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 22nd January 2021, 09:15 AM   #2281
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

The essence of this case comes down to MacDonald's inability to provide salient rebuttals to the mass of inculpatory evidence collected at the crime scene. This included DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric and non-fabric impression evidence. The reality of MacDonald's legal situation is that he never came close to meeting his "daunting burden."
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The real forensic experts at the AFIP lab never could find a mass of inculpatory evidence collected at the crime scene:

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

"BY MR. EISMAN:
Q Colonel Ferrari, were you present at the AFIP in 1971?
A I was present in active duty for training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology between the dates of 15 March of '71 to 2 April '71, inclusive.
Q During that tour of duty, did you perform any work with regard to this case?
A No. I don't remember, frankly, whether or not at that time I had any involvement. I believe they were still talking about it and there were comments made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation.
Again, the entire investigation seemed to be very poorly planned, very poorly presented to the Institute. The Institute could only work with what it had.
Q From your experience as a police officer, did you believe that the investigation had been done in a professional manner for a case of this import?
A Based on my professional experience of 25 years plus in various capacities in civilian law enforcement, I would have to say that the nature of the investigation, the method in which the investigation was conducted, the procedures that were followed left quite a bit to be desired.
Q Were there any pieces of forensic evidence that you reviewed with Dr. Mathews that in any way showed or could be argued that it linked Dr. MacDonald to these killings?
A No. I don't remember -- oh, I am certain there was no such physical evidence that was presented to us for examination.
Q And in the final exit meeting where Dr. Froede spoke in summarizing the findings of the AFIP, was there any statement made that there was certain evidence which links Dr. MacDonald to these killings or which showed that he was involved in these killings?
A No. On the contrary, Dr. Froede, if anything, helped all of us to believe on the basis of what was presented, there was no way they could implicate or connect Dr. MacDonald with the homicides that occurred at Fort Bragg. In fact, Dr. Froede was or appeared to be assured on the basis of what he really had at his disposal to reach a conclusion.
He would not commit himself, but he did say this, on the basis of what he had, there were no way that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would return a report indicating that, any implication of Dr. MacDonald."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd January 2021 at 09:18 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 22nd January 2021, 09:58 AM   #2282
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,079
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is more about this matter of miscarriages of justice in that English Justice book by an anonymous police court solicitor published in 1932:
HM loves the hell out of "anonymous" but every known individual that has first hand knowledge of the evidence is "drunken," "crooked," "incompetent," etc.

Anyone else notice a trend?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2021, 10:58 AM   #2283
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
HM loves the hell out of "anonymous" but every known individual that has first hand knowledge of the evidence is "drunken," "crooked," "incompetent," etc.

Anyone else notice a trend?
I just think the MacDonald case needed a first-class trial judge. A cross-examiner, like a public speaker, must know when and how to stop. Segal should have been told that because I think he lost touch with the jury in the MacDonald case.
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 22nd January 2021, 01:17 PM   #2284
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,079
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I just think the MacDonald case needed a first-class trial judge. A cross-examiner, like a public speaker, must know when and how to stop. Segal should have been told that because I think he lost touch with the jury in the MacDonald case.
Segal lost because your man-crush was guilty.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2021, 02:47 PM   #2285
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I just think the MacDonald case needed a first-class trial judge. A cross-examiner, like a public speaker, must know when and how to stop. Segal should have been told that because I think he lost touch with the jury in the MacDonald case.
Inmate's case went before multiple trial and appellate court judges, yet he remains in prison. Inmate has employed 22 lawyers or "cross-examiners," yet he remains in prison. Inmate has had several high-profile advocates (e.g., Harvey Silverglate, Alan Dershowitz, Errol Morris), yet he remains in prison. It appears that inmate will die in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd January 2021 at 02:52 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
Old 23rd January 2021, 02:03 AM   #2286
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Well actually the fiber and blood evidence was not "hotly" disputed at trial although aspects were disputed. In fact very little was countered by the Defence apparently because they really could not dispute it and because they thought the jury would just be confused by it. Since then all attempts to counter this evidence have failed; usually spectacularly. In fact the only physical evidence to be challenged, very seriously, is the hole's in the Pajama top and that too fails. Basically MacDonald's defenders dismiss the vast majority of the physical evidence has essentially meaningless; just like Morris did in his book Wilderness of Errors.
The blood evidence and fiber evidence was hotly disputed at the Article 32 in 1970 but Murtagh and Dupree prevented that evidence from being quoted for the jury on the grounds that it was ten years old! Thornton has said publicly that his greatest regret about the MacDonald case was that he was never able to check and test the blood evidence. Segal's defense strategy seemed to be that it was never presented to the court by experienced expert examiners and serologists which is true but not understood by the jury. Like all that prosecution stuff about pajama fibers not being in the living room was not strictly true. The jury was wrong and the trial judge was in bed with the prosecution, but what can you do about it?

Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, said it was never proved against MacDonald and I agree with him. Leonard said MacDonald was screwed but what does it matter?

There is a reasonably fair and just website about all this:

https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1191...-being-debated

"And Oscar-winning documentarian Errol Morris thought, simply, that MacDonald got screwed—by McGinniss, certainly, but also by the media in general and also quite possibly by police, prosecutors and the overall justice system.

He told CNN at the time, "We've been sold a bill of goods about this case. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd January 2021 at 02:10 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 23rd January 2021, 03:37 AM   #2287
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blood evidence and fiber evidence was hotly disputed at the Article 32 in 1970 but Murtagh and Dupree prevented that evidence from being quoted for the jury on the grounds that it was ten years old! Thornton has said publicly that his greatest regret about the MacDonald case was that he was never able to check and test the blood evidence. Segal's defense strategy seemed to be that it was never presented to the court by experienced expert examiners and serologists which is true but not understood by the jury. Like all that prosecution stuff about pajama fibers not being in the living room was not strictly true. The jury was wrong and the trial judge was in bed with the prosecution, but what can you do about it?

Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, said it was never proved against MacDonald and I agree with him. Leonard said MacDonald was screwed but what does it matter?

There is a reasonably fair and just website about all this:

https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1191...-being-debated

"And Oscar-winning documentarian Errol Morris thought, simply, that MacDonald got screwed—by McGinniss, certainly, but also by the media in general and also quite possibly by police, prosecutors and the overall justice system.

He told CNN at the time, "We've been sold a bill of goods about this case. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill."
Nope, the blood and fiber evidence was strong at the Article 32 hearing, grew stronger at the Grand Jury hearing, and reached a boiling point at the 1979 trial. Several jurors at the 1979 trial later commented that the blood and fiber evidence proved that inmate lied about fighting intruders in the living room and his subsequent movements inside 544 Castle Drive. Leonard was taken apart by John Bruce at the 2012 evidentiary hearing and his testimony proved to be absolutely worthless. Again, inmate failed to meet his "daunting burden," and this failure has resulted in MacDonald spending the rest of his miserable life in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2021, 09:27 AM   #2288
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Nope, the blood and fiber evidence was strong at the Article 32 hearing, grew stronger at the Grand Jury hearing, and reached a boiling point at the 1979 trial. Several jurors at the 1979 trial later commented that the blood and fiber evidence proved that inmate lied about fighting intruders in the living room and his subsequent movements inside 544 Castle Drive. Leonard was taken apart by John Bruce at the 2012 evidentiary hearing and his testimony proved to be absolutely worthless. Again, inmate failed to meet his "daunting burden," and this failure has resulted in MacDonald spending the rest of his miserable life in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
One juror reported after the trial that he convicted because there were no pajama fibers in the living room. He doesn't seem to appreciate that there were several fibers found by the living room where MacDonald fell unconscious. The investigators never used a vacuum to detect fibers which is normal and any 'reddish marks' in the living room were disregarded.

I believe Leonard was an honest witness though it sounds as though he has had alcohol problems and perhaps personal problems, and his legal career may not have been distinguished. From what Christina has said, who attended that 2012 evidentiary hearing, even Wade Smith got it wrong about where the surgical glove fragment was found and in which room the rocking horse was found.

There seemed to have been an interesting witness at that hearing who also thinks Helena was involved but I suppose she was disbelieved by Bruce and Murtagh and torn apart by them:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...as-corner.html

"Sara McMann testified that she and her husband had tried to help Helena and her baby son David. That Helena had lived with them for a while. That Helena had admitted to her that she was present during the attack on MacDonald and the murders of his family. It was her belief that Helena was telling the truth. Ms. McMann stated Helena asked her to take care of her baby if something should happen to her. That when Helena moved out of her home to an apartment when she died a short time later, that she found several empty vodka bottles. She was of the opinion that Helena had problems sleeping at night and would drink in order to sleep. Right in the middle of testifying she said in a sobbing sounding voice, I believe Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent. She also said that she and her husband raised Helena's son, that he is married and has a son of his own."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd January 2021 at 09:29 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 23rd January 2021, 09:39 AM   #2289
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
I don't believe Judge Fox was a first-class trial judge either. if you are going to put a man in prison for the rest of his life you should at least have the courtesy and dignity to concentrate on listening to the evidence. Judge Fox needed a good kick up the backside. I don't know if there is some kind of freemasonry with North Carolina judges which is why they all support each other when there is a lack of right judgement. There needs to be some independent judgement. It's want of judgement. From that Christina article in 2012:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...as-corner.html

"Mr. Widenhouse stated at the end that he believed the defense had proven their issues as to the Britt and DNA and that Dr. MacDonald should receive a new trial.

It is my opinion that the defense did not put on a strong case. Their whole issue has been they wanted the evidence as whole presented to the court. But where was that evidence as a whole? They only addressed the Britt issue and the DNA basically.

I can understand why Judge Fox might be confused, as he said I didn't try this case and I don't know what the evidence as whole is. He touched on the issue of reading the trial transcripts saying it would take him better than six months to do so and he considered that an impossibility."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd January 2021 at 09:41 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 24th January 2021, 02:10 AM   #2290
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Nope, the blood and fiber evidence was strong at the Article 32 hearing, grew stronger at the Grand Jury hearing, and reached a boiling point at the 1979 trial.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

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

MR. EISMAN: Would the reporter read back the last question and answer?

(Reporter complied.)

Q Have you ever run a test of blood which first indicated the blood to be one type, and run another test of a stain from the same sample and indicated that it could have been of another type?
A Yes, sir.

MR. EISMAN: I have no further questions.

The blood evidence was disputed at the Article 32 proceedings with inexperienced Army CID blood man Craig Chamberlain. Eisman rightly insisted that MacDonald's blood experts were given access to the blood evidence which never happened at the trial because it was withheld by Murtagh and Dupree from the defense.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th January 2021 at 02:13 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 24th January 2021, 02:26 AM   #2291
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
The dispute at the trial with CID lab blood man Chamberlain became so heated at the trial that 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree had to call for cooler tempers:

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

"MR. SEGAL: That's fine if you did not talk to him. Your Honor, he has testified differently --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) He hasn't --

MR. SEGAL: (Interposing) Excuse me. I haven't interrupted you. Please don't interrupt me.

THE COURT: Now, all right, let me tell you. I am going to let you ask the questions, but the reason I want you both up here: it has been apparent to me from the very first time that the two of you appeared in this court that there was a certain amount of friction and animosity between you two. I quite understand.
I sat out there for 34 years in the dog days of August and during the third week of a trial. You may spurt off something that you, on reflection, would not have done. You did that yesterday. You were just about to do it again today, and, again, I must say, and this applies to both of you.

MR. MURTAGH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I am not going to have it, but the thing that I am apprehensive about is this: one or the other of you, if you show these displays of temper and hostility and animosity, are going to prejudice your client. I am here to see that this trial is conducted fairly, and it cannot be, and I am not going to tolerate its being tried in a climate of hostility for either side.
We are going to try it calmly. It ain't your case, and it ain't yours. It belongs to the parties in the case, and you are just here in a representative capacity -- both of you -- and I am expecting both of you on all sides to so conduct yourselves.
The last thing I ever would do, if I could avoid it, would be to embarrass a lawyer in front of a jury or his client. But if I have to do it in order to maintain order in this court and conduct this trial like it is supposed to be, that is what I am going to do.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I apologize to the Court.

THE COURT: Listen, I am not complaining with anybody, but I am just reminding you again what the rules are, and keep your cool about the thing if you can do so in 80 degree temperature.

MR. SEGAL: Let me just say I appreciate Your Honor's comments, and I accept them in the spirit that they were intended.

THE COURT: Let's go.

(Bench conference terminated.)"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th January 2021 at 02:29 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 24th January 2021, 02:53 AM   #2292
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
I think the MacDonald case was such a gross miscarriage of justice because of the incompetence of the Supreme Court. Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court in 1982 got it right and he was backed up by two of his colleagues, but that was not enough. None of these Supreme Court Justices have any wide or practical experience of being a criminal defense attorney or trying to appeal on behalf of an innocent man.

The rules and regulations seem to be that you are not able to appeal twice on things like the blonde synthetic hair like fibers and black wool fibers on the murder weapon with no known source. so MacDonald was forced to find some new evidence like DNA or Britt thinking there were inaccuracies in the McGinniss book. That's not the evidence as a whole which is what the Supreme Court intended. There is a bit of legal waffle about this matter at this website:

https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/th...ual-innocence/

"A person typically only gets one bite at the habeas apple. Claims not raised in an original petition are procedurally barred unless certain narrow conditions are met: a new claim not previously raised must either deal with a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law announced by the U.S. Supreme Court, or there must be new facts supporting the claim that were not previously available through the exercise of due diligence.

Where the petitioner files a successive petition under the second prong based on new evidence, the district court has to determine “whether that new evidence, ‘if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty of the offense.’” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) (emphasis added). It is a “rare and extraordinary case” that will meet the new evidence standard to overcome this procedural default. U.S. v. MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (4th Cir. 2011).

If the court finds that standard met, the successive petition gets reviewed on the merits; if not, the claims are barred. MacDonald was hoping his new evidence met that standard to obtain merits review of his allegations, and that was the posture of the current matter—the court was deciding if his petition, if true, was sufficient to get past the procedural bar."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th January 2021 at 02:56 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 24th January 2021, 05:08 AM   #2293
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
The Musings Of A Psychopath

After "finding" his wife and children murdered, inmate claims that he did not turn on the bedroom lights nor did he go to the neighbor's residence for help. The following is an exchange between William Ivory and Jeffrey MacDonald during a CID interview on April 6, 1970:

MacDonald: Well, I don't know — well, I really don't know if I checked the femorals on both sides of the kids, quite honestly. I probably checked here (pointing to the throat) and picked up their wrist and possibly checked the femoral, but I'm not sure. So, then I was standing in the middle — middle of the hallway after this kind of second trip, and I didn't know what to do. I kept saying to myself, you know, "What — what comes now?" And I remember I — it flashed through my mind to go next door to my idiot neighbor, but I realized that would be futile and —

Ivory: Why was that?

MacDonald: Well, our neighbors are — she's the kind of lady that sits in her window with binoculars and watches the girl across the street undress and stuff like that, you know. And she comes over and she says, "Now, don't leave your windows open because there's a lot of rapists and people around here." We were at a cocktail party one night, and — and she said that and everyone stopped. And I said to her — so I was kind of pulling her chain. So I said, "Well, how — how do you know that — that people look in windows?" I mean — you know, you see types of people and right away this woman had — so, she said, "Well, ‘cause I see her every night. The blonde across the street." And I say, "How do you see her every night?" She said, "I go in my window and watch." And I said, "Why do you do that?" And she said, I swear to God, she said, "Because," you know, "it's unnatural for a girl to undress with the blinds up. And I just want to." — you know, "I just want to make sure I know what's going on in the neighborhood." But that's beside the point. So that's the type of person that — that, you know, I just — I said, "Shall I go next door or should I try to call again?" And I decided I should try to call again.

Four months later at the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald was asked why he didn't seek assistance from neighbors and he replied, "I didn't know them that well."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2021, 10:36 AM   #2294
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

Four months later at the Article 32 hearing, MacDonald was asked why he didn't seek assistance from neighbors and he replied, "I didn't know them that well."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I can't quite see how that is any proof of murder. I have had some bad neighbors in the past who were a bunch of idiots, one of whom was involved in a barking dog nuisance day and night. There is a TV show in the UK about bad neighbors who can make life a misery for you if you have the bad luck to suffer from them. They would be far from helpful in a crisis. Fortunately, I don't have that problem at the moment.

There is a website about this sort of thing which seems sensible to me:

https://jeffreymacdonaldcase.weebly....frey-macdonald

"MY OPINION

Being a very close friend of Colette MacDonald since high school you would think that I would jump on the bandwagon that her husband did it and he deserves justice, right? Wrong. I have known the MacDonald's for so long, and was even a bridesmaid in their wedding, to know that Jeffrey would never do this to his family. He loved his wife and daughters very much, and was excited to be welcoming his first son into the world very soon. Yes him and his wife fought, but what married couple doesn't? They were very good working through their arguments and were happier than ever before the accident. I may have a biased opinion because I knew the family, but looking at the evidence I still do not believe that Jeffrey MacDonald killed his family. There is not enough evidence, and so much of it was corrupted, that you could not properly prosecute someone with that kind of evidence. It is only right that he shouldn't be serving time for a crime that he did not commit, but that is only my opinion. What is yours?"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th January 2021 at 10:41 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 24th January 2021, 02:52 PM   #2295
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,126
As I've mentioned before, I very seldom post in this thread, because there are others here far more knowledgeable than I about the case, although I've read every post for many years. But there are some comments and questions that I've been wanting to address to Henri for a while, namely:

First, you weren't in the MacDonald apartment on the night of the murders, so you can't possibly know that inmate is innocent. You simply accept it as an article of faith, and it's not reasonable for you to expect anyone else to take your belief seriously.

Second, it's quite telling that when confronted with damning and incontrovertible evidence that destroys your fantasy of inmate's innocence, namely the limb hair, your only recourse is to claim that it must have been fabricated, despite the fact that you can provide neither any evidence of fabrication, nor even a coherent explanation of how this could have been accomplished.

Third, do you realize that when you keep banging on about the "speedy trial" issue, you are essentially arguing that inmate should have been let off on a technicality, rather than because he is innocent?

Fourth, you have no training or experience in American law (and I imagine none in English law, for that matter), so how is it that you presume to tell us that so many American judges got so much so wrong in inmate's case?

Fifth, the fact that unsourced household debris is forensically useless and the fact that MacDonald disposed of most of the family's possessions before the reinvestigation have been explained to you ad nauseam, so why do you keep bringing up unsourced debris as if it means something?

Sixth, kindly explain why inmate's purported intruders left no footprints on a rainy night, and why his description of events is so similar to those of the Manson murders described in an article in a blood-smudged magazine found in the apartment.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 25th January 2021, 02:03 AM   #2296
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post

Sixth, kindly explain why inmate's purported intruders left no footprints on a rainy night, and why his description of events is so similar to those of the Manson murders described in an article in a blood-smudged magazine found in the apartment.
How many times have any intruders or visitors left any footprints in your house on a rainy night? Clever criminals would take care not to leave any footprints or fingerprints. Rather amusingly it has been disclosed that the bloodstain on the Esquire magazine belonged to CID agent Bill Ivory. It's not MacDonald's fault that there was an article about the Manson murders. It was topical news at the time.

There is a bit of waffle about all this sort of thing at this website which may not be entirely accurate:

https://www.crimetraveller.org/2020/...rey-macdonald/

"The Army’s CID takes a beating in every telling of this story for the job they did on the crime scene. I’m not going to suggest that they did a good job, because they certainly did not. But I think the extent of their mistakes has been exaggerated. It’s not that they did every single thing incorrectly, as some critics seem to suggest, it’s just that the mistakes they did make were devastating to the case. Most importantly, they let too many people into the crime scene, didn’t supervise those people properly, allowed potential evidence to move (or in some cases, disappear) before it could be documented, and did not preserve the integrity of potential trace evidence. Mistakes happen in every criminal investigation, but some mistakes are easier to overcome than others. These were not easy mistakes to overcome, especially in a case like this one turned out to be."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th January 2021 at 02:05 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 25th January 2021, 02:23 AM   #2297
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Fifth, the fact that unsourced household debris is forensically useless and the fact that MacDonald disposed of most of the family's possessions before the reinvestigation have been explained to you ad nauseam, so why do you keep bringing up unsourced debris as if it means something?

.
The fact that MacDonald disposed of most of the family possessions after the Article 32 in 1970 was because he was under the impression that you can't be charged twice for the same crime in America. He was cleared of all charges in 1970. Rather tragically the little girl's dolls were disposed of which later became forensically significant when total liar Malone of the FBI suggested and not proved that the blonde synthetic hair hair-like fibers at the crime scene came from dolls.

Black wool fibers with no known source were far from unsourced debris. They were found on Colette's biceps and around Colette,s mouth and on the wooden club murder weapon. That needs to be explained by a respected and experienced homicide detective. The Supreme Court never allowed that information to be mentioned in appeals because Judge Dupree had rejected and ignored that evidence in previous appeals! The Supreme Court were mistaken and unfair.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th January 2021 at 03:12 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 25th January 2021, 02:46 AM   #2298
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Second, it's quite telling that when confronted with damning and incontrovertible evidence that destroys your fantasy of inmate's innocence, namely the limb hair, your only recourse is to claim that it must have been fabricated, despite the fact that you can provide neither any evidence of fabrication, nor even a coherent explanation of how this could have been accomplished.
Right from the start that hair in Colette's left hand was considered dissimilar to a MacDonald hair and there are forensic reports about it. Judge Fox cunningly delayed any DNA testing of that hair until Malone of the FBI could tamper with the forensic evidence. The problem for the prosecution was that MacDonald lawyers like Cormier and Good were saying that hair came from Greg Mitchell. The prosecution problem would be solved if the AFIP lab could then say it was a MacDonald hair. It would be easy to substitute a hair. I could do it myself. I'm not blaming the AFIP lab. It's a chain of custody thing.

Byn always says that Judge Fox ruled that any tampering or removal of the forensic evidence should be videotaped. Where are these videotapes?
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 25th January 2021, 03:07 AM   #2299
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Third, do you realize that when you keep banging on about the "speedy trial" issue, you are essentially arguing that inmate should have been let off on a technicality, rather than because he is innocent?
Those Supreme Court judges made the silly remark in 1982 when MacDonald was imprisoned for the rest of his life that the Respondent does not challenge the jury verdict itself. The jury was wrong. There is a speedy trial law in America and prosecutors and judges should respect that law.

Justice Marshall made some sensible remarks about speedy trials but he was outnumbered 6-3:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/456/1

51
"The majority's opinion in this case is a disappointing exercise in strained logic and judicial illusion. Suspending application of the speedy trial right in the period between successive prosecutions ignores the real impact of the initial charge on a criminal defendant and serves absolutely no governmental interest. This Court has warned before against "allowing doctrinaire concepts . . . to submerge the practical demands of the constitutional right to a speedy trial." Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 381, 89 S.Ct. 575, 578, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969). The majority fails to heed that advice.

52
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th January 2021 at 03:09 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 25th January 2021, 09:19 AM   #2300
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
As I've mentioned before, I very seldom post in this thread, because there are others here far more knowledgeable than I about the case, although I've read every post for many years. But there are some comments and questions that I've been wanting to address to Henri for a while, namely:

First, you weren't in the MacDonald apartment on the night of the murders, so you can't possibly know that inmate is innocent. You simply accept it as an article of faith, and it's not reasonable for you to expect anyone else to take your belief seriously.
I know enough about law to know that you go by the evidence not by appearance, or pure speculation. I think it's quite untrue for people to say that MacDonald felt trapped in his marriage when his wife was five months pregnant with his only son, or that the suitcase had anything to do with it. Murtagh saying in court that Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads is not good enough.

The so-called prosecution evidence which seems to have had the most impact on the jury was the pajama pocket and some MacDonald blood supposedly by the kitchen sink and the pajama folding experiment which was impossible and scientifically silly. Eisman suggested at the Article 32 that MacDonald experts should have been able to test that blood but this was denied by 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree for the trial and the Supreme Court.

Frankly, I believe Murtagh coached or bribed Chamberlain and Laber to present false evidence about that blood as Murtagh did in the Lockerbie case. Even if it's true it doesn't prove guilt. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done There is more about the DNA in the MacDonald case at this website:

https://people.com/crime/why-wasnt-d...acdonald-case/

"But MacDonald agreed. “He was fine with anything being tested but his position was that there was enough evidence to prove his innocence without more DNA testing,” Mumma says.

“I wanted the testing done because every time tests are done the evidence points to my innocence,” says MacDonald. “And there’s a reason. I’m innocent.”

Mumma filed the motion after the September 2012 evidentiary hearing in Wilmington, North Carolina. Once again, the government opposed the motion, and Judge Fox denied the motion in 2014."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 25th January 2021 at 09:29 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 26th January 2021, 12:07 PM   #2301
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,126
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
How many times have any intruders or visitors left any footprints in your house on a rainy night? Clever criminals would take care not to leave any footprints or fingerprints.

Wishful thinking. Are you saying these alleged home invaders carefully removed their footwear by the door and put on gloves before they began their attack? Further, "a gang of drug-crazed hippies" does not qualify as a group of "clever criminals."

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Rather amusingly it has been disclosed that the bloodstain on the Esquire magazine belonged to CID agent Bill Ivory.

[citation needed]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's not MacDonald's fault that there was an article about the Manson murders. It was topical news at the time.

So you're saying it's just an amazing coincidence?

<snip of obscure rant about the CID investigation>
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 26th January 2021, 01:10 PM   #2302
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,156
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
How many times have any intruders or visitors left any footprints in your house on a rainy night? Clever criminals would take care not to leave any footprints or fingerprints.
The idea that the people who allegedly invaded MacDonald's home and killed his family were "Clever criminals", is hilarious. For example they allegedly brought along Helena Stoeckley, a alcoholic junkie with significant mental issues. How smart!! (Snark)

And it also happens that Helena's version of events, when she was claiming she was there does not picture them has a group of "Clever criminals", but a bunch of messed up junkies etc. And of course the various people Helena claimed were there do not remotely fit the picture of "Clever criminals". They instead fit the profile of drugged out losers.

Henri you are very funny.
Pacal 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 26th January 2021, 04:55 PM   #2303
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,126
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The fact that MacDonald disposed of most of the family possessions after the Article 32 in 1970 was because he was under the impression that you can't be charged twice for the same crime in America.

No. Yet again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance of American law. An individual can be charged any number of times for the same offense or group of offenses. An individual can only be tried once (with certain narrow exceptions). From findlaw.com:

Quote:
Double jeopardy protections exist for service members under Article 44 of the UCMJ which prohibits a service member from "being tried a second time for the same offense." Under the UCMJ, these protections apply as soon as evidence is introduced in a court-martial against a service member, as opposed to civilian courts where it applies when a jury is empanelled and sworn. Once evidence is introduced, a service member cannot be tried again by the military for the same criminal offenses at hand, regardless of the outcome . . .

No court-martial was ever convened in the case in 1970; therefore, jeopardy never attached. Fail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
He was cleared of all charges in 1970.

No, he was not. What happened in 1970 was the military equivalent of a grand jury's failure to return an indictment. And, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, this was before the CID reinvestigation.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Rather tragically the little girl's dolls were disposed of which later became forensically significant when total liar Malone of the FBI suggested and not proved that the blonde synthetic hair hair-like fibers at the crime scene came from dolls.

No. These were matched to doll hair exemplars from the FBI's collection. And two points that you continue to ignore, because they're highly inconvenient to your fantasy of inmate's innocence, cosmetic wigs were not made with saran fibers, plus Helena claimed that she didn't wear her wig that night. It's extremely telling that you take Helena's statements at face value when they are helpful to inmate, but reject them when they damage his case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Black wool fibers with no known source were far from unsourced debris. They were found on Colette's biceps and around Colette,s mouth and on the wooden club murder weapon. That needs to be explained by a respected and experienced homicide detective. The Supreme Court never allowed that information to be mentioned in appeals because Judge Dupree had rejected and ignored that evidence in previous appeals! The Supreme Court were mistaken and unfair.

First, the hilited is a contradiction. Second, as has been explained to you, as usual ad nauseam, and you continue to ignore, because it doesn't help inmate's case, unsourced fibers are forensically useless. They are not, despite your handwaving, proof, or even suggestion, of intruders. They could have come from articles of clothing that Colette owned, but which inmate later disposed of. Third, a "respected homicide detective" would explain it exactly the same way, because those are facts, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. And this means that whatever Judge Dupree and the US Supreme Court had to say about the matter is beside the point, as the fibers prove exactly nothing.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Last edited by SpitfireIX; 26th January 2021 at 06:24 PM. Reason: Tpyo
SpitfireIX 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 26th January 2021, 07:21 PM   #2304
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Daunting Burden

Bad judges, incompetent investigators, conspiracy theories involving the Army CID, FBI, DOJ... all of these issues/claims are worthless when compared to inmate being unable to meet his daunting burden. What did that burden entail? Inmate and his rotating band of lawyers had to present physical evidence that definitively linked a known intruder suspect to 544 Castle Drive. Despite several opportunities to do so, inmate was unable to present a single evidentiary item that was sourced to a known intruder suspect. This was in stark contrast to the government presenting over 1,000 evidentiary items to trial jurors and 9 appellate court judges. This included inculpatory DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric and non-fabric impression evidence.

Inmate and his rotating band lawyers were basically forced to argue that the confessions of Stoeckley and the alleged confessions of Mitchell should carry more weight than sourced physical evidence. For example, in their motions to Judge Fox in the spring of 2006, the defense team appeared to take the stance that the absence of Greg Mitchell's DNA at the crime scene was not as important as the claims from several individuals that Mitchell confessed to them that he took part in these brutal murders. In a similar vein, the defense motions also focused on the early 80's confessions of Helena Stoeckley, while ignoring the fact that her DNA was not found at the crime scene.

This reminds me of James Blackburn's classic line during his closing arguments at the 1979 trial. Blackburn stated that "I can only tell you from the physical evidence in this case that things do not lie. But I suggest that people can and do."


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th January 2021 at 07:26 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 02:52 AM   #2305
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post


[citation needed]


So you're saying it's just an amazing coincidence?

<snip of obscure rant about the CID investigation>
That was something I recently noticed while browsing the websites about the MacDonald case. This is not the exact quote but is a bit about it. Don't tell me Bill Ivory was involved in the MacDonald murders!:

https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ0...0MacDonald.pdf

"Then the Esquire magazine was discovered with a bloody finger smudge on it. Of course,
MacDonald’s fingerprints would be on it, as he had read it, but a CID agent’s fingerprints were
also found on it. This was because they read the magazines while at the scene."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th January 2021 at 02:56 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 27th January 2021, 04:52 AM   #2306
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
No. Yet again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance of American law. An individual can be charged any number of times for the same offense or group of offenses. An individual can only be tried once (with certain narrow exceptions). From findlaw.com:




No court-martial was ever convened in the case in 1970; therefore, jeopardy never attached. Fail.




No, he was not. What happened in 1970 was the military equivalent of a grand jury's failure to return an indictment. And, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, this was before the CID reinvestigation.




No. These were matched to doll hair exemplars from the FBI's collection. And two points that you continue to ignore, because they're highly inconvenient to your fantasy of inmate's innocence, cosmetic wigs were not made with saran fibers, plus Helena claimed that she didn't wear her wig that night. It's extremely telling that you take Helena's statements at face value when they are helpful to inmate, but reject them when they damage his case.




First, the hilited is a contradiction. Second, as has been explained to you, as usual ad nauseam, and you continue to ignore, because it doesn't help inmate's case, unsourced fibers are forensically useless. They are not, despite your handwaving, proof, or even suggestion, of intruders. They could have come from articles of clothing that Colette owned, but which inmate later disposed of. Third, a "respected homicide detective" would explain it exactly the same way, because those are facts, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. And this means that whatever Judge Dupree and the US Supreme Court had to say about the matter is beside the point, as the fibers prove exactly nothing.
I agree with you that you can't be put on trial twice for the same charge. That was a slip of the tongue on my part. It's all this double jeopardy business. People used to say on the MacDonald forums that if MacDonald had been cleared in a court-martial court then 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Dupree would not legally have been able to falsely convict MacDonald.

This blonde synthetic hair like fibers found at the crime scene has been endlessly discussed on the MacDonald forums for years. Suffice to say that the prosecution never properly explained it, and even covered it up. The doll manufacturers just asked total liar Malone of the FBI if he was trying to railroad MacDonald. Where is this supposed Malone reference in the FBI collection?

MacDonald's lawyer Silverglate tried to explain the blond synthetic hair -like fibers to Judge Dupree for the 1992 appeal, but he couldn't get it into Dupree's thick head:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pp=40&page=51

"THE COURT: It's not disputed that the evidence itself was made available to defense counsel?

MR. SILVERGLATE: It's not exactly disputed, Your Honor. We don't know if it was there or not because Thornton didn't examine microscopically everything in the jail cell. The Government claims it must have been there; we don't know. It's one of those things that we feel is probably impossible to resolve but I don't think that it matters. Our claim does not rest on whether these were made available to Thornton for the following reason, Your Honor.

First of all, Government says he should have seen that there were these boxes with slides and the slides have mounted on them these hairs. The problem is this, Your Honor. The outside of the box of slides did say synthetic fibers; no question about that. However, it said -- it listed synthetic -- dark synthetic fibers. Now, the evidence, the testimony of Doctor MacDonald was Stoeckley -- a lot of other evidence -- but Stoeckley had a blond wig so Thornton would have been totally uninterested in a box of slides that talked about dark synthetic fibers because he wasn't interested in a dark wig. Stoeckley didn't have a dark wig but when you open them up, if you open them up, that box, there was within that a mail order which had the blond synthetic wig fibers.

Now, this makes one very suspicious. As I said in our brief, Your Honor, I don't think we ever have to reach in this case whether what Glisson did was done intentionally or knowingly or simply inadvertently. It's very interesting that she types the report, which is given to Segal, which mentions everything under the sun except the blond bench notes and the physical exhibits is a larger package labeled dark synthetic hair-like fibers. Only if you bother opening that, even if you are not interested in dark fibers, if you happened to open it you would see a blond fiber. It was awfully well hidden, Your Honor. Whether it was intentionally so or this is one of the more bizarre coincidences in American legal history, I don't know. It will probably be a mystery forever but the bottom line is it was well, well hidden from Thornton and from Segal.
Now, Your Honor asked about the rest of the notes. That's one set of the blond wig notes."

Admittedly it never seems to have been proved the fibers came from a wig, but Helena got rid of the wig and it was never proved it was a 'cosmetic' wig anyway.

I agree that if unsourced fibers are found on a carpet then that may be forensically useless but if they are found on the biceps and around the mouth and on the murder weapon then a good detective and even juror might start to half-suspect things about those fibers. Like where did they come from? Murtagh is on record as saying they could have come from Colette because there are photos of her once wearing a black dress which I consider to be a quite ludicrously unsatisfactory.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th January 2021 at 05:20 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 27th January 2021, 05:17 AM   #2307
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
This reminds me of James Blackburn's classic line during his closing arguments at the 1979 trial. Blackburn stated that "I can only tell you from the physical evidence in this case that things do not lie. But I suggest that people can and do."


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Blackburn said at his closing argument at the trial that there were MacDonald pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon and the pajama pocket somehow proved MacDonald did it.That was lies not physical evidence. MacDonald experts were never able to check those lies thanks to Judge Dupree.
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 27th January 2021, 10:20 AM   #2308
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
There seems to be a transcript of that 2012 evidentiary hearing on the internet now with a bit of readability. Ivory seems to have had a bit of hearing loss at the time which made it difficult. Another prosecution lawyer called Crawley seemed to have become disbarred after problems with a trust fund and being sued by an inmate. Crawley denied that Britt ever witnessed Stoeckley being threatened but that may not be true.

The thing that stood out for me was the way Ivory seemed to have implicit faith in polygraphs. Polygrapher Brisentine thought Mitchell was innocent because he passed. Posey was supposed to be lying because he failed though Brientine did have his doubts about Helena Stoeckley. Jan Snyder cleared out of town when she categorically denied witnessing intruders after a rifle was pointed at her apartment.

Polygraphs are not regarded as the pure unadulterated truth in the UK or accepted as evidence in federal murder case courts in America. You can see why. Has Ivory never heard of witnesses lying because they have been threatened with violence or con artists being good at lying, or people who have had head injuries having difficulty passing a polygraph?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ranscripts.pdf

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...9-hearing.html


Q. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S ALL I WAS -- IT COULD HAVE BEEN
5 EITHER. THAT'S FINE. NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT INVESTIGATING OR
6 TALKING TO GREG MITCHELL, CORRECT?
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 4.

Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 320 Filed 11/21/12

Last edited by zooterkin; 29th January 2021 at 03:17 PM.
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 27th January 2021, 01:14 PM   #2309
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Blackburn said at his closing argument at the trial that there were MacDonald pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon and the pajama pocket somehow proved MacDonald did it.That was lies not physical evidence. MacDonald experts were never able to check those lies thanks to Judge Dupree.
Cultivating your well worn persona by regurgitating debunked evidentiary claims has NEVER moved the legal needle in MacDonald's favor. A 1975 Grand Jury, 1979 trial jurors, 2 District Court judges, and 9 Circuit Court judges have determined that inmate didn't come close to meeting his "daunting burden." Unsourced household debris carried no weight in 1975, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2018. Your boy is going to die in prison, so copy and paste to your heart's content.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 27th January 2021 at 01:17 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2021, 02:50 AM   #2310
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
I don't think MacDonald did it.

I think Helena Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, had the right idea but he was too much full of admiration for Judge Dupree for my liking. I don't think Wade Smith understood the forensics in the case, like the pajama pocket and black wool fibers around Colette's mouth with no known source. Prosecutor Bruce tried to bring up that Leonard had taken drugs in the past and biased old Judge Fox said he wanted everything included which never happened at that 2012 hearing.

I found it quite amusing that Leonard said North Carolina juries were regarded as rednecks and farmers to which the prosecution retorted that the MacDonald jury had accountants and chemists and some with college degrees.

This is some of the legal waffle involving Leonard at that 2012 evidentiary hearing. It doesn't prove MacDonald guilt for me:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ranscripts.pdf


A. MR. LEONARD STATED THAT HE DIDN'T -- HE DID NOT KNOW IF
13 MACDONALD WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT. HOWEVER, HE STATED THAT HE
14 DID NOT FEEL THE PROSECUTION -- THAT HE DID FEEL THAT THE
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 4.

Last edited by zooterkin; 29th January 2021 at 03:17 PM.
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 28th January 2021, 06:02 AM   #2311
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,126
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Right from the start that hair in Colette's left hand was considered dissimilar to a MacDonald hair and there are forensic reports about it.

The hair fragment was eventually determined to be a limb hair. Limb hairs cannot be microscopically compared to other hairs, so no valid microscopic comparison could have been made. This has been explained to you many times, so why do you keep claiming otherwise?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Fox cunningly delayed any DNA testing of that hair until Malone of the FBI could tamper with the forensic evidence.

Pure defamatory fantasy. Fail.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The problem for the prosecution was that MacDonald lawyers like Cormier and Good were saying that hair came from Greg Mitchell. The prosecution problem would be solved if the AFIP lab could then say it was a MacDonald hair.

Among the many gaping holes in your fantastic scenario, it presupposes that the prosecutors and the FBI knew, or at least strongly suspected, that MacDonald was innocent. So you expect people to believe, with no real evidence provided, that all these people conspired to send a man who they knew to be innocent to prison for the rest of his life? Further, the penalty for tampering with evidence in a federal case is up to 20 years' imprisonment (source). They would have risked that simply to railroad a man they believed to be innocent, to whom they had no personal connection?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It would be easy to substitute a hair. I could do it myself.

Then tell us how they got a broken limb hair from MacDonald, and how they soaked it in Collette's blood.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 28th January 2021, 10:51 AM   #2312
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Fantasy Narratives

SFIX: For the past 18 years, Henri has been posting the same conspiracy narratives on multiple true crime discussion forums. He's been challenged by several case researchers to provide concrete proof of his claims, but he simply rinses and repeats the same claims. IMO, he has created a persona that enjoys being a true crime contrarian. As the years have passed, he has taken it to another level where even defense lawyers/investigators of a particular case don't subscribe to his bizarre talking points. In regards to the MacDonald case, he has relied on 2 specific mythical narratives.

1) The "Stoeckley Killer Gang" decided to punish Jeffrey MacDonald for mistreating drug addicted patients by slaughtering his pregnant wife and 2 daughters AND by leaving him alive. With the exception of the 31 inch club found in the backyard, the "Stoeckley Killer Gang" brought all of the murder weapons with them and they left ample trace evidence of their presence at 544Castle Drive.
2) The Army CID, FBI, and DOJ systematically misrepresented and/or destroyed ALL of that sourced evidence. This included Brian Murtagh and other nefarious conspirators planting a bloody seam thread from inmate's torn pajama top and twisting it around a bloody head hair from Colette; switching Greg Mitchell's broken, bloody limb hair found in Colette's left hand with a broken, bloody limb hair from inmate; discarding Stoeckley's bloody clothing and boots; fabricating test results that sourced a bloody footprint to inmate; and misrepresenting and fabricating test results (e.g., microscopic comparisons, chemical composition analysis) of numerous fibers found at the crime scene.

Henri appears to enjoy stirring the pot, but in the real world, inmate is approaching his 40th year in prison and his legal options are slim and Slim left town.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 28th January 2021 at 10:59 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 28th January 2021, 12:00 PM   #2313
Reformed Offlian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
2) The Army CID, FBI, and DOJ systematically misrepresented and/or destroyed ALL of that sourced evidence. This included Brian Murtagh and other nefarious conspirators planting a bloody seam thread from inmate's torn pajama top and twisting it around a bloody head hair from Colette; switching Greg Mitchell's broken, bloody limb hair found in Colette's left hand with a broken, bloody limb hair from inmate; discarding Stoeckley's bloody clothing and boots; fabricating test results that sourced a bloody footprint to inmate; and misrepresenting and fabricating test results (e.g., microscopic comparisons, chemical composition analysis) of numerous fibers found at the crime scene.
Because if there's one thing law enforcement was known for in the 1970s, it was *not* blaming crime on hippies and/or drug gangs whenever they got the chance.
Reformed Offlian 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 29th January 2021, 02:30 AM   #2314
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post


Then tell us how they got a broken limb hair from MacDonald, and how they soaked it in Collette's blood.


How do you know for certain it was a broken limb hair, or if it was soaked in blood? MacDonald experts were never able to weigh, or test that so-called evidence. In the initial investigation there was supposed to be some MacDonald hair which turned out to be horse hair.

It's not just me who has doubts and very little confidence in this so-called forensic evidence:

http://mirrors.wordsforgood.org/educ...p08jul03.shtml

"The following are only 10 of the many suspicious and telling points concerning physical evidence discovered at the crime scene from the notes of the original Army investigation that Potter and Bost dissect in their book.

Point 1: A brown hair in Colette's left hand, not MacDonald's or any other known person. Hmmmmm…..

Point 2: Human skin on Colette's fingernail, left hand, was "lost" by the Army CID . (How convenient!.)
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 4.

Last edited by zooterkin; 29th January 2021 at 03:18 PM.
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 29th January 2021, 10:44 AM   #2315
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
I have been reading some of the transcripts of that 2012 evidentiary hearing and found it a bit pathetic. MacDonald defense lawyer Widenhouse started off by saying crooked lawyer Murtagh knew more about the case than him and he was just going to concentrate on Britt and a bit of DNA.

Drunken Irish son of a bitch, con artist and police spy McGinniss then went into a long spiel about his plan to make lots of money with a book and film of the case. The cross-examination by the defense was the same old discussion about diet pills which McGinniss confessed he didn't even believe himself at his trial in 1987. To give biased old Judge Fox his due he did remind Widenhouse that it was about the evidence as a whole.

The defense lawyers cross-examination of FBI agent Madden, the man who thought the suspects were innocent because they categorically denied it was simply no further questions. Are there no good defense lawyers and first-class trial judges in America?

Former MacDonald lawyer Wade Smith did mention that the surgical glove fragment at the crime scene has been practically proved not to be from a MacDonald glove, but this is ignored by appeal judges as being too technical.

There was some interesting testimony from Helena's brother Gene:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ranscripts.pdf

Q. OKAY. AND TELL US AGAIN WHAT YOUR MOTHER SAID HELENA
11 CONFIDED IN HER.
12 A. MY MOTHER SAID THAT HELENA WAS THERE AND THAT DR.
13 MACDONALD WAS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIMES.
14 Q. OKAY. AND BY THERE, WHAT DID SHE MEAN?
15 A. PRESENT AT THE HOUSE THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th January 2021 at 10:58 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 29th January 2021, 03:55 PM   #2316
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Educate Yourself

HENRI: Looks like your search for a true crime kindred spirit was a success. Unfortunately, Resa LaRu Kirkland article was written in 2003, and he or she doesn't appear to have constructed a follow-up article. Kirkland also relies on evidentiary arguments that were deemed "specious" by the 4th Circuit Court in 1998. For example...

- Microscopic examinations of the bloody, broken limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand could not be sourced to any human being on the planet. The only hairs that can be compared under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. DNA technology allowed the AFTP to source that hair and it matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

- Microscopic examinations of the 7 mm hair found in Kimmie's fingernail scrapings determined it to be an animal hair.

- There was no bloody palmprint found on the master bed footboard. The alleged bloody palmprint found on the master bed footboard was actually a conflation of 2 separate evidentiary exhibits. As evidenced by the photographic record, an unsourced palmprint and blood were in different locations on the footboard.

- A 24 inch fiber found in Colette's hairbrush matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection. Another fiber found in this same hairbrush matched Colette's fall.

- Three of the 5 dark woolen fibers differed in optical properties which indicated 3 separate source materials. Stoeckley claims she wore a floppy-sleeved blouse and denim skirt on 2/17/70, and she never mentioned any of her fellow home invaders wearing dark woolen clothing. There are photographs/home movies, however, of Colette and the children wearing dark woolen hats, coats, and sweaters.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2021, 04:19 PM   #2317
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Updated Post

HENRI: Looks like your search for a true crime kindred spirit was a success. Unfortunately, Resa LaRu Kirkland's article was written in 2003, and he or she doesn't appear to have constructed a follow-up article. Kirkland also relies on evidentiary arguments that were deemed "specious" by the 4th Circuit Court in 1998. For example...

- Microscopic examinations of the bloody, broken limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand could not be sourced to any human being on the planet. The only hairs that can be compared under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. DNA technology allowed the AFTP to source that hair and it matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

- Microscopic examinations of the 7 mm hair found in Kimmie's fingernail scrapings determined it to be an animal hair.

- The hair found in Kristen's fingernail scrapings was not observed at Kristen's autopsy nor by Dillard Browning during his initial hair examinations. Further analysis of the 5mm hair demonstrated that it was a non-bloody, naturally shed hair. The presence of this hair was likely the result of contamination at the CID's Fort Gordon lab.

- There was no bloody palmprint found on the master bed footboard. The alleged bloody palmprint found on the master bed footboard was actually a conflation of 2 separate evidentiary exhibits. As evidenced by the photographic record, an unsourced palmprint and blood were in different locations on the footboard.

- A 24 inch fiber found in Colette's hairbrush matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection. Another fiber found in this same hairbrush matched Colette's fall. Kimmie and Kristen owned 20 dolls, but all but 1 of dolls were discarded by inmate a month after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearings.

- Three of the 5 dark woolen fibers differed in optical properties which indicated 3 separate source materials. Stoeckley claims she wore a floppy-sleeved blouse and denim skirt on 2/17/70, and she never mentioned any of her fellow home invaders wearing dark woolen clothing. There are photographs/home movies, however, of Colette and the children wearing dark woolen hats, coats, and sweaters.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2021, 02:48 AM   #2318
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

- A 24 inch fiber found in Colette's hairbrush matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection. Another fiber found in this same hairbrush matched Colette's fall. Kimmie and Kristen owned 20 dolls, but all but 1 of dolls were discarded by inmate a month after the conclusion of the Article 32 hearings.

- Three of the 5 dark woolen fibers differed in optical properties which indicated 3 separate source materials. Stoeckley claims she wore a floppy-sleeved blouse and denim skirt on 2/17/70, and she never mentioned any of her fellow home invaders wearing dark woolen clothing. There are photographs/home movies, however, of Colette and the children wearing dark woolen hats, coats, and sweaters.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's according to Malone formerly of the FBI who has been described as a total liar by one lawyer. The FBI hair and fiber unit has come under severe criticism in recent years for presenting false evidence in court. Where is this doll hair in the FBI's collection, or has the information been redacted? It never seemed to me go be the same as a MacDonald doll anyway.

The point about the unsourced black wool fibers is that they were found round Colette's mouth and biceps and actually on the wooden club murder weapon. That's evidentiary support. You can't then invent some story like Murtagh did that there are photos of Colette once wearing a black dress! That's senseless. Helena did say once that Mazerolle did wear velveteen clothes at the crime scene which I suppose could be described as black wool fibers.

The law in America in regard to appeals seems to have changed a bit over the years.

Widenhouse seem to think that he was only able to present new evidence at the 2012 hearing like Britt and DNA because corrupt bias Judge Dupree had rejected all the other evidence previously. Widenhouse thought the 4th Circuit Court ruling about evidence as a whole was confusing and is not the way he usually does things. It could be something to do with that McCleskey law which I'm not sure still exists.

Widenhouse could have been more severe on McGinniss when McGinniss kept describing MacDonald as a psychopath and sociopath. That is in contradiction to at least five forensic psychiatrists and Dr. Sadoff who is fairly certain MacDonald didn't did it. Dupree made sure the jury never heard the pro-MacDonald psychiatric evidence because he said he didn't want a battle of the experts! I think MacDonald lawyers could have taken a firmer line about that.

Jude Fox seemed to seize the situation better even though he was in bed with prosecution and an old pal of Dupree:

THE COURT: WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE'RE GOING
19 TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE ON A WHOLE, THAT WOULD INCLUDE MORE THAN
20 JUST THE BRITT CLAIM AND THE UNSOURCED HAIRS. IT WOULD
21 INCLUDE THE SARAN THREAD THAT WAS FOUND AND THE VARIOUS
22 AFFIDAVITS OF THE STOECKLEY WITNESSES.
23 ARE YOU PREPARED TO GO FORWARD ON THE EVIDENCE AS A
24 WHOLE?
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 30th January 2021, 03:55 AM   #2319
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's according to Malone formerly of the FBI who has been described as a total liar by one lawyer. The FBI hair and fiber unit has come under severe criticism in recent years for presenting false evidence in court. Where is this doll hair in the FBI's collection, or has the information been redacted? It never seemed to me go be the same as a MacDonald doll anyway.

The point about the unsourced black wool fibers is that they were found round Colette's mouth and biceps and actually on the wooden club murder weapon. That's evidentiary support. You can't then invent some story like Murtagh did that there are photos of Colette once wearing a black dress! That's senseless. Helena did say once that Mazerolle did wear velveteen clothes at the crime scene which I suppose could be described as black wool fibers.

The law in America in regard to appeals seems to have changed a bit over the years.

Widenhouse seem to think that he was only able to present new evidence at the 2012 hearing like Britt and DNA because corrupt bias Judge Dupree had rejected all the other evidence previously. Widenhouse thought the 4th Circuit Court ruling about evidence as a whole was confusing and is not the way he usually does things. It could be something to do with that McCleskey law which I'm not sure still exists.

Widenhouse could have been more severe on McGinniss when McGinniss kept describing MacDonald as a psychopath and sociopath. That is in contradiction to at least five forensic psychiatrists and Dr. Sadoff who is fairly certain MacDonald didn't did it. Dupree made sure the jury never heard the pro-MacDonald psychiatric evidence because he said he didn't want a battle of the experts! I think MacDonald lawyers could have taken a firmer line about that.

Jude Fox seemed to seize the situation better even though he was in bed with prosecution and an old pal of Dupree:

THE COURT: WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE'RE GOING
19 TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE ON A WHOLE, THAT WOULD INCLUDE MORE THAN
20 JUST THE BRITT CLAIM AND THE UNSOURCED HAIRS. IT WOULD
21 INCLUDE THE SARAN THREAD THAT WAS FOUND AND THE VARIOUS
22 AFFIDAVITS OF THE STOECKLEY WITNESSES.
23 ARE YOU PREPARED TO GO FORWARD ON THE EVIDENCE AS A
24 WHOLE?
Nope. Freddy Kassab took the home movies and most of the photographs depicting Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen wearing dark woolen hats, sweaters, and coats. He subsequently supplied the DOJ with these movies/photographs and Malone was simply one of many individuals who had access to those images. The defense never challenged Malone's microscopic comparisons of the 24 inch fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection nor did they challenge Robert Webb's chemical composition analysis of these same fibers. The rest of your post speaks to your need to engage in character assassination. Classic weak sauce.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 30th January 2021 at 03:59 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 30th January 2021, 10:19 AM   #2320
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The defense never challenged Malone's microscopic comparisons of the 24 inch fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection nor did they challenge Robert Webb's chemical composition analysis of these same fibers. The rest of your post speaks to your need to engage in character assassination. Classic weak sauce.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's not true. I remember there used to be masses of stuff on the internet from MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate challenging the FBI theory without facts that the mystery blonde synthetic hair like fiber was a doll hair. It's all so complicated that it would probably be deleted if I regurgitated it now. It's just that judicial corruption Judge Dupree rejected and ignored the criticism from Silverglate. I think Silverglate is now retired.

Robert Webb of the FBI said in an affidavit that the saran fibers seem to have come from different manufacturers which proves nothing. It doesn't prove they came from dolls. The synthetic fiber had 'plasticizer' in them which could have come from some sort of cheap wig as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Kathryn MacDonald, MacDonald's wife, who was spot on with this about the MacDonald case:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/4...al-Vision-Case

"Greg Mitchell is dead as is Helena Stoeckley. Mitchell died at 33 from drinking too much "because of his guilt" and Helena died at 33 from drug use for the same reason....the other 2 males may be dead or imprisoned or in the community, we don't know.

I cannot recall what your last questions were- I believe they had to do with Helena Stoeckley's "believability"? Not having your questions in front of me, I would just say that she was believable when she worked as a police informant (turning in other drug users) and she only told the judge she "couldn't remember" not that she was NOT THERE and did not say WHERE SHE WAS during the murders....the judge chose to take those words as proof that she was not there and therefore Jeff must be lying but a known drug user was telling the truth- in other words, when it suited the government, her statements were believable, but when they didn't, she was deemed unreliable.....

I hope this information helps....people find it hard to believe our government puts innocent people in prison but the Innocence Project has proven this is so time and time again.....our government needs to find a way to reward prosecutors without requiring them to "win at any cost" and the public needs to be aware that juries are swayed by the way the attitude of the judge.

The jury also cannot make the right decision when crucial information that would help the defendant is kept from them. Unfortunately, our system holds that the government has custody of all of the "evidence" and so the defense must rely on the gov't to be honest.......need I say more....thank you for your time, Sincerely, Kathryn MacDonald"

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th January 2021 at 10:24 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
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 05:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.