinced himself he's the victim in all of this.
psychoticstate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th March 2014, 05:17 AM   #554
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,418
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
......
At this point in the case, the burden of proof is on MacDonald, and that burden is "extraordinarily high." The defense has to prove actual innocence which equates to no reasonable juror voting to convict MacDonald of murder. The defense has not come close to meeting that burden.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Just a question here. I note from your website that MacDonald applied for parole in 2005. Accepting responsibility is usually a key condition for parole consideration. Did MacDonald admit to anything during the parole proceedings? If not, was that a basis for denying parole?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th March 2014, 09:10 PM   #555
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
2020 Or Bust

BOB: The 2005 parole hearing was a disaster for MacDonald. His deceased wife's brother, Robert Stevenson, was able to look MacDonald in the eye and tell him that his "sociopathic tendencies" will keep him in prison for the rest of his life. Brian Murtagh provided a verbal presentation to the parole board and argued that since MacDonald showed no remorse (e.g., MacDonald argued that he was a model prisoner and factually innocent) for his crimes, he was seeking a pardon, not parole.

Murtagh responded to a list of evidentiary arguments put forth by an unnamed party and basically asked the parole board to demand that the author show him or herself. That didn't happen. Murtagh responded in writing to each evidentiary claim, and as usual, his responses were extremely thorough. Murtagh also refuted the claim that MacDonald had been a model prisoner and produced records of MacDonald's multiple visits to the hole to prove it.

Murtagh also produced a videotape of the late Freddy Kassab asking a perspective parole board to deny his incarcerated son in-law parole. The
parole board denied MacDonald parole and ruled that he would not be eligible again for parole until the year 2020.
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 Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 10:40 AM   #556
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,652
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's easy to answer. Somebody sitting in a prison cell doesn't have anything to do but plot a way out one way or another. All he needs is to have one idiot judge swallow one lame argument, and he might get a new trial. Then it would be anybody's guess whether enough of the original evidence, witnesses etc. would still be around to guarantee a conviction.

It also wouldn't surprise me if after 40 years MacDonald has convinced himself that he really didn't do it. The mind is funny like that.
I do agree that in his mind he feels like a victim. He is after all a sociopath, and it often is, in their minds, everyone elses fault. As to his believing he is innocent of the crimes is more difficult to understand. I don't know that much about how minds work, but for him to have completely blocked out that night and really feels he is innocent, is a hard stretch for me to believe.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 04:45 PM   #557
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Links

BOB: Here ya go.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...role-comm.html

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...e_hearing.html
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 Back to Top
Old 27th March 2014, 09:44 AM   #558
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,601
The parole hearing in 2005 was a farce. It was about that time that Colette's brother, Bob Stevenson, appeared on American radio to say that Kassab had always thought there had been child molestation, without presenting any supporting evidence, or medical evidence. Murtagh presented his usual legal waffle that Colette had murdered the two little girls and Kim had wet the bed and the pajama cuff impressions nonsense and pajama -like hairs on the murder weapon, and other splitting hairs waffle.

I think Dr. MacDonald was in between lawyers at the time and the whole thing was biased as usual. Dr. MacDonald was fearfully aggrieved and he perhaps unfairly blamed his lawyers for what had happened. He parted company with many of his lawyers rather like tennis players part with their coaches. He was pinning his hopes in the 1985 appeal on the Californian lawyer O'Neill, but Murtagh and Judge Dupree soon put a stop to all that.

Dr. MacDonald was accused of illegally providing medical assistance to an injured fellow prisoner and having an argument with a prison guard who had destroyed his personal documentation about the MacDonald case. It's like Egyptian or Saudi Arabian justice. Judge Dupree and Judge Fox had never liked MacDonald's lawyer Segal because he was a member of the Jewish race and Blackburn has made the remark in the past that Segal considered the prosecutors to be country bumpkins, which they are. Perhaps Dr. MacDonald needed some London experts?

When Dr. MacDonald was first imprisoned he seems to have had a row with Segal for allowing Judge Dupree to call for a couple of CIA psychiatrists, I think called Silverman and Brussell in order to declare Dr. MacDonald psychotic at the 1979 trial. That seems to be a common legal trick around the world. Murdoch once paid for some psychiatrists to declare the left-wing politician Tony Benn to be declared semi-lunatic in his newspapers. Soviet Russia used the Serbsky psychiatric institute in order to to lock up dissidents. German doctors murdered people in concentration camps. Nearly all of those doctors went unpunished, as far as I can judge.

Judge Dupree never allowed Dr. Sadoff to testify that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it. That's corrupt bias. The judges are tools of Wall Street.

Judges need to learn how to be fair and just and the police need to learn how to deal with difficult murders, and journalists need to stop concentrating on celebrity gossip and the Super Bowl and to try to understand miscarriages of justice, and to study the history of far away countries like Iraq and Ukraine.

Bill Ivory disregarded suspects in the MacDonald case. Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley, and others, were never properly investigated. It was a rush to judgement. The Department of Justice wrote to MacDonald lawyer Silverglate in 1992 that they were still clinging on to their belief that Mazerolle was in jail without presenting any documentation about Mazerolle's trial which never happened, or his subsequent fleeing criminal behavior.

If you are arrested and charged you later appear in court unless you are in Saudi Arabia and have your head chopped off. Murtagh has some explaining to do about Mazerolle instead of just producing a scrap of paper about supposedly being in jail and then losing all the rest of the documentation. Mazerolle is a clever criminal and a hard cookie as Detective Beasley described him. Mazerolle skipped bail and he was involved in the MacDonald murders. I think he is still alive and prospering in the north-east of America somewhere.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th March 2014 at 09:52 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 Back to Top
Old 27th March 2014, 03:31 PM   #559
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,255
Links

BOB: Here ya go.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...role-comm.html

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...e_hearing.html
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 Back to Top
Old 28th March 2014, 10:05 AM   #560
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 553
I have just recently read Fatal Vision for the first time. I then read much of Wilderness of Error and also read Final Vision. In addition, there is a web site with most of the official documents from the case. I feel like I should respond to this.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
[...]Murtagh presented his usual legal waffle that Colette had murdered the two little girls [...]
This is completely false. He never even hinted that anyone other than Jeffrey MacDonald killed his family. As evidence, here is Murtagh's oral presentation from the parole hearing in 2005: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...005-05-10.html. On the first page he notes that MacDonald was convicted of all three murders. He later mentions "conviction for these three murders are a sufficient basis to deny him parole." Nothing about Colette killing anyone.



Here is a more detailed submission from Murtagh to the parole committee, where he details his response to every point raised in MacDonald's submission to the parole committee: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...005-05-09.html. He lays out detailed arguments about various procedural matters, legal matters, and matters of fact. Whenever the issue arises, he points to MacDonald as the murderer.



Further, there is no way a prosecutor would go to the parole committee and say, "He needs to stay in prison for killing three people because he only killed one person." There is no way that would happen, and the record shows it did not. I have no idea where this whole idea came from, but it was not from Murtagh.

Quote:

Dr. MacDonald was accused of illegally providing medical assistance to an injured fellow prisoner and having an argument with a prison guard who had destroyed his personal documentation about the MacDonald case. [...]
I don't know where this comes from either. In MacDonald's request for parole, the fact that he had provided medical assistance while in prison was listed as a reason to grant him parole. The parole committee apparently didn't think this made up for killing three people, but it was never an accusation. How could it be?

Quote:

[...] I think called Silverman and Brussell in order to declare Dr. MacDonald psychotic at the 1979 trial.

[...]

Judge Dupree never allowed Dr. Sadoff to testify that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it. That's corrupt bias. The judges are tools of Wall Street.
Judge Dupree also did not allow the government's psychiatrists to testify that MacDonald was a psychopath. It was not a biased exclusion of just the defense psych evaluation, it was a ruling that competing psych evaluations would not help. Would it have helped the defense to have one guy say MacDonald was fine, and two to say he was a homicidal psychopath with no remorse?

Quote:

Bill Ivory disregarded suspects in the MacDonald case. Greg Mitchell and Helena Stoeckley, and others, were never properly investigated. It was a rush to judgement.[...]
Stoeckley was investigated to death (perhaps literally). So was Mitchell (probably not literally). They gave statement after statement to dozens of investigators and lawyers. They were given multiple polygraph tests. Their fingerprints and DNA were compared to items from the apartment. Their acquaintances were questioned. It just turns out that a drug addict who can't remember where she was on the night of the murders is not enough to overturn all the real evidence of the case.



Basically, everything in the post is wrong.
__________________
A+
Stamuel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 01:49 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.