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 16th October 2018, 09:10 AM   #561
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
In what universe? WHY do you insist on arguing points that even the defense never believed? Do you have any idea how incredible embarrassed your man crush would be if he knew about the ridiculous ramblings you post?
This is an affidavit about how the foreman of the jury was not impartial in the MacDonald case. There are at least two other affidavits by different men in one of which the foreman of the jury was overheard to say he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started. A good judge would have put his foot down about that:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...988-09-23.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 12:51 PM   #562
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
The Landlord Loves Him Some Ignorance

Giving a giant hand wave to the mass of inculpatory evidence or calling the CID/FBI/DOJ names is easy. Providing exculpatory explanations for that evidence and for inmate's consciousness of guilt is not.

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

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

Last edited by JTF; 16th October 2018 at 12:56 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 01:58 PM   #563
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is an affidavit about how the foreman of the jury was not impartial in the MacDonald case. There are at least two other affidavits by different men in one of which the foreman of the jury was overheard to say he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started. A good judge would have put his foot down about that:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...988-09-23.html
A man goes to a notary in 1988 to have a document notarized that states he saw the television show Fatal Vision in 1986 and later watched a local television news show that featured an individual that served on the MacDonald jury he recognized as having been an insurance salesman and church deacon that (he stated) had expressed a negative opinion on inmate.

You want to explain how "A good judge would have put his foot down about that" 9 years down the road from the conviction of your man-crush? Do you realize that absent actual proof of bias the notarized statement doesn't carry any weight?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 16th October 2018, 02:31 PM   #564
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You want to explain how "A good judge would have put his foot down about that" 9 years down the road from the conviction of your man-crush? Do you realize that absent actual proof of bias the notarized statement doesn't carry any weight?
The point is it's circumstantial evidence that the foreman of the jury was corruptly biased and not impartial and it should not have been disregarded by the judges in the MacDonald case. This is another affidavit from a different witness:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...07_rjames.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 02:35 PM   #565
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
This is another affidavit by a different man about the foreman of the jury being biased and not impartial. It makes you think eh?

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...988-09-09.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2018, 04:47 PM   #566
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
You Can Run, But You Can't Hide

Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Again, giving a giant hand wave to the mass of inculpatory evidence or calling the CID/FBI/DOJ names is easy. Providing exculpatory explanations for that evidence and for inmate's consciousness of guilt is not.

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

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

Last edited by JTF; 16th October 2018 at 04:48 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 17th October 2018, 12:16 AM   #567
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
I Have No Words

I came across this little nugget about 15 minutes ago. I knew the Landlord had many male poster names, but I never knew that he or she was gender flexible.

Henrietta McPhee
Plymouth, UK

#5 Jan 8, 2007

I think what is more serious is that Alex Hunter is supposed to have said recently on TV that Lou Smit was asked to resign from the JonBenet murder investigation in 1998.

I believe detectives Lou Smit and Steve Ainsworth were the only two detectives who knew what they were doing with regard to the Ramsey case.

I blame Governor Owens and Governo Romer of Colorado for all that. They believed everything Fleet White told them, written in Fleet's ridiculous letters.

It was really only thanks to Alex Hunter's political skill, and political foresight, that Fleet White didn't get Alex Hunter taken off the Ramsey case as well. Alex Hunter was able to arrange things with the Ramsey case Grand Jury so that the innocent Ramseys were never prosecuted.

Governor Romer of Colorado wanted "new blood" on the Ramsey case. Fleet White, Chris Wolf and Santa Bill McReynolds were the top three suspects at the Boulder DA's office in 1998. It's now about ten years later and those suspects and leads have been disregarded by the new blood. The Ramsey case is unsolved.
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 17th October 2018, 02:12 AM   #568
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Again, giving a giant hand wave to the mass of inculpatory evidence or calling the CID/FBI/DOJ names is easy. Providing exculpatory explanations for that evidence and for inmate's consciousness of guilt is not.

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

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

All that crap on JTF's website is just an "extraordinary series of inventions" as Segal once described the so-called 'conclusive' evidence in the MacDonald case. It's beyond the ability of an average jury. An extremely competent judge would have seen through it years ago. Fred Bost debunked most of it in the Fred Bost short study, which is on the internet.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th October 2018 at 02:15 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 17th October 2018, 04:26 AM   #569
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is an affidavit which Judge Dupree's son-in-law, Proctor, made once. It looks like a close interest in prosecuting MacDonald to me,
your reading comprehension is very poor indeed. Jimmie C Proctor was one of the individuals who asked that the FBI (not the CID) be allowed to continue investigating INCLUDING HELENA STOECKLEY and other leads. IF he was interested in prosecution inmate he would not have pushed for the other "alleged leads" to be investigated and certainly not by the FBI.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and a close connection to Judge Dupree, who was supposed to be an impartial judge:
whatever "connection" to Judge Dupree had been totally severed long before Judge Dupree was assigned to this case. Obviously you don't understand that a CONTENTIOUS divorce including a bitter custody battle would have eliminated any "closeness" that may ever have existed. Not to mention that Proctor was not directly involved in any part of the legal actions against inmate. A recommendation to continue investigation does not qualify as "legal action" and certainly had to jeopardy or risk attached.
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 17th October 2018, 06:23 AM   #570
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point is it's circumstantial evidence that the foreman of the jury was corruptly biased and not impartial
No it is not circumstantial evidence....the affidavit was created at least 4 years AFTER trial and does not provide any ACTUAL proof of anything.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and it should not have been disregarded by the judges in the MacDonald case.
inmate was convicted long before the affidavit was created and it does not contain ANY ACTUAL PROOF. It is a bunch of hearsay that is not admissible under any of the "exceptions" allowed under the FRE on hearsay.
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 17th October 2018, 06:32 AM   #571
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All that crap on JTF's website is just an "extraordinary series of inventions" as Segal once described the so-called 'conclusive' evidence in the MacDonald case.
You must be reading some other site, perhaps inmate's own site because JTF's site is full of very good information BASED ON FACTS.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's beyond the ability of an average jury.
No, it is not....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
An extremely competent judge would have seen through it years ago.
Several extremely competent jurists have scene and/or reviewed and studied this case and all of the evidence. It is good FACTUAL evidence that was used to convict inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Fred Bost debunked most of it in the Fred Bost short study, which is on the internet.
ROFLMAO! The short study is just an outline of what became known as Fatal Justice which is poorly named - it should be Fatal Joke. The short study (just like FJ) is replete with cut and paste presentation, misrepresentation, revisionist history, and out right lies.
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 17th October 2018, 08:27 AM   #572
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
your reading comprehension is very poor indeed. Jimmie C Proctor was one of the individuals who asked that the FBI (not the CID) be allowed to continue investigating INCLUDING HELENA STOECKLEY and other leads. IF he was interested in prosecution inmate he would not have pushed for the other "alleged leads" to be investigated and certainly not by the FBI.

whatever "connection" to Judge Dupree had been totally severed long before Judge Dupree was assigned to this case. Obviously you don't understand that a CONTENTIOUS divorce including a bitter custody battle would have eliminated any "closeness" that may ever have existed. Not to mention that Proctor was not directly involved in any part of the legal actions against inmate. A recommendation to continue investigation does not qualify as "legal action" and certainly had to jeopardy or risk attached.
You don't know the full facts about Proctor. He seems to have spent a year in the CIA for one thing which I find suspicious. There is hard documentary evidence that he pressed for the MacDonald murders crime scene to be preserved in case of a future trial of MacDonald when others thought the case had been thrown out at the Article 32 proceedings. Proctor was instrumental in getting MacDonald tried by a Grand Jury, though Kassab usually took the credit for that. Judge Dupree should have recused himself and so should Judge Fox. The pair of them were hand in glove and Judge Fox attended Dupree's funeral. The matter is discussed at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...985-05-31.html

Quote:
the failure of the trial court and government to disclose, pretrial, the relationships and allow a full hearing which would have revealed Proctor's pervasive role in pushing for MacDonald's arrest and conviction, rests clearly upon the Court and Government.

The taint upon the appearance of partiality of Judge Dupree during the pretrial, trial, and post-trial proceedings cannot now be washed away. Every action which Judge Dupree took sustaining the theory, work, acts, and statements of his son-in-law become suspect.

While the lower court stated he had no conscious recollection of discussions he might have had with his son-in-law before he became a Judge, (but before this case was assigned to him) he quite understandably cannot say what lasting impressions might have been conveyed to him by Mr. Proctor, his daughter, or other members of the family who may have talked with him about the most famous case of Mr. Proctor's career.

The mere fact Judge Dupree ruled in favor of the government upon every major issue pretrial, at trial, and in post-trial motions certainly is not evidence that such rulings were made because of any conscious partiality on his part. However, when now viewed in the context that every ruling in this case upon major issues by Judge Dupree supported Proctor's position to the detriment of the accused it becomes clear that his partiality "might reasonably be questioned." Set Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co. 609 F.2d 1101, at 1112 (5th Cir. 1980).

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th October 2018 at 08:32 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 17th October 2018, 08:35 AM   #573
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
More hard documentary evidence about Jimmie Proctor:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...o_proctor.html
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 17th October 2018, 02:11 PM   #574
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
I found this interesting about Proctor and it explains a lot:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...985-05-31.html

Quote:
Following the dismissal of the charges against MacDonald by the Army Proctor prepared to try MacDonald in the United States District Court and led the effort to discredit as a suspect, Helena Stoeckley, a Fayetteville hippie identified as a participant in the killings. According to other government documents obtained following MacDonald's conviction, Proctor asked the FBI for an investigation to "eliminate" Ms. Stoeckley as a suspect.

During this time Ms. Stoeckley had been a reliable informant for law enforcement agencies according to newly discovered documents.(See Argument III, infra.)

In the reports of Army agents, obtained in 1983 by MacDonald, it is revealed that Proctor urged the Army help him convince his superiors, in the Justice Department in Washington to press for indictment of MacDonald by assisting him in bringing pressure to bear upon them.

According to the few documents that MacDonald's lawyers have been able to squeeze from the Government to date, Proctor himself made repeated attempts to convince his superiors in the Justice Department to bring federal charges. In his own words, "We begged, pleaded, even threatened to resign." (See exhibit "A" attached to Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant's Motion to Recuse)

According to the same exhibit, Proctor made several trips to Washington to convince, Victor Woerheide, the person originally assigned to try this case) that he had a case strong enough to convict MacDonald.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th October 2018 at 02:14 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 17th October 2018, 02:23 PM   #575
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,024
The affidavits alleging bias against Mr. MacDonald by the Jury Foreman Mr. Hardison are actually rather weak.

The first one by Mr. Klein, claims that 14 years after Mr. Hardison allegedly made a biased comment about Mr. Macdonald; he Mr. Klein found out, (In 1986) that Mr. Hardison had been foreman of the jury that tried the MacDonald case. Aside from c. 7 years between the alleged comment and the trial, (People do change their minds over time.), so it is hardly proof of bias by Mr. Hardison at trial, there are other problems. It is hard to believe that if Mr. Klein had known Mr. Hardison well that he would be completely unaware that Hardison had been on the jury. After all it was hardly a state secret and openly reported in the press at the time. So it appears that Mr. Klein was not following the case it seems. So just why was his memory suddenly refreshed 14 years later? I further note that he was inspired to have this memory by watching a movie. This is bluntly dubious.

As for the second a third affidavits. The second by Mr. James and employee of Mr. Black is little more than support for the third and Mr. Hardison is recorded has saying exactly the same thing has in the third. It supplies no reasons for not speaking out earlier etc. It is hard to take seriously. The third affidavit, by Mr. Black is dubious. First he clearly mentions that he knew Mr. Hardison was on the jury during the trial and yet he said nothing at the time. Then when Mr. MacDonald was convicted Mr. Black seeks to shift blame for doing nothing on his wife, (This doesn't explain his earlier silence.). Finally Mr. Black says he had enough of saying nothing and comes "clean" in 1988. Nine years after the trial. Shall we say dubious again?

I further note that no evidence seems to have been presented that Mr. Hardison had actually been biased during the trial or jury deliberations. I also note that none of the Jury afterward seems to have complained about Mr. Hardison pressuring them etc. I would think that after these three affidavits the proper course would have been to collect from the Jurors actual evidence of bias concerning Mr. Hardison. Well, assuming they tried, they don't seem to have found any. And without evidence of actual bias during the trial these affidavits, even if true, (Doubtful), don't have legs. I note that the Jurors seemed to have been impressed by the physical evidence and the failure of the defence to poke holes in it.

The affidavits are weak sauce indeed.
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 17th October 2018, 08:56 PM   #576
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
Open And Shut

HENRIETTA: Did I touch a nerve? When you claim that a "short study" debunks "most" of the 1,100 pieces of inculpatory evidence presented at trial, you know you have jumped the shark. To make matters worse, Bost's short study doesn't address the inculpatory DNA evidence nor did he publicly address the fact that his "mystery hair" matched the DNA profile of the Ice Pick Baby Killer. Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven.

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 18th October 2018, 02:41 AM   #577
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
I would think that after these three affidavits the proper course would have been to collect from the Jurors actual evidence of bias concerning Mr. Hardison. Well, assuming they tried, they don't seem to have found any. And without evidence of actual bias during the trial these affidavits, even if true, (Doubtful), don't have legs. I note that the Jurors seemed to have been impressed by the physical evidence and the failure of the defence to poke holes in it.

The affidavits are weak sauce indeed.
You are assuming that those witnesses to the foreman of the jury allegedly being involved in corrupt bias were somehow bribed to sign an affidavit about it. There are penalties for not telling the truth in an affidavit. It's just the same with the several affidavits saying that Mitchell confessed to the MacDonald murders. If the 4th Circuit judges had been extremely competent judges they would have thoroughly investigated the foreman of the jury, and even questioned his friends and relatives about the matter. Corrupt bias is a serious matter.

Th 1000 pieces of evidence which JTF and Byn and keep harping on about were not legally admissible in court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The evidence which was presented to the court came from fraudster prosecutors and a corrupt FBI lab and it was very weak evidence, and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
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 18th October 2018, 04:33 AM   #578
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You are assuming that those witnesses to the foreman of the jury allegedly being involved in corrupt bias were somehow bribed to sign an affidavit about it.
I don't think anyone is ASSUMING they were "bribed" to sign affidavits. I think some might be intimating that possibility. HOWEVER, the biggest point to make is that these affidavits are as weak or weaker than Jimmy Britt's. WE all know that Jimmy Britt's allegations were shown to be made up out of whole cloth. In other words, they are untrue, invalid, fallacious....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are penalties for not telling the truth in an affidavit.
Only if the courts deem it worth pursing the perjury. There have been a number of affidavits, in this case, that are somewhat suspect in the area of credibility.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's just the same with the several affidavits saying that Mitchell confessed to the MacDonald murders.
Exactly, these are among the affidavits that lack in credibility.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
If the 4th Circuit judges had been extremely competent judges they would have thoroughly investigated the foreman of the jury, and even questioned his friends and relatives about the matter. Corrupt bias is a serious matter.
No they would not have....the 4th Circuit Court is NOT an investigative agency it is a court of law. There is no PROOF that any member of the jury was "prejudice" and no reason to suspect it. Again, you are arguing a point that even the defense doesn't believe to be true.....you are embarrassing your man crush.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The {over} 1000 pieces of evidence which JTF and Byn and keep harping on about were not legally admissible in court under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Yes, they were admissible otherwise Judge Dupree would not have admitted it. Also, you seem to forget that inmate had 2 lawyers and neither of them objected to the admission of the evidence....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The evidence which was presented to the court came from fraudster prosecutors and a corrupt FBI lab and it was very weak evidence, and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
Actually, the evidence was presented by skilled prosecutors who were NOT frauds, the FBI lab was not corrupt and the CID analyzed the evidence first so, the 60% of the inculpatory evidence that was used to convict inmate was the strongest (until the DNA testing was completed) and it fit the rules of evidence under the FRE and FRP too. The only thing ludicrous around here are your ridiculous claims. Inmate was convicted, he is still in prison, he has been heard more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence, he has been to the US Supreme Court 7 times. That he is still in prison shows just how incredibly strong and well prepared the prosecution was at trial and remains to this day. It also shows that inmate is a base coward who will never admit to his wrong doing.
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 18th October 2018, 08:26 AM   #579
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
There seems to be another affidavit or declaration from another witness about the corrupt bias of the foreman of the jury. They can't all be wrong and I don't think it is weak sauce:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...3_jbowden.html
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 18th October 2018, 08:38 AM   #580
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
You can't just ignore these affidavits or just say that the 4th Circuit judges are not professional detectives. This is what MacDonald's wife thinks about the matter:

https://www.court-martial-ucmj.com/jeffrey-macdonald/


Quote:
2) THE SWORN STATEMENT OF HELENA STOECKLEY, SR. (the mother of the woman who met Jeff's description of a woman in his home, and who confessed numerous times and was threatened by Blackburn) AVERRING THAT HER DAUGHTER TOLD HER, WHEN SHE WAS DYING THAT SHE LIED ON THE STAND AT JEFF'S TRIAL BECAUSE SHE WAS "AFRAID OF THE PROSECUTOR" )..3-5) AFFIDAVITS FROM 3 MEN WHO DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER, BUT CONTACTED THE DEFENSE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION WITH UNCANNILY SIMILAR STORIES OF HELENA STOECKLEY'S BOYFRIEND (GREG MITCHELL) ADMITTING THAT HE KILLED JEFF'S FAMILY

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th October 2018 at 08:41 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 18th October 2018, 08:55 AM   #581
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Yes, they were admissible otherwise Judge Dupree would not have admitted it. Also, you seem to forget that inmate had 2 lawyers and neither of them objected to the admission of the evidence....
These 1000 pieces of evidence which Byn and JTF keep mentioning were never legally admissible. That's why they were never mentioned in any court proceedings, even under the biased Judge Dupree and Judge Fox, or ever mentioned by Murtagh and Blackburn. It was all stuff like MacDonald was supposed to have sexually assaulted his little daughters, without a shred of evidence or medical evidence to prove it, or an amphetamine psychosis, or MacDonald was supposed to have been cruel to a naughty little boy on holiday once. The Stombaugh quite ludicrous theory without facts that Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush was mentioned in court, but the CID theory without facts that Colette murdered one of the little girls, or the Kearns theory without facts that the urine stain could be tested after ninety weeks was never mentioned at the trial or Grand Jury.
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 18th October 2018, 09:02 AM   #582
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't just ignore these affidavits
Informed individuals can.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 18th October 2018, 09:05 AM   #583
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
These 1000 pieces of evidence which Byn and JTF keep mentioning were never legally admissible.
It doesn't seem to slow you down from citing inadmissible and suspect "evidence" ("So-and-so posted on the internet") anytime it supports your crush driven pov.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 18th October 2018, 09:08 AM   #584
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Informed individuals can.
Well what about this then?

https://www.thestate.com/news/local/...e14410814.html

Quote:
“Is this the only confession out there? No. But what’s so significant about this piece of information and what makes it important is that it corroborates another confession Mitchell made,” Morris said during a phone interview from New York Thursday. “We’re talking about multiple confessions by Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell.
“So what’s infuriating is this: What do you have to do to get this kind of evidence before a jury or a judge?”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th October 2018 at 09:10 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 18th October 2018, 09:20 AM   #585
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Well what about this then?
l[/url]
What about it? hearsay is hearsay and didn't you just make a comment on inadmissible evidence?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 18th October 2018, 09:48 AM   #586
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
MacFantasy Island

HENRIETTA: In direct contrast to your fantasy narratives, the 1,100 inculpatory evidentiary items were presented at trial (e.g., admissible) and this same evidence led to inmate's conviction. Jurors were polled and to a person, this evidence was THE most important factor in their guilty verdict. In terms of Errol Morris' knowledge of this case, it is slim and Slim left town. Prime example is his claim that confessions by Stoeckley and Mitchell were not heard by a jury or a judge. Where to begin?

Judge Dupree was aware of Stoeckley's multiple confessions BEFORE the trial and Dupree allowed Stoeckley to testify under oath at the 1979 trial. Judge Dupree was aware of Mitchell's ALLEGED confessions prior to the 1984-1985 appellate hearings. The problem with these allegations is that Mitchell met with the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1981. In both instances, he signed written statements denying any involvement in these horrific crimes. Mitchell also passed a CID administered polygraph exam and none of his fingerprints or head hairs were found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th October 2018 at 09:57 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 18th October 2018, 12:52 PM   #587
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You are assuming that those witnesses to the foreman of the jury allegedly being involved in corrupt bias were somehow bribed to sign an affidavit about it. There are penalties for not telling the truth in an affidavit. It's just the same with the several affidavits saying that Mitchell confessed to the MacDonald murders. If the 4th Circuit judges had been extremely competent judges they would have thoroughly investigated the foreman of the jury, and even questioned his friends and relatives about the matter. Corrupt bias is a serious matter.

Th 1000 pieces of evidence which JTF and Byn and keep harping on about were not legally admissible in court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The evidence which was presented to the court came from fraudster prosecutors and a corrupt FBI lab and it was very weak evidence, and quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
Henri I never said or implied that the witnesses who signed the affidavits were bribed. So stop with the agit-prop straw men. Further these affidavits surfaced well after MacDonald was convicted and it is not the duty or responsibility of Judges involved in the case to investigate such matters after conviction. The onus was now on the defence to prove things like bias in the Jury room. It appears that the defence either failed to investigate at all or did and found nothing. In which case all we have are affidavits done well after the fact which fail to prove actual bias in the first place.
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 18th October 2018, 12:57 PM   #588
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There seems to be another affidavit or declaration from another witness about the corrupt bias of the foreman of the jury. They can't all be wrong and I don't think it is weak sauce:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...3_jbowden.html
Mr. Bowden's statement is virtually the same has Mr. James' and Mr. Bowden admits he never told the authorities about it before and claims that he didn't think it was important. Whatever. This is beyond pathetic.
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 19th October 2018, 02:08 AM   #589
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The problem with these allegations is that Mitchell met with the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1981. In both instances, he signed written statements denying any involvement in these horrific crimes. Mitchell also passed a CID administered polygraph exam and none of his fingerprints or head hairs were found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There have been proven murderers in the past who have passed polygraphs. Just because Mitchell categorically denied he did it isn't evidence as JTF seems to believe:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...polygraph.html

Quote:
A rapist, who was recently linked to the 1980 murder of a 14-year-old girl, had been previously cleared of the killing after taking a polygraph test.
Last month, police in Antioch, California, arrested 63-year-old Mitchell Lynn Bacom for kidnapping, raping and killing Suzanne Bombardier 37 years ago.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 02:27 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 19th October 2018, 02:17 AM   #590
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Would you describe this as a thorough and comprehensive interview of Mitchell?

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

Quote:
"I was questioned about the MacDonald case in 1971 about six months after I got out of the service. This took place in Wadesboro, NC, where I was staying with my sister. The agents were with the SBI. The two agents questioned me about the MacDonald murders, and I told them the truth. I took a polygraph as to the information, and it was determined I was telling the truth and that I had no personal knowledge of the MacDonald murders.
I remember reading once that Helena Stoeckley told somebody in conversation that she was concerned in case her fingerprints were found on the candle wax she used at the MacDonald murders. I don't suppose the candle wax was ever fingerprinted, thanks to the incompetency of the Army CID.

With regard to the DNA in the MacDonald case, Judge Fox only agreed to about five items to be DNA tested at first but he seems to have relented a bit later on and allowed more items to be DNA tested, perhaps due to pressure from the 4th Circuit judges, as long as Murtagh with his will to win at all costs could tamper with the forensics to make sure it didn't prove MacDonald innocence.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 02:27 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 19th October 2018, 04:56 AM   #591
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There have been proven murderers in the past who have passed polygraphs.
Perhaps that is true, but in this case you add together the FACT that Mitchell denied participation, the FACT that he passed a polygraph (and inmate did not), and the FACT that absolutely no evidence exists of his presence at the scene and it all equals up to the FACT that Mitchell was not involved.
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 19th October 2018, 08:32 AM   #592
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
That's not strictly true either. As I have said before, polygraphs are not scientifically reliable. Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. MacDonald did pass at least one polygraph a bit later on with a polygrapher called Raskin, when he had recovered from his collapsed lung and nervous tension at the time of the Article 32 proceedings in1970. That doesn't seem to have been given much publicity in all the anti-MacDonald rants in the media and internet:

http://bret1111.blogspot.com/2010/12...macdonald.html

Quote:
POLYGRAPH TESTS

MacDonald passed two polygraph tests. One was administered by Dr. David Raskin, a leading expert in this field. The results were examined by two other experts. In all cases, the findings were "no deception."

Helena Stoeckley was administered a polygraph test whereby she denied involvement in the murders. The results were "deception." She was later given another polygraph test whereby she admitted her presence during the murders The findings indicated "no deception."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 08:34 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 19th October 2018, 08:42 AM   #593
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
This is as good a confession as you are likely to get and the 4th Circuit judges should have been made aware of it:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-story-hs.html

Quote:
For the past two months, MacDonald has been working as a physician in an area hospital, but declined to specify which one. MacDonald has maintained that his wife and daughters were killed by three men accompanied by a woman dressed in a floppy hat, with long blonde hair, wearing boots and carrying a lighted candle.

Stoeckley, who has been in hiding and met with reporters at a secret location, told the newspaper she was that woman. The newspaper said she also named the others she said were involved in the deaths, but the newspaper did not print their names.

In the past, government spokesmen have contended that remarks made by Stoeckley tending to involve her in the slaying were allusions she manufactured because her attire matched the description given by MacDonald.

She was called as a witness at MacDonald's trial, but
testified she could not recall being at the MacDonald home. U.S. District Judge Franklin Dupree Jr. subsequently referred to her as "a person whose mind is far impaired" who "remains in a constant state of hallucinations."

The Times quoted Stoeckley as saying she did not tell her story in court because she was frightened.

Stoeckley, 27, said she was talking now because "I was tired of living with this thing. I was in a private hell."

In the interview with The Times, Stoeckley described the scene at the MacDonald home as horrifying ... bloody ... out of control."

She said a scream that MacDonald attributed to his wife was her own, because of the violence developing in the house.

"I went into another room and saw another child in there.

"That's when I backed into something behind me. It was the toy riding horse ... one of the springs was loose.

"I went out of there ... the blood ... that when I realized things were out of control. That's when I screamed ..." she said.

She said she remembered going into the backyard to wait for the others, but does not remember whether she went back into the house. She said she did remember getting into a car and leaving the house.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 08:48 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2018, 09:04 AM   #594
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
This is another Helena confession and it should not have been disregarded by Judge Fox, or the 4th Circuit judges. Judge Fox is in bed with the prosecution. Murtagh seems to spend his time trying to discredit anybody who opposes him, like Leonard, or Detective Beasley, or Gunderson. Proctor, the former son-in-law of very bad Judge Dupree seems to have had the job of discrediting Helena Stoeckley:

https://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news..._affidavit.PDF

Quote:
14. According to what Ms. Stoeckley told me, the idea to go to the MacDonald residence came
up one night when she was doing drugs with some of her friends. These friends were part
of this cult's core group. At least one man in the group had an issue against Dr. MacDonald
because the man felt MacDonald discriminated against hard drug users in his work at a
drug treatment program-something to the effect that heroin users would be recommended
for court marshal or discharge and would not receive treatment, while others got more
favorable treatment. Ms. Stoeckley said this man talked them into going to Dr.
MacDonald's house to confront MacDonald about this unfair treatment and, therefore, they
went to his house on the night of the murders. Ms. Stoeckley said the end result was that
things got out ofhand and the people she was with committed the murders.
Affidavit of Jerry W. Leonard, Page 3 of 4
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 302 Filed 09/24/12 Page 3 of 4
15. Ms. Stoeckley also said that, during the violence, the MacDonalds' home phone rang and
she answered the phone. She hung up quickly after one of her friends yelled at her to hang
up the phone. She also said she noticed a toy rocking horse at the MacDonald home, and
that the horse was broken. Ms. Stoeckley said one of the springs was not attached to the
horse and she took that fact as a sign that Dr. MacDonald did not care for his children.
16. Our plan thereafter was for Ms. Stoeckley to refuse to answer any questions if re-called as
a witness. We had the script written down for her to read from the stand in order to
properly invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.
17. Ms. Stoeckley was not re-called as a witness. I did not hear from her again after the trial.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
SWORN TO this 20th day of September, 2012, by:
STATE

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 09:28 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2018, 09:05 AM   #595
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
Locked In A Cognitive Closet

Henrietta has always engaged in end runs around data that provides a definitive conclusion. In the case of Greg Mitchell, the data definitively demonstrates that Mitchell had never stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive.

- No prints of value matching Mitchell's exemplars were found at the crime scene.

- No head hairs matching Mitchell's exemplars were found at the crime scene.

- None of the 29 DNA exhibits tested by the AFIP matched Mitchell's DNA profile.

- Mitchell passed a 1971 polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine.

- Mitchell voluntarily met with the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1981. In both instances, he signed written statements denying any involvement in these horrific crimes.

- Mitchell never produced a signed statement admitting to his involvement in these crimes.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th October 2018 at 09:07 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 19th October 2018, 09:14 AM   #596
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
This may come as a shock to JTF and Byn but murderers sometimes strenuously deny that they did it and plead not guilty in court. There is circumstantial evidence that Mitchell did it, or was involved, like Mazerolle and others, like Smitty and Don Harris, or even Bruce Fowler:

https://www.thestate.com/news/local/...e14410814.html

Quote:
This week, John and Chris Griffin of Charlotte told the Observer that they heard another man confess to the crimes more than 30 years ago. They say Greg Mitchell, whom they hired to do electrical work, made a sobbing admission while drinking heavily at their former Lake Wylie home. The Griffins believe he was telling the truth.
Morris said the Griffins’ information should be heard in a courtroom.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 09:16 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 19th October 2018, 09:24 AM   #597
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You are assuming that those witnesses to the foreman of the jury allegedly being involved in corrupt bias were somehow bribed to sign an affidavit about it
Your mind reading skills aren't any better than your legal skills.

The affidavits you cite, absent evidence (not your pov of evidence, actual evidence) of misconduct by a juror means nothing. If this was an instance of a hung jury for acquittal where the individual juror in question was the only juror voting for guilty, that would be worth a review. If the juror in question acted as his own prosecutor in jury deliberation and brought "evidence" into the jury room not presented by the prosecution or defense that would clearly be misconduct.

Voting to convict isn't evidence of misconduct.

As far as bribery being a necessary component of being wrong about something, folks are fully capable of being wrong all on their own, and some folks have no difficulty inserting themselves into notorious criminal cases for their own reasons. That might ring a bell with certain crime buff posters
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 19th October 2018 at 09:27 AM.
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 19th October 2018, 09:26 AM   #598
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This may come as a shock to JTF and Byn but murderers sometimes strenuously deny that they did it and plead not guilty in court. snipped
If you believe that's a surprise to anyone over the age of 12, you have issues that need to be addressed.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"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 19th October 2018, 11:50 AM   #599
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This may come as a shock to JTF and Byn but murderers sometimes strenuously deny that they did it and plead not guilty in court. There is circumstantial evidence that Mitchell did it, or was involved, like Mazerolle and others, like Smitty and Don Harris, or even Bruce Fowler:

https://www.thestate.com/news/local/...e14410814.html

I doubt if that comes as a shock to either of them since it's exactly what MacDonald did in August 1979 in Raleigh, NC.

As for the article link, perhaps the Griffins shouldn't have waited 32 years to come forward regarding this supposed drunken confession. But since they can't even remember in which exact year it occurred, I also doubt if any jury would have given it much credence.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2018, 01:26 PM   #600
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
As for the article link, perhaps the Griffins shouldn't have waited 32 years to come forward regarding this supposed drunken confession. But since they can't even remember in which exact year it occurred, I also doubt if any jury would have given it much credence.
The Griffins say they did contact some people after Mitchell's drunken confession to the MacDonald murders, including that drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinnis, but they were disregarded and not believed. I agree that it may not be strictly legal evidence but it's interesting just the same. The matter is discussed in more detail at this website:

http://www.constantinereport.com/upd...l-vision-case/

Quote:
“I mean, I really thought I was going to have to call an ambulance and have him put up somewhere,” she said. “I felt sorry for him, but he was scary at the same time.”

Eventually, she said she coaxed the distraught and drunken Mitchell toward a confession.
The sobbing resumed, she said, with Mitchell wailing about the MacDonald daughters, who were 2 and 5 when they died.
“The part that got me was he was so remorseful, body language, everything was just, ‘I did it. I did it,’ ” she said.

The Griffins didn’t try to tell anybody for almost a year. “We were scared,” Chris said. “If we called somebody, he might come back and get us. Later, we tried to call, and couldn’t find anybody to listen.”

After reading about Mitchell’s death in June 1982, they said they felt safe to share what they’d heard.
They tried to contact celebrity defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, they said. Later, they called Joe McGinniss, whose 1983 book “Fatal Vision” concluded that MacDonald had killed his family.
“It’s a crying shame that a man has spent 42 years in jail for something he didn’t do,” he said.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2018 at 01:30 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
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 11:36 AM.
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.