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 28th March 2014, 03:16 PM   #561
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Irony

The irony of Henriboy's ramblings about William Ivory's disregard for suspects is that Ivory interviewed BOTH Helena Stoeckley/Greg Mitchell, obtained print exemplars from Mitchell, and arranged for Mitchell to take a polygraph exam. CID polygraph examiner Robert Brisentine concluded that Mitchell was not being deceptive when he denied involvement in the MacDonald murders. Ivory and Brisentine were both inducted into the CID Hall of Fame.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th March 2014 at 03:19 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 28th March 2014, 04:36 PM   #562
psychoticstate
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 9
Quote:
This is completely false. He never even hinted that anyone other than Jeffrey MacDonald killed his family. On the first page Murtagh 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.
I'd like for Henri to provide a source for the claim that Colette killed Kim and Kristy as well. I've never heard of this theory, much less it being espoused by Brian Murtagh.

I have read every book on this case, as well as multiple documents and there is zero evidence that Colette killed anyone, much less her two girls.

The evidence very clearly points to one perpetrator and that's Jeffrey MacDonald.
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 28th March 2014, 05:04 PM   #563
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Shaw's Theory

Henri is attempting to credit Brian Murtagh with being the author of a theory created by CID investigator Robert Shaw. Prior to the Article 32 hearing, the three lead investigators (e.g., Franz Grebner, William Ivory, and Shaw) were interviewed by the defense. Shaw admitted that he had considered a scenario where Colette killed one of the children. Grebner and Ivory did not think Shaw's theory was feasible and Shaw eventually agreed with their assessment.

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 28th March 2014, 11:39 PM   #564
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Article

Nice article about Blackburn and McGinniss from the Charlotte Observer:

Fatal Vision’ cast narrows


By John Drescher
The (Raleigh) News & Observer
Posted: Monday, Mar. 17, 2014
During the trial of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald in Raleigh in the summer of 1979, the jury toured the Fort Bragg apartment where MacDonald’s pregnant wife and two young daughters were killed.

MacDonald, charged with three murders, was there. So was Jim Blackburn of Raleigh, the assistant U.S. attorney who was prosecuting him.

Unexpectedly, Blackburn found himself alone with MacDonald in the bedroom where MacDonald’s wife, Collette, had been bludgeoned and stabbed nine years earlier. “I thought at the time how strange it was that the two of us should be there, right where they died,” Blackburn told The News & Observer’s Ginny Carroll a few years later.

MacDonald was convicted a few weeks later of second-degree murder in the deaths of Collette, 26, and Kimberly, 5, and first-degree murder in the death of Kristen, 2. He is serving three life sentences. MacDonald insisted then, and still does today, that a group of hippies entered the apartment, chanted “acid is groovy, kill the pigs,” injured him and killed his family.

Joe McGinniss, the writer who brought MacDonald’s story to the world with his 1983 best-selling book, “Fatal Vision,” died last week at 71. His death narrows a bit more the living cast of characters from that unforgettable trial.

Helena Stoeckley, the drug-addled “woman in the floppy hat” who gave multiple stories and testified in the trial, has been dead for more than 30 years. Gone also is U.S. District Judge Franklin Dupree. So is Carroll, the fine reporter who covered the trial for The N&O.

Yet the case lives on. Appeals have taken it before the U.S. Supreme Court seven times. A hearing was held in U.S. District Court in Wilmington in 2012 to consider new DNA evidence and statements made since the trial from a former U.S. marshal and Stoeckley’s mother (both also have died). The judge has not ruled on the 2012 testimony.

The trial’s remaining central characters are defense attorney Wade Smith of Raleigh, 76; prosecutor Brian Murtagh, 67; MacDonald, 70; and prosecutor Blackburn, 69.

Blackburn and McGinniss started on different sides. McGinniss was a journalist and established author. He was recruited by MacDonald to tell his story, although their agreement was that McGinniss was free to write as he saw fit. McGinniss was part of MacDonald’s entourage during the trial, living with the group at the Kappa Alpha house at N.C. State University.

Blackburn knew who McGinniss was, but they didn’t speak during the trial. “I was terrified of his existence,” Blackburn told me last week. “I knew he was going to treat us as a bunch of Southern bumpkins.”

But by the end of the trial, which showed that the physical evidence didn’t match MacDonald’s story, McGinniss was convinced that MacDonald had killed his wife and children. McGinniss wrote to Blackburn, and Blackburn decided to talk. He also cleared the way for McGinniss to interview Murtagh and Freddy Kassab, Collette MacDonald’s stepfather.

Some thought McGinniss had double-crossed MacDonald. New Yorker writer Janet Malcolm said McGinniss was an example of the reporter as a “kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Blackburn said McGinniss was “personable, a good listener, a good interviewer, absolutely devoted to pursuing a subject to the end.” They became friends, saw each other from time to time. When Blackburn had legal problems – in 1993, he admitted he had stolen $230,000 from his law firm to cover lies he made to clients – McGinniss wrote him supportive letters.

They had breakfast in Wilmington in 2012 before Blackburn was to testify. McGinniss had sent Blackburn an email that said, “You'll do great. The truth is hard to screw up, unlike lies.”

At the hearing, 33 years after the trial, Blackburn and MacDonald were in the same courtroom again. They did not make eye contact.
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 29th March 2014, 05:48 AM   #565
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 553
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Henri is attempting to credit Brian Murtagh with being the author of a theory created by CID investigator Robert Shaw. Prior to the Article 32 hearing, the three lead investigators (e.g., Franz Grebner, William Ivory, and Shaw) were interviewed by the defense. Shaw admitted that he had considered a scenario where Colette killed one of the children. Grebner and Ivory did not think Shaw's theory was feasible and Shaw eventually agreed with their assessment.





http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Thanks. That makes sense. I figured someone sometime had raised the possibility Colette hurt one of her daughters, and Henri misattributed it to Murtagh. It also makes sense Shaw would have abandoned the idea before the Article 32 hearing.
__________________
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
Old 29th March 2014, 09:27 PM   #566
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Data Conflation

BEN: Henri has attempted this same tactic with several other issues in this case. For example, he has claimed that Freddy Kassab's theory (e.g., MacDonald had been molesting Kimmie which resulted in Kimmie wetting the master bed) was a part of the prosecution's case at the 1979 trial. The documented record says otherwise.

Kassab did not divulge his theory to Blackburn or Murtagh prior to the 1979 trial. The first time his theory became public knowledge was when Dr. Michael Stone told Janet Malcolm that Kassab confided in him at the 1987 MacDonald VS McGinniss civil trial.

In 1998, Brian Murtagh told Robert Sam Anson that the prosecution presented about 60 percent of their case file at the 1979 trial. The FACT that Kimmie, not Kristen, was the source of the urine stain on the master bed was NOT presented at trial.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th March 2014 at 09:40 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 1st April 2014, 04:03 AM   #567
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,639
The point is that Dr. MacDonald was convicted on fabricated evidence, or to put it in plain English on nonsensical rubbish. Murtagh had tunnel vision and Blackburn was a proven crook. Murtagh was only interested in furthering his career. It was not right judgement.

Shaw always held the belief that Colette murdered the two little girls and none of the other simpletons in the Army CID ever disagreed with him about that. That is in the Article 32 transcripts. Kearns was never cross-examined in court about his lunatic theory that Kim wet the bed and also Stombaugh's theory without facts that bodies were carried in a sheet and Colette hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush was discredited in court. It was just the same with the pajama folding experiment, which was never scientifically correct.

I don't think JTF fully appreciates that a thousand evidentiary items is not necessarily legally admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. What Kassab's strange beliefs were about possible child molestation or what the soldier said is not evidence in a court or at a trial.

In Blackburn's closing argument he told the jury that pajama-like fibers were found on the murder weapon which was supposed to be conclusive evidence. It wasn't until later after the trial that the defense found out that Frier of the FBI had said those fibers were black wool fibers, probably from Mazerolle's velveteen clothes, which Murtagh deliberately covered up at the trial. I know JTF always insists that there were also pajama fibers but Frier never said that. How would you like to be prosecuted by Murtagh and Blackburn if you were innocent and have Judge Dupree and Judge Fox as the judges?

One juror has been quoted as saying he convicted because no blood or pajama fibers were found where Dr. MacDonald fell unconscious. In fact Shaw or Ivory stated at the Article 32 that blood and pajama fibers were found at that exact place, which was also covered up at the 1979 trial. It's simply not true for JTF to say that Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell or Mazerolle and their accomplices were properly and thoroughly investigated. The Army CID were always only interested in prosecuting Dr. MacDonald. They disregarded leads and suspects.

Helana Stoeckley died soon after appearing on TV to say that she was going to blow the lid off of CIA drug smuggling at Fort Bragg which I have always thought suspicious.
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 April 2014, 05:56 AM   #568
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,938
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is that Dr. MacDonald was convicted on fabricated evidence, or to put it in plain English on nonsensical rubbish.
Unsupported opinion.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh had tunnel vision and
Unsupported opinion.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Blackburn was a proven crook.
Untrue.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh was only interested in furthering his career.
Unsupported opinion.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Shaw always held the belief that Colette murdered the two little girls
Untrue.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and none of the other simpletons in the Army CID ever disagreed with him about that.
Untrue.
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That is in the Article 32 transcripts.
Untrue.
<much snippage>

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Helana Stoeckley died soon after appearing on TV to say that she was going to blow the lid off of CIA drug smuggling at Fort Bragg which I have always thought suspicious.
So you've an attraction to other conspiratorial rubbish.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is online now   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 April 2014, 07:55 AM   #569
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 553
Actually, James Blackburn is a convicted embezzler and fraudster. Henri was more or less correct to call him a proven crook. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...o-faking-phony



This is of course troubling. However, Blackburn's crimes occurred in 1990-1991 and were not related to the MacDonald case. The evidence, arguments and theories in the MacDonald trial had been mostly worked out by the grand jury hearing before Blackburn was involved at all. Blackburn's corruption does not seem to change anything about the trial or verdict.
__________________
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
Old 1st April 2014, 08:07 AM   #570
Henri McPhee
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,639
It is true.

Dr. Macdonald appealed at the 2005 parole hearing on the ground of actual innocence in that it was a frameup, which is true.

I don't know where JTF gets this idea that other CID agents disagreed with Shaw's theory. It could be from the Joe McGinniss book and TV movie. What is certain is that it was highly conjectural and speculation. What one policeman says is probably true, what two policeman say may be true, but what three policeman say is never true.

This is part of what Shaw testified at the Article 32 in 1970 as to what he thinks happened. Does this make sense to you?

A Well, you are asking me for my opinion?
Q Yes.
A I am not absolutely certain Captain MacDonald murdered that child.
Q What is your opinion as to who might have murdered that child?
A Well, I think that Captain MacDonald murdered his wife and murdered his oldest daughter.
Something had to start it off; and we are all married men, but I do know that the stresses of daily married life can sometimes become almost unbearable, as we all know from our experience; in many cases it does become unbearable for persons and they go under the strain and some of them pack up and leave home and some cause violence in the home, both men and women. And it has been my opinion and I have nothing to back it up, that perhaps Colette MacDonald did something to this child that caused Captain MacDonald to become enraged, and it is only my personal opinion; I think that perhaps after he lost, when he came out of this fit of passion, he began to think rationally again, he may well have come back to this child and may have re-injured her and he might 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 1st April 2014, 12:47 PM   #571
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Open And Shut

If one elects to separate undiluted facts from red herrings, the only salient conclusion is that Jeffrey MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife and two children, and made a botched attempt to stage the crime scene.

DNA, blood, hairs, fibers, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, bloody footprints, and fabric damage evidence in this case points to Jeffrey MacDonald as being the lone perp.

Since his return to prison in 1982, he has lost every major decision rendered by the appellate courts. This includes two District Court judges, the 4th Circuit Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st April 2014 at 12:50 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 Back to Top
Old 9th April 2014, 01:04 PM   #572
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
End Of A Myth

I thought the following chain of events would be of interest to those who have more than a cursory understanding of the facts of this case. Since the publication of FATAL VISION, it has always been assumed that a pajama fiber found lodged under Kristen's fingernail was later lost at the Fort Gordon lab. In re-reading some of the legal haggling (e.g., documents from 2001-2005) in regards to DNA testing procedures, I discovered that the pajama fiber was never lost.

The pajama fiber was collected at autopsy, placed in a vial, and sent to Dillard Browning for microscopic comparisons. Browning washed the fiber, mounted it on a slide, and subsequently matched it to MacDonald's pajama top. In FATAL VISION, Joe McGinniss stated that the vial containing the pajama fiber was lost shortly after Browning made his comparisons.

In 1990, Browning stated that he left the fiber on the slide and never returned it to the vial, so that part of McGinniss' claim was true. The fiber, however, was not lost as it remained on the slide and later became a part of the discussions regarding which exhibits were suitable for DNA testing.

In 2004, the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology sent a letter to Brian Murtagh, and part of that letter addressed the potential DNA testing of this pajama fiber. The AFIP stated that, "This fiber mounted on a slide with a hair may pose several issues. To my knowledge, AFDIL has never made any attempt to remove the coverslip from a slide containing a fiber. While the chemicals added to a slide are meant to dissolve the adhesive used to bind the slide and coverslip, we have no experience as to the type of detrimental effects these strong solvents could pose on a 30 year old fiber. The solvents could very well dissolve the fiber in addition to the adhesive."

The defense could have requested that the AFIP risk the alteration or destruction of the fiber in the hope that DNA could be extracted from the "red adhering material." The 2006 DNA test results demonstrated that the defense did not put in that request. All of the DNA exhibits were hair exemplars, so the inculpatory fiber remains on a slide in its original coverslip.

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 9th April 2014, 01:58 PM   #573
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
That's interesting. Awaiting future refinements in technique, if needed in the future.
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 13th April 2014, 04:56 AM   #574
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Those who place emphasis on supposition, half-truths, innuendo, and fantasy give credence to the notion that MacDonald is a tortured innocent. Those who stick to documented fact have a very different take on this case.

Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen MacDonald were all overkilled whereas MacDonald suffered one severe wound. That wound was a neat, clean stab wound to the right side of his chest and it was only one centimeter in length. To CID and FBI investigators, this indicated that it was self-inflicted. The rest of his wounds were superficial and required no sutures.
I want to clarify the information on the injury inmate suffered. While true technically it is misleading to call the chest wound a stab wound. In fact, the wound was a 1 cm, neat, clean, and precise INCISED wound in the 5th intercostal space.

one must ask "could 4 to 8 drugged out hippies brutally beat and stab a pregnant woman and two little girls and then be calm enough to create an incised wound that didn't even nick the bones?"
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 Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:25 AM   #575
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Its sad to see Morris described that way, because he did play a significant role in freeing a genuinely innocent man from death row with his documentary "The Thin Blue Line."

I'd prefer to think Morris has just been conned.
I am sure that many others would like to believe this, but I have trouble with that because I KNOW that Errol Morris was in contact with JTF, and at least 1 other person who has mountains of evidence/information that counters the nonsensical aspects he wrote in his book. Also, Morris was originally going to include a jacket blurb for the terrible defense book known as Fatal Justice.
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 Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 01:27 PM   #576
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
remembering an episode of "Body of Evidence" --- the profiler stated quite plainly that when a victim is badly injured around the face and head the perpetrator is someone known to and/or close to the victim.

in this case Colette was badly bludgeoned in the face and head; she was unrecognizable. if she had survived even the best plastic surgeon could not have made her face look as if it was never damaged.

another proof that inmate slaughtered Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th April 2014, 04:44 AM   #577
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
I work in a building that has numerous men who were in the Army in 1970. Several of them are former Green Berets and one is former CID (at Ft Bragg). I got to see what cursing a blue streak really looks like after they spotted my reading material Fatal Vision. These men are furious that inmate has been called a Green Beret AND that he has forever linked this marvelous group of soldiers with a despicable and dishonorable act. Some have even stated that if anyone in that house was a Green Beret it was Colette. Her injuries show a fierce warrior who gave her all to try and protect her children and herself.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th April 2014, 09:41 AM   #578
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
The following is the summary of the psychological evaluation of inmate by:
Dr. Hirsch L. Silverman Ph.D.
dtd 8/16/79

Summary: MacDonald is a psychopath subject to violence under pressure, rather effeminate, given to overt behavior when faced with emotional stress. Sociopathic individual iwth troublesome psychopathy with an overlay of submerged and confused sexuality.

Despite his hedonism he seems self-destructive, naive, superficial and even illogical at times. Seeks freedom and emancipation for personal removal from contraints, controls, and restrictions.

He seeks attention and is given to denial of truth. Is seriously emotional and gives evidence of secretiveness with questionable moral standards. He is detailistic and lacks insight in seeing the gestalt, the whole quality of things and events and persons, as well as circumstances.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th April 2014, 09:54 AM   #579
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
I just realized that Henri McPhee (aka at previous boards as Albert Webb and Arthur Thorpe among other names) is here and still posting his nonsensical unsubstantiated theories. I have on many occasions told him that conspiracy theories do not hold water! As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Three men may keep a secret only after two of them are dead".
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th April 2014, 12:11 PM   #580
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
...Some have even stated that if anyone in that house was a Green Beret it was Colette. Her injuries show a fierce warrior who gave her all to try and protect her children and herself.
Evidence also shows that the youngest daughter (age 2 1/2) fought against her attacker, suffering defensive wounds. Apparently she was a little dynamo, and she went out true to form. Her murder bothers me the most - I can barely stand to think about it.
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 14th April 2014, 01:48 PM   #581
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Shell Game

Byn is correct. In 2011, I spoke with Errol Morris on the phone for 90 minutes after receiving word that he was writing a book on this case. Morris had written an endorsement on the back jacket of the pro-MacDonald book FATAL JUSTICE. Thee years after the book's publication, an article in Vanity Fair mentions that Morris was seeking funds to make a documentary about the MacDonald case.

When I called Morris, I let him know that I believed in MacDonald's guilt and that I had a website that was dedicated to proving his guilt. I then told him that I assumed his book would advocate for MacDonald's innocence, but he denied that would be the book's theme. He claimed that the book would focus on why this case continues to fascinate the general public.

He then let me do most of the talking and he recorded a majority of the conversation. He asked me a few questions which included why MacDonald would insist that Kristen, not Kimmie, had wet the master bed. I encouraged him to visit my website and to contact me with any feedback.

A year later, Morris did an interview with the Smithsonian, and I quickly realized that he had conned me. The article clearly indicated that he had written a pro-MacDonald book and that his main arguments were the same debunked claims made by MacDonald advocates for the past 30 plus years.

Fortunately, Morris' book was a commercial flop and after some initial positive reviews, his mess of a book started to receive some criticism for flat-out ignoring about 95 percent of the government's case against MacDonald.

The final nails in Morris' credibility coffin were hammered in by Gene Weingarten's Washington Post article and Joe McGinniss' e-book FINAL VISION. Despite some weak attempts by the NY Times to keep Morris' name afloat in this case, he is now a mere blip on the MacDonald case radar screen.

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 April 2014, 06:16 PM   #582
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
I think it is important for people to remember that the MPs who responded to Castle Drive that horrible night followed SOP. They believed they were responding to a domestic violence call, upon arrival they attended to the survivors first and then worried about preserving the scene. SOP!
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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2014, 06:19 AM   #583
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Each member of the family had a different blood type.
Type A = Colette; Type AB = Kimmie; Type O = Kristen and Type B = inmate.

Sources say that the odds of a 4 person family each having a different ABO Type is on the order of 1 in 10,000.

Currently in the US the blood groups break down as:
O+ 37.4% and O- 6.6% OR 44% of US population has Type O blood
A+ 35.7% and A- 6.3% OR 42% of US population has Type A blood
B+ 8.5% and B- 1.5% OR 10% of US population has Type B blood
AB+ 3.4% and AB- .6% OR 4% of the US population has Type AB blood

{Quote}From Wikipedia:
Blood groups are inherited from both parents. The ABO blood type is controlled by a single gene (the ABO gene) with three alleles: i, IA, and IB. The gene encodes a glycosyltransferase—that is, an enzyme that modifies the carbohydrate content of the red blood cell antigens. The gene is located on the long arm of the ninth chromosome (9q34).

The IA allele gives type A, IB gives type B, and i gives type O. As both IA and IB are dominant over i, only ii people have type O blood. Individuals with IAIA or IAi have type A blood, and individuals with IBIB or IBi have type B. IAIB people have both phenotypes, because A and B express a special dominance relationship: codominance, which means that type A and B parents can have an AB child. A type A and a type B couple can also have a type O child if they are both heterozygous (IBi,IAi) The cis-AB phenotype has a single enzyme that creates both A and B antigens. The resulting red blood cells do not usually express A or B antigen at the same level that would be expected on common group A1 or B red blood cells, which can help solve the problem of an apparently genetically impossible blood group.{end quote}

What this all boils down to is:

Since each member of the family had a different blood type investigators are able to read the crime scene with a fair amount of accuracy. In this case, it means that inmate continues to LIE since he still insists that Kristen wet the master bed DESPITE the fact that testing of the urine stain makes that a scientific and medical impossibility. Kristen had TYPE O blood therefore her blood contained Antigen H and no antibodies.

The urine stain tested for Antigen A and no antibodies so that means that ONLY Colette or Kimmie could have made that stain. There is no evidence that Colette urinated on herself and there is evidence that Kimmie did. Thus the conclusion that Kimmie wet the bed in the master bedroom. THEN, add to this fact the 6" full thickness soaking stain of Type AB blood and brain serum on the carpet of the master bedroom AND the Type AB blood/brain serum splattered on the interior door jam of the master bedroom door AND the Type AB blood/brain serum found on the white shoes in the master bedroom closet. Also, how about the Type AB blood on inmate's pj top? AND, the Type AB blood on the bedsheet? How about the Type AB blood trail from the Master Bedroom to Kimmie's room? This is cumulative evidence and goes a long way to convicting inmate for his brutal, savage, vicious assault on his family.
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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2014, 08:55 AM   #584
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
....
These men are furious that inmate has been called a Green Beret AND that he has forever linked this marvelous group of soldiers with a despicable and dishonorable act.
....
What does this mean? Was MacDonald not a Green Beret? Or was he assigned to a Green Beret unit as their doctor without actually undergoing their grueling training? Or what? Real Green Berets certainly have good reason to be outraged at MacDonald, but he either was one or he wasn't.
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 15th April 2014, 08:59 AM   #585
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 214
Henri McPhee states: "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."

What an incredibly brazen, not to mention hypocritical, statement from someone trying to convince others that Jeffrey MacDonald didn't brutally murder his own family. Amanda Knox didn't "go free" due to "sobbing in court". Rather she went free due to the singular competance of one Judge Hellman who saw what anyone else looking at the evidence can see so easily. That there isn't a shred of credible evidence, opportunity or motive linking her, or Raffaele Sollecito, to the murder of Meredith Kercher. The same cannot be said for the case against MacDonald, not by a longshot.

Last edited by AnimalFriendly; 15th April 2014 at 08:59 AM. Reason: Error in quote
AnimalFriendly 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 15th April 2014, 10:05 AM   #586
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Weak Kitten View Post
On the other hand just think of all the legal presidents and refinements that came out of this case. I'm sure it will be quite useful as a teaching tool for future lawyers and judges.
Not just a learning tool for future lawyers and judges but used as a learning tool for CID/CIL investigators also!
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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2014, 10:16 AM   #587
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What does this mean? Was MacDonald not a Green Beret? Or was he assigned to a Green Beret unit as their doctor without actually undergoing their grueling training? Or what? Real Green Berets certainly have good reason to be outraged at MacDonald, but he either was one or he wasn't.
according to my former Green Beret colleagues there is some discrepancy as to whether or not inmate completed ALL of the grueling training that would make him "full flash". inmate was assigned as Group Surgeon to a Green Beret unit which does not necessarily make him a full flash Green Beret. Most Green Berets that I've ever talked to say he is NOT a Green Beret and should not be associated with the Green Berets.
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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2014, 11:06 AM   #588
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In 1997, MacDonald's advocates put forth the claim that an unidentified bloody palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed. CID Exhibit D-270 states "Red-brown stain from left edge of bed footboard in east bedroom," and Exhibit W-5 states "one partial latent palm print on the footboard." There is not a single lab document that describes the unidentified print as a bloody palm print and if the print had any discernable ridge lines, it would have been labeled as a patent palm print. Considering that palm print samples obtained at autopsy from Colette MacDonald were of poor quality, there is a reasonably good chance that the palm print found on the footboard was Colette's.
in actuality the "bloody palm print" is a typical inmate groupie/fatal justice argument. there are 2 different evidentiary items; one is blood on the footboard and the other is a partial palm print.

if it was in any way usable print it would be a LATENT print.

if a print is found that is made in any substance (other than the normal skin oils) it would be described as a PATENT print. so a bloody palmprint would be listed as Patent Print - footboard for example. this would be true if a print was made in ice cream, blood, motor oil, paint, powder etc - anything of that sort is a PATENT print not a latent print.
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 Back to Top
Old 15th April 2014, 12:08 PM   #589
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Debunked

In their 2013 Response Memo, the government finally ended any controversy that remained about the alleged "bloody palm print." In addition to what has been presented on this forum, the government pointed out that the unsourced palm print was photographed by the CID, and that the print was in a different location on the footboard than the blood stain.

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 16th April 2014, 11:14 AM   #590
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
I am slowly working my way through all the posts on this board and I noticed a couple of conversations discussing the terms psychopath and sociopath. These are the definitions:

psychopath: noun; a person having a personality disorder, especially one manifested in aggressively antisocial behavior.

sociopath: noun; a person manifesting a social or antisocial behavior or character traits.

from Psybox: sociopathy also known as psycopathy is a pesonality syndrome often (and usually inaccurately) protrayed in the media: this portrayal has led to certain misunderstanding about the syndrome. Sociopaths are characterized by certain personality characteristics, including personal charm, selfishness, impulsiveness, lack of guilt or anxiety, and cruelty. The sociopath usually has a history of minor misbehavior in childhood which often becomes deviant during adolescence. In adulthood a significant number of sociopaths become criminals. They may be distinguished from most convicted or known criminals in so far as they are usually lone wolves contrasting with other criminals who tend to belong to gangs wich possess their own rules of conduct. The syndrome may have organic pathology. (significant number of sociopaths exhibit unusual EEG patterns).

narcissism: noun; excessive admiration or love for ones self; arrestment of develoopment at or regression to the infantile developmental stage in which ones own body is an object of erotic interest.

Last edited by byn63; 16th April 2014 at 11:24 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 16th April 2014, 11:22 AM   #591
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
More about blood types:

ABO and International Blood Group = same 4 basic groups
A, B, AB, and O

Antigens = A, B, and H
Antibodies = anti-A and anti-B

Antibodies are a substance found in the liquid portion of the blood, which can react with red blood cells to cause clumping (agglutination)

Antigens are found on the surface of the red blood cells and are also involved in the agglutination process.

antigens are present in both liquid blood and the resulting dry blood stains. antibodies are found in the liquid blood but remain in the stain upon drying.

Type A - antigen A on surface and anti B in liquid portion
Type B - antigen B on surface and anti A in liquid portion
Type AB - antigen A and antigen B and no antibodies
Type O - antigen H on surface and anti A and anti B in the liquid portion.
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 Back to Top
Old 17th April 2014, 06:21 AM   #592
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Henri also thinks Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. He pretty much abolished any semblance of credibility with that one post. I doubt anyone is even bothering to read his posts anymore.
roflmao! for some reason this post made me remember back at the old A&E board when henri was either Albie or Artie, one of the other posters got so tired of his rambling nonsense she tossed a nickel into a round room and told him to go find it! Albie or Artie (whichever he was at that time) went in and never came back! Think we might try it here??? Maybe henri will fall for it again?
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 Back to Top
Old 17th April 2014, 12:36 PM   #593
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
r
.....
she tossed a nickel into a round room and told him to go find it!
....
What does this mean? Is this computer jargon? Is it like sending an apprentice to find a left-handed monkey wrench? Or what?
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 17th April 2014, 01:58 PM   #594
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What does this mean? Is this computer jargon? Is it like sending an apprentice to find a left-handed monkey wrench? Or what?
sorry it should have said she told henri/albie/artie that she'd tossed a nickel into the corner of a round room and sent him to find it.......he never came back to that board.....
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 Back to Top
Old 17th April 2014, 08:00 PM   #595
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Interesting Excerpts

Some of my favorite excerpts from Daniel Kornstein's closing arguments at the 1987 MacDonald VS McGinniss civil trial.

In 1974, he's in front of the grand jury, they ask him, "Did you ever have a polygraph examination in April 1970?" Remember he'd had two, John Reid and Cleve Backster. And his answer was no. That's what he told the grand jury. He lied to the grand jury.

Then here in the courtroom he says, "Well, the Baxter one I thought was incomplete and the John Reid one I just forgot about that." Now how many polygraphs has he had in his life that he could forget about a polygraph when asked by the grand jury? You can't believe that. He was trying to sell the grand jury the Brooklyn Bridge.

He says Wambaugh offered him $200,000 or $300,000. Wambaugh says that's crazy, that never happened, pure fantasy. Who do you think's lying? Then the promise to Joe that he would cooperate and give him access to everybody. Doesn't give him access to Baxter. You know why.

Every time he said on the stand, "I don't recall--remember how many times that happened? I asked him things that were in transcripts, sworn testimony, simple questions. Every time it got a little bit too close to the bone, every time it got a little bit too uncomfortable, he retreated into the phrase, "I don't recall, I don't recall." Do you believe that?

How evasive does a person have to be on the stand? How many countless lies does he have to tell before he loses credibility? We could talk for hours about the deception within his marriage. We know what that was about.

Out of a 700-page book, look at how much went unchallenged. The central theme of the book that was not challenged was the murder and his guilt in it. And look at the kinds of challenges he made. Remember, it's his burden of proof to prove that they were false.

And you have to separate fact from opinion, remembering also that once a subject is shown to be a liar, every expert testified that you don't have an obligation to confront him with the contrary version because it's your right as a writer to make your own conclusions.

We have MacDonald's attitude towards amphetamines. He says on the tape, "I could understand taking some amphetamines, after all, they weren't so bad, just to stay up and party a little bit." He talks about having taken them previously. And denial is one of the characteristics of a drug abuser.

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 17th April 2014, 09:07 PM   #596
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
He says Wambaugh offered him $200,000 or $300,000. Wambaugh says that's crazy, that never happened, pure fantasy. Who do you think's lying? Then the promise to Joe that he would cooperate and give him access to everybody. Doesn't give him access to Baxter. You know why.
Wait, what? Wambaugh offered "him" (MacDonald?) $200,000 or $300,000 for...what? Pre payment for participation in a proposed book, a la Fatal Vision? A portion of the royalties?
__________________
"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 18th April 2014, 04:16 PM   #597
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Serial Liar

DG: Kornstein is referring to MacDonald's dubious assertion that Joseph Wambaugh offered him $200,000-$300,000 dollars for the exclusive right to construct a book on the case. Talks with Wambaugh were only in the preliminary stages, money was not discussed, and his 1975 letter to MacDonald soured Segal/MacDonald on working with Wambaugh. In the letter, Wambaugh told MacDonald that he would have no editorial input on a proposed book and he warned MacDonald that it was possible that he would come to the conclusion that MacDonald was guilty. Wambaugh denied inmate's claim of a financial offer being made and he testified that, in his opinion, MacDonald was a psychopath.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th April 2014 at 04:40 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 April 2014, 01:38 AM   #598
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Dirtbag

The following was Kornstein on Cross at the 1987 MacDonald VS McGinniss civil trial. MacDonald has no shame.

KORNSTEIN: Now, there was some testimony on your direct examination about the trip across country with Marion Stern, and Danny Stern, and Nina Stern. Remember that?

MACDONALD: Yes, I do.

KORNSTEIN: Bob Stern was Marion Stern's husband?

MACDONALD: Yes, that's true.

KORNSTEIN: And friends of yourself?

MACDONALD: Yes.

KORNSTEIN: And you had a sexual relationship with Marion Stern?

MACDONALD: I did.

KORNSTEIN: And you also had a sexual relatioship with her daughter Robin? Her 22-year-old daughter?

MACDONALD: Yes, that's true.

KORNSTEIN: Did you feel any sense of deception against your friend Bob Stern?

MACDONALD: Yes, I think I did.

KORNSTEIN: And did you feel any sense of deception against your friend in medical school whose wife you had a relatioship with?

MACDONALD: I'm not sure I thought of it at the time, unfortunately, but in retrospect, yes.

Three months prior to telling Freddy Kassab that he had tracked down and killed one of the hippie home invaders, MacDonald told Bob Stern this exact same fairy tale.

Danny Stern was the unnamed 10-year-old boy in Fatal Vision who processed with Joe McGinniss that MacDonald threatened to crush his head against the dock. McGinniss interviewed Danny when he was attending college and Danny told McGinniss that the rage in MacDonald's eyes was something he would never forget.

In addition to bedding Marion Stern, Robin Stern, and the wife of a friend in medical school, MacDonald had anywhere from 8-15 sexual relationships during his marriage to Colette. One of his conquests took place during the Article 32 hearings and was in earshot of where the Kassabs were housed.

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 19th April 2014, 12:27 PM   #599
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
DG: Kornstein is referring to MacDonald's dubious assertion that Joseph Wambaugh offered him $200,000-$300,000 dollars for the exclusive right to construct a book on the case. Talks with Wambaugh were only in the preliminary stages, money was not discussed, and his 1975 letter to MacDonald soured Segal/MacDonald on working with Wambaugh. In the letter, Wambaugh told MacDonald that he would have no editorial input on a proposed book and he warned MacDonald that it was possible that he would come to the conclusion that MacDonald was guilty. Wambaugh denied inmate's claim of a financial offer being made and he testified that, in his opinion, MacDonald was a psychopath.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Dubious is right, as well as being an accusation completely lacking in logic. Wambaugh had no motivation to pay MacDonald any sum prior to writing the book MacDonald proposed.

One is left wondering how MacDonald managed to graduate from high school, much less medical school. You could drive a cargo jet through the holes in his reasoning.
__________________
"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 19th April 2014, 09:26 PM   #600
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,276
Serial Fabricator

MacDonald's special brand of b.s. was at its apex during the 4/6/70 CID interview. When asked by CID investigators why he didn't go to his neighbors for help, he countered by describing one of his female neighbors as being a Peeping Tom and that he didn't know the remaining neighbors that well.

As Freddy Kassab pointed out in his notes, how well does one have to know his neighbors when his entire family has been slaughtered? In addition, MacDonald knew his neighbors well enough to invite them over for a Christmas party.

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
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 01:32 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.