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 31st October 2018, 10:44 AM   #641
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 481
Make up your mind, Henri(etta): either we can admit the hearsay and all unsupported theories or we can't.

Besides, Helena testified in open court. So, she was no secret. And she testified despite the absence of evidence of her presence in the quarters on the night in question.

Last edited by desmirelle; 31st October 2018 at 10:46 AM.
desmirelle 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 31st October 2018, 06:27 PM   #642
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
CID Reinvestigation

HENRIETTA: Evidence against the Stoeckley Seven held in secret? Maybe in your fantasy world, but if one relies on the documented record...

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2018, 03:22 AM   #643
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIETTA: Evidence against the Stoeckley Seven held in secret? Maybe in your fantasy world, but if one relies on the documented record...

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
You can't just disregard or ignore Helena Stoeckley and her pals with regard to the MacDonald case. Colonel Rock concluded at the Article 32 proceedings that she should be further investigated. Justice Marshall at the Supreme Court thought likewise in a dissenting opinion at a MacDonald appeal in about 1982. The Nashville cop/detective Gaddis testified in secret at the MacDonald trial in 1979 that he would have further investigated her and had her indicted. Just because she strongly denied everything to save her own skin at the MacDonald trial does not make her innocent, or if her pals might have once passed a polygraph. There needs to be some good detectives and good murder investigators on the case:

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

Quote:
Because the record in this case reveals no legitimate reason for a substantial period of pretrial delay, and because MacDonald may have suffered prejudice at trial and clearly suffered other forms of prejudice, I would affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling that his speedy trial right was violated.
IV
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.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
1
A woman generally within this description was apparently seen by the military police as they rushed to answer respondent's call. During the course of this case, considerable suspicion has been focused upon Helena Stoeckley. Stoeckley was 19 at the time and a heavy user of heroin, opium, mescaline, LSD, marihuana, and other drugs; within days after the crime she began telling people that she was involved in the murder or that she at least had accompanied the murderers and watched them commit the crimes. She also wore mourning dress and displayed a funeral wreath on the day of the victims' funeral. The investigation confirmed that she had been seen returning to her apartment at 4:30 on the morning following the killings in the company of men also generally fitting the descriptions given by MacDonald. Stoeckley testified at trial that she had no memory of the night in question because she was "stoned" that night. She did, however, admit that at the time of the crime she owned and frequently wore a blond wig and a pair of white boots and that she destroyed them within a few days after the crime because they might connect her with the episode.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 1st November 2018 at 03:29 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 1st November 2018, 04:03 AM   #644
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Anything the FBI says is regarded as the gospel truth by the court of public opinion in America. The Richard Jewell Atlanta Olympic bombing case is an example of that which was another gross miscarriage of justice. It was 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 1st November 2018, 04:41 AM   #645
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Do you honestly think this should be accepted in a court? It's funny and not correct:

The evidence against Helena Stoeckley and her pals should never have been held in secret. It was clearly erroneous by a corrupt judiciary in North Carolina.
It IS funny if you think that anything Helena Stoeckley said in regards to this case (as far as her participation and any of the others she named) has any credibility at all. HOWEVER, her claims were not "held in secret". Helena testified in court and stated that she WAS NOT THERE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDERS. Bernie Segal tried to claim that she'd hinted at differences in the previous day's interview but, in fact, the various witnesses to her interview stated quite clearly that she testified exactly as she had stated in the interview. Wade Smith was on the stand at the last hearing and questioned about that situation. You should look it up!
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 1st November 2018, 05:11 AM   #646
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You can't just disregard or ignore Helena Stoeckley and her pals with regard to the MacDonald case.
We don't "just disregard Helena". we review the evidence, her testimony in open court, the lack of evidence of her presence and/or the presence of any of the people she alleged participated....we compare her VARIOUS confessions to the evidence and to the story inmate told. THEY DO NOT MATCH. The only consistent story Helena told was "I was not there" period.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Colonel Rock concluded at the Article 32 proceedings that she should be further investigated.
She was further investigated. The ENTIRE CASE was further investigated for the next two years. Every single sourced piece of evidence pointed at inmate and still no trace of Helena, Greg, or any of the others she pointed the finger at over the years was located.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Justice Marshall at the Supreme Court thought likewise in a dissenting opinion at a MacDonald appeal in about 1982.

The 1982 appeal was the Speedy Trial Issue....what does that have to do with Helena's trial testimony?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Nashville cop/detective Gaddis testified in secret at the MacDonald trial in 1979 that he would have further investigated her and had her indicted.
Well, it is a good thing he wasn't in charge....to investigate someone and find no evidence against them and then STILL try and indict them is bad criminology/justice. Gaddis and several others testified under Voir Dire
which is a common practice. The testimony was not deemed credible or of value to the trial. FYI - Gaddis' version of what Helena said didn't help inmate's cause - she couldn't remember Greg's last name and she claimed to be with Bruce Fowler who was actually with someone else.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Just because she strongly denied everything to save her own skin at the MacDonald trial does not make her innocent,
She testified to the truth. There is not a single solitary piece of forensic evidence to place her or any others outside of inmate himself at the murder scene. Her various confessions were basically coerced and none of the confessions match each other, the evidence, or inmate's own story of what happened that night. Helena is not/was not a viable suspect. The murderer has been convicted.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
or if her pals might have once passed a polygraph.
all of the "alleged intruders" passed polygraph's immediately the same cannot be said of the murderer. inmate failed his first polygraph test. it wasn't until years later that he managed to manipulate the polygraph sufficiently to pass the test, but then, sociopaths such as inmate often are able to do so....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There needs to be some good detectives and good murder investigators on the case:
Thank goodness there were some damn good investigators and attorney's and FBI analysts involved in this case. The truth is known and the murderer sits in jail still trying to figure out a way to get out of the punishment he so richly deserves.
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 1st November 2018, 10:25 AM   #647
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
She testified to the truth. There is not a single solitary piece of forensic evidence to place her or any others outside of inmate himself at the murder scene. Her various confessions were basically coerced and none of the confessions match each other, the evidence, or inmate's own story of what happened that night. Helena is not/was not a viable suspect. The murderer has been convicted.
Not everybody agrees with you. Blackburn is a convicted and imprisoned fraudster after stealing many millions of dollars. Murtagh is not much better. It was a will to win at all costs strategy even if it had to be done illegally. Helena's confessions were never coerced. It was explained to her by Blackburn that if she confessed at the trial she would go to jail:

https://www.salon.com/2012/11/30/may...ent_after_all/

Quote:
MacDonald was tried in a civilian court in 1979. Many felt that his acquittal would be a cinch, but much more was to go wrong. The nine-year lag between the murders and the trial is extremely unusual; experts consider such a lag to pose a great danger of wrongful conviction. Appearances didn’t help MacDonald, either. He looked angry on the stand. Worse still, Judge Franklin Dupree seemed to have his mind made up before the trial began. Some said he should never have taken the case because his former son-in-law was the prosecutor in the original Army hearing. Dupree would not admit overwhelming psychiatric testimony in MacDonald’s favor, nor the testimony of witnesses to whom Helena Stoeckley had confessed her involvement. Bernie Segal, a long-haired Jewish lawyer from Philadelphia, took the lead in the case and managed to alienate the entire courtroom. Segal took up nearly all the time in the critical period for closing remarks and left only a few minutes for co-counsel Wade Smith, an eloquent native Carolinian who understood the jury.

One thing about this case is never in doubt no matter who’s talking: If Wade Smith had been able to lead and give his closing remarks, MacDonald would be a free man today.

The list of misfortunes goes on: exculpatory evidence withheld; possible prosecutorial misconduct; and fallible humans who twisted the MacDonald story to fit their own agendas. MacDonald was convicted twice, both in the courtroom and in the all-important court of public opinion, which was sealed by McGinniss’ book and miniseries.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 1st November 2018 at 10:28 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 1st November 2018, 10:53 AM   #648
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Not everybody agrees with you.
This isn't a court of popular opinion.

Your man crush is guilty.
__________________
"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 1st November 2018, 03:21 PM   #649
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 481
Point of observation: Psychiatric testimony is usually reserved for trials in which the defendant is guilty and trying to get out of punishment; or to impeach a witness. Since Macdonald has steadfastly and in defiance of the evidence insisted he is "factually innocent", why would he need psychiatric testimony?

See, that's the problem with the mac defenders, they keep wanting to make the façade Macdonald presented to the world the case - but only the evidence matters.
desmirelle 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 1st November 2018, 03:43 PM   #650
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
Physical Evidence

It speaks to the quantity AND quality of the physical evidence in this case that the prosecution didn't feel the need to present a motive. Claims leveled by the Stoeckley's of the world are meaningless because physical evidence has no agenda or ego. It simply cuts to the chase and presents a clear narrative about guilt or innocence. In this case, the evidence presents Jeffrey MacDonald as a mass murderer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st November 2018 at 03:44 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 2nd November 2018, 03:06 AM   #651
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
This isn't a court of popular opinion.

Your man crush is guilty.
What physical evidence apart from quite ludicrously unsatisfactory and debunked evidence? These horrible murder cases should not be investigated by incompetent and bent cops. That's Turkish justice. There are rules and regulations with regard to these court cases. Only real experts can give their opinions in court. If the sign says 'keep off the grass' then you keep off the grass. It was bad police work and judicial corruption to disregard Helena Stoeckley and her pals. Forensic fraud by the prosecution and withholding of exculpatory evidence should not be tolerated.
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 2nd November 2018, 03:26 AM   #652
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Point of observation: Psychiatric testimony is usually reserved for trials in which the defendant is guilty and trying to get out of punishment; or to impeach a witness. Since Macdonald has steadfastly and in defiance of the evidence insisted he is "factually innocent", why would he need psychiatric testimony?

See, that's the problem with the mac defenders, they keep wanting to make the façade Macdonald presented to the world the case - but only the evidence matters.
The point abut the psychiatric testimony in the MacDonald case is that the prosecution from the start tried to maintain the Macdonald murders were done by MacDonald in some kind of lunatic rage and violent argument. The defense lawyers then naturally attempted to refute that argument with their own psychiatric witnesses, and the matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings and at the Grand Jury in about 1975. The forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff testified then that he was "fairly certain " Dr. MacDonald didn't do it.

The very bad judge, Judge Dupree got round that by banning Dr. Sadoff from testifying at the 1979 trial and then calling a couple of what looks to me like CIA psychiatrists to perjure themselves in a secret court session. I have never been terribly sure if the jury were ever told about Dupree's psychiatric testimony, but I suspect they were somehow, possibly in a prosecution pamphlet presented to them at the time. It's obviously corrupt bias.

The matter was discussed and explained in an article once by Gunderson:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...n_summary.html

Quote:
Finally due to the loss of all 24 consecutive motions by the defense (for discovery or for presentation of critical evidence), the trial came down to the allegedly carefully constructed case against Dr. MacDonald, based on very sketchy (and grossly hypothetical) forensic evidence reconstructed from a destroyed crime scene on the one hand, and on the other hand opposed basically by character and psychiatric witnesses for Dr. MacDonald. This brings us to Dr. Brussel and a final crushing blow to the defense.

Judge Dupree declared that if the defense hoped to have its psychiatrists testify at trial Dr. MacDonald would have to submit to an additional, psychiatric evaluation by the government's psychiatrist. This seemed unusual at the time, since Dr. MacDonald had already been evaluated by two sets of defense psychiatrists, and also by a three-man team at Walter Read Army Hospital for the prosecution -- and all exams were essentially very positive and similar. The new exam turned out to be a "sham"; the examiner was one Dr. James Brussel from New York, aided by New Jersey psychologist Hirsch Lazzar Silverman The "psychiatric exam" lasted 35 minutes and consisted of no psychiatric questions. Instead, Dr. Brussel read prosecution questions typed by prosecutor Brian Murtagh. Dr. Brussel was almost 80 years old, senile, had recently had a stroke, was drooling from his mouth, and thought be was in Maryland, not North Carolina. He asked for his hat as he departed that day, having to be told by defense counsel that it was already on his head.

Astonishingly, Dr. Brussel told Judge Dupree, in camera, that his findings were in total contrast to those of all other examiners and Judge Dupree promptly disallowed all psychiatric evidence at trial, claiming he didn't want a "battle of the experts."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd November 2018 at 03:29 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 2nd November 2018, 04:28 AM   #653
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
What physical evidence apart from quite ludicrously unsatisfactory and debunked evidence?
the hundreds of inmate's pj fibers and threads found
the blood in places it could not be if inmate's story were true
the FACT that the bodies were moved
the torn pj pocket
the splinters from the murder club
the limb hair and splinter found in Colette's hand
the bloody footprints exiting Kristen's room
the LACK of evidence of anyone other than inmate and his victims in the home
etc etc etc - over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence presented via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The COURT ruled the evidence satisfactory and the ONLY things DEBUNKED were the claims made by inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
These horrible murder cases should not be investigated by incompetent and bent cops.
That is FACT and that is why it is a GOOD thing that this case had SKILLED and HONEST investigators such as Bill Ivory and Peter Kearns and FBI analysts like Stombaugh and Green. Otherwise the VICTIMS would not have received justice.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are rules and regulations with regard to these court cases. Only real experts can give their opinions in court.
Indeed, and the rules and regulations were met. The COURT determines whether someone is an EXPERT WITNESS and no amount of stamping your feet and exclaiming to the contrary the witnesses for the government that were proclaimed EXPERTS were in fact EXPERT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was bad police work and judicial corruption to disregard Helena Stoeckley and her pals.
Helena was NOT disregarded. She was fully investigated and she was brought to Raleigh for the trial where she testified in open court to EXACTLY the SAME things that she told the defense in the previous day interview. She also told the prosecution the same thing "I was not there, I was not involved". Crazy people confess to crimes they did not commit all the time, and Helena was no exception. HOWEVER, none of her confessions matched the evidence OR inmate's story. Thus, they were not credible. There was absolutely no evidence of Helena or any of the other persons she pointed the finger at inside 544 Castle Drive. Most had airtight alibis. I know you dislike when I insist on clouding the issues with FACTS but it is FACT that inmate did it.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Forensic fraud by the prosecution and withholding of exculpatory evidence should not be tolerated.
And it would not be, if it occurred. Good thing that did not happen in this case. btw henri(etta) continuing to repeat claims that have LONG been disproven is juvenile to say the least.....
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 2nd November 2018, 04:39 AM   #654
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The point abut the psychiatric testimony in the MacDonald case is that the prosecution from the start tried to maintain the Macdonald murders were done by MacDonald in some kind of lunatic rage and violent argument.
I don't believe they ever tried to say it was a "lunatic" rage. but still, the evidence is what tells the story and the evidence proves that inmate slaughtered his family in a vicious, savage, brutal manner.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The defense lawyers then naturally attempted to refute that argument with their own psychiatric witnesses, and the matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings and at the Grand Jury in about 1975. The forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff testified then that he was "fairly certain "...MacDonald didn't do it.
So? The Article 32 was the military version of a Grand Jury and the base Commander dismissed the charges for lack of evidence. Thus began the 2 year re-investigation.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The very bad judge, Judge Dupree got round that by banning Dr. Sadoff from testifying at the 1979 trial and then calling a couple of what looks to me like CIA psychiatrists to perjure themselves in a secret court session.
pfft pfft pfft seriously? pfft pfft pfft omg too funny I just made a mess out of my monitor and keyboard spraying the mouthful of tea I'd just started to drink when I read this comment!

First, Judge Dupree was an outstanding jurist you just don't like him because he saw through inmate's facade.

Second there were no "CIA psychiatrists".....

Third, there was no "secret court session" NO PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY OCCURRED. Voir Dire or In Chambers review may have taken place but since inmate was NOT using the "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea there was no need for such testimony and neither side was allowed to call such persons.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have never been terribly sure if the jury were ever told about Dupree's psychiatric testimony, but I suspect they were somehow, possibly in a prosecution pamphlet presented to them at the time. It's obviously corrupt bias.
No psychiatric testimony means exactly that NONE and why would Judge Dupree provide psychiatric testimony?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter was discussed and explained in an article once by Gunderson:
Gunderson has no credibility at all. He never met a conspiracy theory he wouldn't support, he was the only agent ever blackballed from the former SA Association, and he was allowed to retire rather than face the legal ramifications of the FBI investigation into HIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. and that's a FACT JACK!
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 2nd November 2018, 06:13 AM   #655
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

The matter was discussed and explained in an article once by Gunderson:
A man with the singular distinction of being noted by the California Attorney General's office as having no credibility as an investigator or as a source and was booted from the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI because of his conduct.

If such a thing is even possible, he had in life even less credibility than you have here.
__________________
"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 2nd November 2018, 06:26 AM   #656
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Byn63 -

Don't forget, his firing was prompted by a public pissing match with Washington over warrantless wiretapping and searches - HQ had done away with the practice and Gunderson insisted that the warrantless searches were a necessary part of federal law enforcement.

I'd avoid citing someone that pisses on the Bill of Rights.
__________________
"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 2nd November 2018, 10:31 AM   #657
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Second there were no "CIA psychiatrists".....

Third, there was no "secret court session" NO PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY OCCURRED. Voir Dire or In Chambers review may have taken place but since inmate was NOT using the "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea there was no need for such testimony and neither side was allowed to call such persons.

No psychiatric testimony means exactly that NONE and why would Judge Dupree provide psychiatric testimony?
I don't know for certain if they were CIA psychiatrists or FBI psychiatrists. The fact is that the only psychiatric report on MacDonald which the very bad judge Dupree allowed was the prosecution psychiatric report, while the MacDonald psychiatric reports were banned and disallowed. Judge Dupree was biased and so is Judge Fox. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://medium.com/@lajp/a-judges-se...r-733f61d6673a

Quote:
The judge in the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case is one of the big reasons he is still in jail all these years later. In this excerpt from the book Fatal Justice, the judge in 1979 trial, United States federal judge Franklin Taylor Dupree Jr secretly communicated with the prosecution trying to influence the outcome of the trial. This fact was found out years later. Just this revelation alone should free the good Doctor who is currently awaiting on his 4th appeal. In my opinion this is absolute judicial corruption.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd November 2018 at 10:32 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 2nd November 2018, 10:38 AM   #658
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know for certain
All your post should start with that phrase.
__________________
"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 2nd November 2018, 10:41 AM   #659
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Byn63 -

Don't forget, his firing was prompted by a public pissing match with Washington over warrantless wiretapping and searches - HQ had done away with the practice and Gunderson insisted that the warrantless searches were a necessary part of federal law enforcement.

I'd avoid citing someone that pisses on the Bill of Rights.
BStrong - several years ago I spoke to some FBI agents that I met through work.....the warrantless wiretapping and searches were only 2 of the criminal charges that were being investigated when he was offered retirement to salvage his pension. This was the 2nd criminal investigation involving Gunderson......the agents I met always cringed when someone would quote "former SAC Gunderson" because his having been FBI many of them felt as if they were tainted with the same stain.

pretty sad when your own agency finds you to NOT be CREDIBLE! Oh, and Gunderson was the one who took the "pissing match" public but that backfired on him pretty quickly because HQ released information about the warrantless activities and the number of criminals who got away with their crimes because Gunderson had failed to follow procedures.
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 2nd November 2018, 10:42 AM   #660
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
There is an interesting and very true quote below the postings of Acbytesla on this forum which applies to the MacDonald case:

Quote:
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
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 2nd November 2018, 10:45 AM   #661
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting and very true quote below the postings of Acbytesla on this forum which applies to the MacDonald case:
Another great self-contradictory post. The term "Wise" isn't your friend.
__________________
"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 2nd November 2018, 10:50 AM   #662
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
BStrong - several years ago I spoke to some FBI agents that I met through work.....the warrantless wiretapping and searches were only 2 of the criminal charges that were being investigated when he was offered retirement to salvage his pension. This was the 2nd criminal investigation involving Gunderson......the agents I met always cringed when someone would quote "former SAC Gunderson" because his having been FBI many of them felt as if they were tainted with the same stain.

pretty sad when your own agency finds you to NOT be CREDIBLE! Oh, and Gunderson was the one who took the "pissing match" public but that backfired on him pretty quickly because HQ released information about the warrantless activities and the number of criminals who got away with their crimes because Gunderson had failed to follow procedures.
If you had access to the very few names of agents bounced out of the FSA and the names of individuals booted out of the SOA (Special Operations Association) and the SFA (Special Forces Association) it would be a rogue's gallery of CTist ********.
__________________
"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 2nd November 2018, 08:34 PM   #663
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
Quantity And Quality

Again, it speaks to the quantity AND quality of the physical evidence in this case that the prosecution didn't feel the need to present a motive. Claims leveled by the Stoeckley's of the world are meaningless because physical evidence has no agenda or ego. It simply cuts to the chase and presents a clear narrative about guilt or innocence. In this case, the evidence presents Jeffrey MacDonald as a serial fabricator, a psychopath, and a mass murderer. 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."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 2nd November 2018 at 08:38 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 3rd November 2018, 03:35 AM   #664
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Oh, and Gunderson was the one who took the "pissing match" public but that backfired on him pretty quickly because HQ released information about the warrantless activities and the number of criminals who got away with their crimes because Gunderson had failed to follow procedures.
Gunderson got it right with regard to the MacDonald case. Both Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were in bed with the prosecution.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2018, 03:38 AM   #665
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
the hundreds of inmate's pj fibers and threads found
the blood in places it could not be if inmate's story were true
the FACT that the bodies were moved
the torn pj pocket
the splinters from the murder club
the limb hair and splinter found in Colette's hand
the bloody footprints exiting Kristen's room
the LACK of evidence of anyone other than inmate and his victims in the home
etc etc etc - over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence presented via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The COURT ruled the evidence satisfactory and the ONLY things DEBUNKED were the claims made by inmate.
That doesn't prove anything. It was 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 3rd November 2018, 03:53 AM   #666
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
BStrong - several years ago I spoke to some FBI agents that I met through work.....the warrantless wiretapping and searches were only 2 of the criminal charges that were being investigated when he was offered retirement to salvage his pension. This was the 2nd criminal investigation involving Gunderson......the agents I met always cringed when someone would quote "former SAC Gunderson" because his having been FBI many of them felt as if they were tainted with the same stain.
The thing about the bugging and wiretapping of criminals like Helena Stoeckley and Mazerolle and Mitchell and Bruce Fowler and Don Harris and Dwight Smith and corrupt judiciary is that the law in America has changed since Gunderson's days. He was all for it then and that rubbed the FBI and Justice Department up the wrong way. In any case the very inexperienced and bent Army CID cops had Macdonald under surveillance when he was working in California and McGinniss was spying on him at the time:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance

Quote:
In July of 2007, President Bush signed into law the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA), which amended FISA to loosen the warrant requirement by permitting wiretapping of any phone calls originating in or being received in a foreign country. The PAA expired after 180 days, at which time Congress declined to renew it. However, many provisions of the PAA were reauthorized in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and have been used as the legal basis for mass surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd November 2018 at 03:58 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 3rd November 2018, 09:38 AM   #667
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Again, it speaks to the quantity AND quality of the physical evidence in this case that the prosecution didn't feel the need to present a motive.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The reason the prosecution never presented a motive to the court is that it would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence as being an opinion and not a fact. The Army CID made it abundantly clear that they had strange beliefs about a motive at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 and those beliefs are laughable:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...pa32-shaw.html

Quote:
Q What is your opinion as to who might have murdered that child?
A Well, I think that Captain MacDonald murdered his wife and murdered his oldest daughter. Something had to start it off; and we are all married men, but I do know that the stresses of daily married life can sometimes become almost unbearable, as we all know from our experience; in many cases it does become unbearable for persons and they go under the strain and some of them pack up and leave home and some cause violence in the home, both men and women. And it has been my opinion and I have nothing to back it up, that perhaps Colette MacDonald did something to this child that caused Captain MacDonald to become enraged, and it is only my personal opinion; I think that perhaps after he lost, when he came out of this fit of passion, he began to think rationally again, he may well have come back to this child and may have reinjured her and he might not.

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q Mr. Shaw, you had occasion to refer to how some people respond to marital problems of the pressure of marital life, as a motive or the possible motive for the killing as you have theorized it; but is it fair to say you don't start off with the assumption that all persons are capable of acting in the way this murder was carried out, as a way of responding to marital problems?
A Well, I want you to know and I want your record to show that I do not consider myself any kind of marriage counselor or psychiatrist or psychologist or student of abnormal behavior. I am just drawing from life experiences and what I have seen as a policeman and as a private citizen and I think that the big question in my mind about this case has been motive; in fact, it began the day that I walked into that house and began to assist in the investigation; it was the uppermost question in my mind, was the motive.

QUESTIONS BY ATTORNEY SEGAL:
Q Just drawing from your life experience, would it be fair to say that you would not expect the ordinary person to respond in some kind of marital discord in the fashion that took place in the MacDonald household?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q From that, would I be correct in concluding that you would place some weight on whether or not Captain MacDonald has some emotional instability or not, in determining whether this crime took place under the theory of marital discord, as you expressed?
A I would place some weight towards that.

QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q Have you any evidence or information from your investigation of this case, that Captain MacDonald was not emotionally stable?
A Emotionally stable? Again, you are asking me for an opinion far outside of my field.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd November 2018 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 3rd November 2018, 10:43 AM   #668
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,121
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Gunderson got it right
If you want to continuing hanging your hat on Gunderson the "birds of a feather" quote might be applicable.

Just for the record, Gunderson was a lying sack of ****. If you're going to impunge people's character as you do, jumping into bed with Gunderson doesn't do you any favors.
__________________
"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 3rd November 2018, 03:31 PM   #669
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
This Guy?

Is this the Ted Gunderson of whom Henriette speaks? Insert sarcasm.

https://omgfacts.com/this-fbi-agent-...acy-theorists/

In terms of Gunderson's involvement in the MacDonald Case, well...

The information that Stoeckley provided to Ted Gunderson was included in a 1984 appeal for a new trial. The government responded to this and other appeal issues in a 91-page report. In comparing audiotapes of Stoeckley's interviews with Gunderson to the typed transcripts, the government concluded that "it became apparent that these were not transcripts of recorded interviews but rather questions and answers which had been extracted from the tapes, arranged in a sequence designed to delete conflicting responses by Stoeckley and blended into a transcript like statement, which Stoeckley later initialed."

The government also states that during certain audiotapes, "Stoeckley had come perilously close to contradicting her previous whereabouts." The following note to his secretary made it clear that Gunderson was concerned about Stoeckley's disjointed statements.

"June, this is all we're going to record on this tape. I'm going back and try to pick up the mistakes that I made on the other tapes. So, in order to avoid confusion, that's the end of this tape. Don't type anything more off of it."

The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the 91-page report:

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 3rd November 2018 at 03:33 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 4th November 2018, 08:59 AM   #670
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the 91-page report:

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There used to be quite a long video of Helena's interview with Gunderson and Detective Beasley on the internet. I can't quite see how you can say it's fabricated, though I agree it doesn't seem to be broadcasting quality, and I suppose it could have been edited.

How on earth did Judge Dupree manage to be the judge in charge of the 1985 MacDonald appeal and the 1992 appeal? That's not an impartial or independent judge. It would never happen in the UK though I suppose it might happen in somewhere like Africa or Turkey or in Nazi and Soviet justice. That Judge Dupree opinion about Helena Stoeckley was poor judgment of character by him. Colonel Rock thought she should be further investigated and not disregarded. Don't you at least think that she was a suspicious character?
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 4th November 2018, 03:02 PM   #671
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,225
Stoeckley Unhinged

HENRIETTA: I realize that in your fantasy world, hearsay evidence is far more important than physical evidence, and that Stoeckley was never investigated by the CID or FBI. Having said that...

In terms of her presence at the crime scene, there is not a shred of physical evidence linking Helena Stoeckley to the murders. In 1971, head hair and fingerprint exemplars were obtained from Stoeckley, and no match was found at the crime scene. In 2006, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology released their DNA test results on 29 exhibits found at the crime scene. None of the exhibits matched the DNA profile of Helena Stoeckley.

Following the MacDonald murders, Stoeckley began a 13-year journey involving confessions, denials, loss of memory, and physical and mental deterioration. The first time that Stoeckley attempted to insert herself into this case was on February 19, 1970. Pat Reese was a well respected newspaper reporter for the Fayetteville Observer and through his work as a drug counselor, he was aware of Stoeckley and her group of friends.

Stoeckley told Reese that she had no memory of her whereabouts on February 17th due to her excessive drug use. This version of events was the only story that Stoeckley would repeat in the next 13 years. Her multiple confessions over the next decade were a series of contradictions and/or stories which are at odds with the facts in this case. Let me give you a specific example followed by my comments.

In 1981, Stoeckley provided a signed confession to a defense-funded, private investigator by the name of Ted Gunderson. Stoeckley told Gunderson that she was a member of a Satanist group calling itself the Black Cult and that she was instructed to call the MacDonald residence to find out whether they would be home in the evening. Stoeckley stated she called at 6:20 p.m., spoke to Colette MacDonald over the phone, and Colette told her she was going to her college class. Stoeckley claims that Colette also gave her the name of the school she was attending, and that the babysitter was going to watch the children until Doctor MacDonald returned home.

Stoeckley states that cult member Bruce Fowler drove Stoeckley and four other cult members to the MacDonald home. She said that the cult members entered through the kitchen door and that they did not bring any weapons with them even though they planned to "annihilate" the entire family. The cult members then confronted Jeffrey MacDonald in the living room, demanded that he sign a prescription for Dexedrine, and MacDonald agreed to call a friend in order to procure the Dexedrine. Jeffrey MacDonald then dialed the post operator in an attempt to summon the military police.

The cult members then beat MacDonald for a second time, MacDonald fell unconscious on the hallway floor, and Stoeckley subsequently gave MacDonald mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Stoeckley stated that she wore a floppy-sleeved blouse, a denim skirt, and was the only cult member carrying a candle.

COMMENTS:

Several months after making this confession to Gunderson, FBI agents reported that Stoeckley was encouraged by Gunderson to "talk about a cult," and that "she was of the opinion that the mention of cult activities in her statement was primarily Gunderson's idea and not hers." In 1982, Stoeckley told Gunderson that the cult called itself the Children Of Light. During his time at Fort Bragg, Jeffrey MacDonald was called Captain MacDonald, not Doctor MacDonald. Jeffrey MacDonald was home at 6:20 p.m., no babysitter was hired for the evening, and Colette MacDonald left for class at 6:15 p.m. It does not seem plausible that Colette would give out personal information over the phone to a perfect stranger.

Bruce Fowler had an airtight alibi for his whereabouts on the night of the murders and Stoeckley friend, Maggie Mauney, allowed Stoeckley to borrow her car on the evening of February 16, 1970. According to Mauney, when she awoke the next morning, her vehicle was parked outside her residence at the Cape Fear Valley Hospital. The kitchen door was locked when the military police arrived at 544 Castle Drive, Jeffrey MacDonald made no mention of a discussion with the intruders or a second beating, and Stoeckley made no references to wearing dark woolen clothing items.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 4th November 2018 at 03:04 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 5th November 2018, 03:19 AM   #672
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Bruce Fowler hardly had an "airtight alibi" for the MacDonald murders. It was "I don't remember" which I suppose is a bit better than the usual "no comment" or Mitchell saying he might have been staying with his parents that night, or Dwight Smith saying publicly that he had no alibi. At least Mazerolle being a professional burglar and drug dealer knew how to get a fake and forged cast-iron alibi, perhaps with the aid of his mafia pals:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ler_bruce.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 5th November 2018, 03:33 AM   #673
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
There is some legal waffle on the internet during the 1979 trial at another frequent Bench Conference about whether the evidence against Helena should have been heard by the jury. Segal's argument seemed to be that she didn't necessarily have to say she did it in a courtroom but could mention that she discarded the clothing she was wearing during the MacDonald murders. Segal then mentioned a couple of similar previous Supreme Court rulings from the 1960's which Judge Dupree and Murtagh then just brushed aside. It was a mistrial:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...979-08-17.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 5th November 2018, 05:04 AM   #674
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is some legal waffle on the internet during the 1979 trial at another frequent Bench Conference about whether the evidence against Helena should have been heard by the jury. Segal's argument seemed to be that she didn't necessarily have to say she did it in a courtroom but could mention that she discarded the clothing she was wearing during the MacDonald murders. Segal then mentioned a couple of similar previous Supreme Court rulings from the 1960's which Judge Dupree and Murtagh then just brushed aside. It was a mistrial:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...979-08-17.html
You do realize that the internet didn't exist during the 1979 hearing don't you?

A collection of ex post facto analysis by people second guessing not only the court of first instance, but also the appeals court, the retrial, the second appeal, and the SCOTUS holds about as much water as a colander.

Particularly when what they are analyzing is which story told by an alleged witness who told multiple stories under oath, the only one of which was supported by the material evidence was "I wasn't there."
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 5th November 2018, 05:24 AM   #675
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Gunderson got it right with regard to the MacDonald case.
No, he did not.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Both Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were in bed with the prosecution.
No, they were not "in bed" with the prosecution. Also, Judge Fox had nothing to do with the case until the appeals process after Judge Dupree passed away. You seem to have trouble grasping a very simple concept. The EVIDENCE proved that inmate did it. There was no conspiracy.
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 5th November 2018, 05:29 AM   #676
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That doesn't prove anything. It was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
The over 1,100 pieces of evidence presented at trial proves inmate slaughtered his family. It was perfectly satisfying evidence. It is ludicrous for you to claim otherwise.

You see henri, how it works is that one side presents evidence and the other side has the opportunity to object to said evidence. The FACT that Bernie Segal did not object to the evidence submitted and the Judge accepted the evidence as submitted means, in FACT, that is was quite satisfactory. At TRIAL is when one determines if there is evidence of guilt. The prosecution presented only about 60% of the inculpatory evidence available at trial. Inmate was convicted on the strength of that evidence.....if a new trial was conducted the evidence against inmate would be even more damning since the DNA results would be admissible and we'd no longer have a "mystery hair" but as the DEFENSE always stated whoever matched that hair was the wielder of the club aka the murderer and the DNA was a 100% match to inmate.
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 5th November 2018, 08:25 AM   #677
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
and we'd no longer have a "mystery hair" but as the DEFENSE always stated whoever matched that hair was the wielder of the club aka the murderer and the DNA was a 100% match to inmate.
That mystery hair in Colette's left hand was a problem for the prosecution from the start. It could easily have been DNA tested when DNA tests for hairs first became available, but Murtagh and Judge Fox were reluctant and bashful to have it done in case it proved MacDonald's innocence. Then in 2006 with a miraculous wave of an FBI lab wand it suddenly became a Jeff MacDonald hair as reported by the AFIP lab. It was forensic fraud and cheating by the FBI lab and there have been other such cases in other murder cases:

https://koehlerlaw.net/2010/05/on-mi...acdonald-case/

Quote:
Fatal Justice also details a long and horrifying list of abuses committed by prosecutors, investigators, and judges in the MacDonald case. While the list is far too lengthy to describe in detail here, you are left with the conclusion that Malone’s false affidavit was just the tip of the iceberg. The list includes multiple instances in which the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession that would have confirmed large parts of MacDonald’s version of events that night. Other evidence that implicated MacDonald and that was used at trial to convict him miraculously appeared many years after the initial investigation.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th November 2018 at 08:28 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 5th November 2018, 08:49 AM   #678
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 481
So, your link can't be bothered to read up on the facts and relies on an error-riddled book written by one of Macdonald's attorneys under an alias?

This "miraculously appeared" phrase in this link refers to things that were in evidence all along. Like the hair DNA matched to Macdonald (the one he said was the murder's) wasn't usable until DNA analysis was available. It was there all along, but until the technology was available, it was just a hair in an evidence container. And that's just one. Had Segal taken the time to have the evidence examined when it was FIRST offered and didn't waste all that time trying to get the evidence to California from North Carolina, the defense junkies wouldn't be claiming the evidence just appeared after the initial investigation. Yes, more evidence came up in the re-investigation (made possible by Segal's monumental blunder re the Article 32 hearing - he tried his case there and not at a court-martial), but that doesn't invalidate it.
desmirelle 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 5th November 2018, 09:41 AM   #679
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Had Segal taken the time to have the evidence examined when it was FIRST offered and didn't waste all that time trying to get the evidence to California from North Carolina, the defense junkies wouldn't be claiming the evidence just appeared after the initial investigation. Yes, more evidence came up in the re-investigation (made possible by Segal's monumental blunder re the Article 32 hearing - he tried his case there and not at a court-martial), but that doesn't invalidate it.
You are ignoring the practical difficulties and practical points Segal was up against. The fact is the MacDonald defense were never allowed to retest the forensic evidence in case there had been errors or mistakes, or even properly identify the forensic evidence due to withholding of lab notes and poor markings and labels on the evidence. The problem is discussed in general in this scholarly article on the internet:

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bi...hapter%206.pdf

Quote:
……………. authorities are beyond the understanding capacity of judges, however they are
admitted. And in some others they are regularly admitted unchallenged due to
the scientific illiteracy of lawyers engaged in those cases. The main reason for
this pitiable condition is the lack of scientific background for advocates and
judges to argue or decide the issues confronted before them.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th November 2018 at 09:44 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 5th November 2018, 12:58 PM   #680
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That mystery hair in Colette's left hand was a problem for the prosecution from the start.
It was deemed a mystery hair for the very SIMPLE reason (which has been explained to you numerous times) that IT IS THE DISTAL OR TIP PORTION OF A LIMB HAIR. Only head and pubic hairs have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared.

The defense deemed it "the mystery hair" and stated that the hair was from the wielder of the murder club. This was proven true when the DNA testing was completed and the hair was matched 100% no doubt about it belonging to inmate. period.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It could easily have been DNA tested when DNA tests for hairs first became available, but Murtagh and Judge Fox were reluctant and bashful to have it done in case it proved MacDonald's innocence.
Not even CLOSE to true. When DNA testing became available the convicted person was required to request approval for DNA testing through the Courts. Inmate did eventually request the DNA testing.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Then in 2006 with a miraculous wave of an FBI lab wand it suddenly became a Jeff MacDonald hair as reported by the AFIP lab.
There was no "magic wand" or miracle about the DNA results coming back to inmate. You KNOW the testing was approved, you KNOW that inmate stalled the testing several times, you KNOW the DNA testing once again was delayed after the horrific events of 9/11.

What part of the FACT that the AFIP (ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY) was responsible for identifying as many remains as possible from the attacks of 9/11 (Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Pennsylvania Field) DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? Inmate was NOT a priority, the identification of as many as possible victims of the terrorists attack WAS PRIORITY. Once the identifications were as complete as possible work was resumed on inmate's hairs. THAT IS FACT - no tricks, no fraud, just honest hard working personnel returning to a mundane case after months and years of painstaking, heart-wrenching, exacting, detailed, painful, and sad work identifying fragments of what had once been PEOPLE!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was forensic fraud and cheating by the FBI lab and there have been other such cases in other murder cases
Other murder cases are irrelevant to the discussions at hand. THERE WAS NO FORENSIC FRAUD. You need to stop insulting the people at AFIP, FBI, and all the American citizens who suffered through the trauma of 9/11 and then had to face the task of trying to bring home as many people as possible. These people were at work, doing their jobs, families were destroyed, people were permanently disabled/disfigured, thousands had PTSD and other health issues. Your insistence on claiming these things when even the defense doesn't is insulting and ignorant. KNOCK IT OFF! OR go elsewhere to spread your vitriol!
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
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 03:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.