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

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


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

Reply
Old Yesterday, 09:48 AM   #961
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
This is the way the prosecuting attorneys and trial judge withheld the exculpatory evidence and prevented the defense attorneys from finding out if the prosecution was making it up. It's highly technical but an average jury or 4th Circuit judge might be able to understand it:

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

Quote:
16. In Exhibit 7, Mr. Malley indicated to Mr. Murtagh that any such stipulations would be subject to a number of conditions, including establishing that each and every laboratory technician would verify that he or she gathered the evidence (if that is the case) labeled it, removed it for testing, performed certain tests, returned all unused portions of the material, labeled the material, and recorded the results of the tests he or she ran. We would expect that each laboratory technician could verify that he or she accurately transcribed laboratory findings, and that those findings have been accurately transcribed on the final consolidated laboratory reports. We would expect that you will produce an affidavit from each and every laboratory technician that that technician has personally verified his part in the chain of custody, and if called upon to testify, would so testify under oath. (emphasis added)

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 09:50 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:12 PM   #962
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Denied:

"The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc."

S/Clerk
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:17 PM   #963
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 782
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Black wool fibers with no known source around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon is not household debris to my mind and to a lot of other people as well.
key phrase NO KNOWN SOURCE aka FORENSICALLY USELESS

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's all very well getting emotional about injuries sustained by the victims but there needs to be a calm and cool presentation of the facts instead of just blaming the wrong man.
There was a calm and coll presentation of the facts - it is called A TRIAL. Inmate was convicted as charged because the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. UNSOURCED FIBERS ARE USELESS forensically speaking.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Tell me where and give me a reference where the MacDonald defense were ever informed about the evidence in the case,
try reading the actual documentation rather than the cut and paste, misrepresentation, revisionist history, and outright lies as told by the defense in FJ or WOE or even inmate's own website (if it still exists). statements by the murderer do not constitute documentation especially since convicts tend to lie and inmate is no exception.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:00 PM   #964
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,121
Great News

BYN: Thanks for the update. Inmate will die in prison and that's how it should be.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:01 PM   #965
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,121
Obsession With Household Debris

Again, no matter how inmate's advocates attempt to spin the fiber/hair analysis, the simple fact is that no hair or fiber collected at the crime scene was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. The best overview of this household debris was put forth by the government in their 5/20/91 supplemental memo.

"Nonetheless, we demonstrated that of the synthetic fibers, claimed by petitioner to have been shed from the wig of a female intruder, one originated from a wig owned by Colette MacDonald and the others were used in the manufacture of children's dolls. We also showed that other allegedly exculpatory hair and fiber evidence found in the MacDonald household was nothing more than inconsequential household debris--some of which plainly originated in the MacDonald home--and that it possessed no exculpatory value whatsoever."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:30 AM   #966
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,121
No Surprise

Despite a 2-1 vote, the government's 1980 petition for a full hearing before the 4th Circuit Court was denied.

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

This decision was a prime example of why inmate should not have been surprised by the 4th Circuit's recent denial of a full hearing. In this instance, the vote was 3-0, and the 1980 decision had nothing to do with the trial verdict.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Today at 12:32 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:43 AM   #967
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Denied:

"The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc."

S/Clerk
It was a bad court and Dupree and the 4th Circuit judges were in bed with the prosecution.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:58 AM   #968
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
"Nonetheless, we demonstrated that of the synthetic fibers, claimed by petitioner to have been shed from the wig of a female intruder, one originated from a wig owned by Colette MacDonald and the others were used in the manufacture of children's dolls. We also showed that other allegedly exculpatory hair and fiber evidence found in the MacDonald household was nothing more than inconsequential household debris--some of which plainly originated in the MacDonald home--and that it possessed no exculpatory value whatsoever."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That is nonsense. Malone made it up that the synthetic blonde hair-like fibers came from children dolls like he has done in other murder cases. Malone is a total liar. You could just as easily say that any pajama fibers found were household debris, and that was supposed to be inculpatory according to the prosecution. One juror said afterwards that he convicted because no blood or pajama fibers were found where MacDonald fell unconscious which is patently untrue. I suppose you could fault Segal for not getting the truth into that juror's thick head and making it clear. The matter was covered at the Article 32 in 1970 which Murtagh and Blackburn withheld from the jury with objections because it was supposed to be ten year old information!

The matter is discussed at this website:

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.ed...y_publications

Quote:
The leading texts on criminal procedure give the subject scant attention, apparently assuming that the current discovery rules are adequate.15 Indeed, one commentator noted that the limited litigation over Rule 16 "no doubt reflects the general recognition of the necessity to afford the defense discovery of the results and reports of medical examinations and scientific tests and of the longstanding and widespread practice of many prosecutors of making such information available on request.

"16 Recent cases, including those involving DNA evidence, however, demonstrate the gross inadequacy of the current discovery rules. Rule 16 does not even guarantee defendants the most fundamental form of discovery-notice that a prosecution expert is going to testify against them at trial. When discovery is provided in the form of scientific reports, it is insufficient for adequate trial preparation. In addition, some courts still refuse to recognize an accused's right to test independently the state's evidence. Moreover, instead of voluntary disclosure, vigorous opposition to discovery often has been the prosecutorial response. Part II of this Article explores more fully the need for pretrial discovery. Parts III through VII then examine the deficiencies of the current discovery rules in the areas of notice, scientific reports, related documents, and evidence testing. The Conclusion sets out proposals for reform.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 04:08 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:00 AM   #969
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,319
Mistakes are made by the Supreme Court and they were made in the MacDonald case. It undermines security and confidence in the judicial system. This is a blog about the matter:

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html

Quote:
11. Bush v. Gore (2000): You don't have to be a Democrat to question the wisdom of this Supreme Court case. In a partisan split, the Supreme Court's five Republican appointees halted the recount of contested ballots in Florida, handing the election to George W. Bush. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has come to regret the ruling.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 09:04 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:20 PM   #970
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 74
Quote:
11. Bush v. Gore (2000): You don't have to be a Democrat to question the wisdom of this Supreme Court case. In a partisan split, the Supreme Court's five Republican appointees halted the recount of contested ballots in Florida, handing the election to George W. Bush. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has come to regret the ruling.
While not relevant to inmate's case, you have to be a hyper-partisan Dem to truly question the main vote, which was 7-2 not 5-4. Only 2 Dem-hack "justices" dissented from the fact that the recount Gore wanted was unconstitutional because of the rules Florida had created.

The other q was essentially whether the Florida Supreme Court could re-write Florida law to allow their own preferences for vote recounts or whether to follow existing state law, and the Constitution's specification, on rules for voting. It's actually shocking that 4 Supreme-Court-level justices thought it was OK for a single set of judges to arbitrarily ignore state law in order to try to change the outcome of an election just because they didn't prefer the winner.

Needless to say, the media still kept counting anyway ... and Bush won every version of every recount they did.

Luckily, Al Gore was a very sore loser and drug the thing out forever trying to steal enough votes -- in 4 heavily Dem counties with Dem apparatchiks, who he presumably felt could go secretly into rooms and come out, perhaps with a whiff of white smoke, and just declare him as having suddenly "won".

If he'd instead immediately conceded, I'm 100% convinced he could have run in 4 years and become the next POTUS.

JFK truly stole the election, in IL, from Nixon, and even Nixon conceded gracefully to spare the country.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:44 PM   #971
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,121
It's Ova

Again, inmate should not have been surprised by the 4th Circuit's recent denial of a full hearing. Unlike the 1980 vote (e.g., vote was 2-1) that led to 18 months of freedom for inmate, this same court voted 3-0 (e.g., 12/21/18) to deny inmate a new trial. The 1980 vote revolved around speedy trial issues whereas the 2018 vote focused on whether inmate met the "daunting burden" of proving that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of murder. Putting forth the claim that two separate District Court judges and two separate Circuit Court three judge panels were "in bed with the prosecution," is akin to believing that the Earth is flat.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Today at 04:52 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.