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 28th November 2018, 03:41 AM   #761
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
The FBI and Army CID only ever investigated the Stoeckley seven in order to disregard them as leads and suspects. Ivory was absurdly credulous with regard to Helena Stoeckley, and with regard to Mitchell, and even more so with regard to Mazerolle.

I fully appreciate that some doctors do not always get into the correct lanes with regard to diagnosis and some doctors think that if you told a psychiatrist you thought you were being bugged or telephone tapped or your emails were being read and recorded and it was disturbing your mind then he would say you ae schizophrenic. I still think that MacDonald's medical colleague Dr. Manson always testified to sense in the MacDonald case. He never had the quite ludicrous medical opinion without facts that MacDonald's injuries were self-inflicted, like some of the other doctors connected to the case:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...979-08-21.html

Quote:
Q Did you ever see at any time Jeff become violent with anyone?
A I can't recall that I did.
Q Have you ever seen Jeff lose his temper?
A No.
Q Have you observed Jeff in stressful situations?
A Yes.
Q What was he like in stressful situations?
A In episodes in medical school in surgery he was calm and collected. He, I think, controlled himself quite well. He is not a nervous or anxious person. He is a good competitor and we were involved in sports.
Q What did you observe when you first saw Jeff at Fort Bragg after this event had occurred?
A He was in the hospital bed and he had chest tubes (sic) in place.
Q What other things, if any, did you observe?
A He looked grief-stricken and worn out. He did not look physically well. He looked like he had been beaten. He was slightly pale and in some pain.
Q Dr. Manson, I know that you did not examine him professionally as a physician, but let me ask you this question: as a friend to him, did you observe any injuries on or about his body?
A Yes.
Q Did you actually touch any of the injuries or probe the injuries or do any other things that a physician would do in treating a patient?
A I can't recall that I touched or probed any injury.
Q But you did use your vision so that you could observe --
A (Interposing) Yes.
Q -- the wounds?
A Yes.
Q Now, on the witness stand today, do you have any recollection about where those injuries were on his body?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what you recall about the location of the injuries?
A I recall he had a bruise on his forehead and a bruise on his temple area.
Q On which side of his forehead, if you recall and which side of his temple area?
A It was the left side of his forehead.
Q Was that the bruise?
A Yes.
Q What about the temple area?
A Right temple area. He had a bruise on his left arm. He had some smaller marks on the chest that could be compatible with puncture wounds.
Q All right, let me interrupt you at that point and then we will continue with what other things you observed. Let me ask you a question about the puncture wounds: in your work, Dr. Manson, have you ever had an opportunity to observe puncture wounds?
A Yes.
Q Would you have had an opportunity to observe puncture wounds on many occasions; would that be correct?
A Yes.
Q How could you tell the difference between puncture wounds and flecks of blood?
A One would have to clean the fleck. You know you can remove a fleck. Sometimes a small amount of blood will be trapped within the opening to a puncture wound and it would be hard to see the puncture wound. You would have to remove that fleck of blood to actually visualize the wound underneath.
Q Were you able to get close enough to Dr. MacDonald's chest so that you are able now to express an opinion to this jury as to whether what you saw actually were puncture wounds?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Do you have an opinion as to whether what you observed on Dr. MacDonald's chest were puncture wounds?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: Well, did not this witness testify that he did not touch or probe any of these injuries?

MR. SMITH: Your Honor, all I am asking is if he has an opinion.

THE COURT: But an opinion has to be based on something.

MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. I can examine further.

THE COURT: Examine him.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, sir.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th November 2018 at 03:47 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 28th November 2018, 05:38 AM   #762
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The FBI and Army CID only ever investigated the Stoeckley seven in order to disregard them as leads and suspects.
OMG that is the most nonsensical statement you have ever made. The FBI and the Army CID investigated the people Helena named. The investigated ALL the leads they received. The FACT is that there is not a single sourced piece of evidence that points at anyone other than inmate. JTF has been asking you for months for just 1 piece of evidence that pointed to someone other than inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Ivory was absurdly credulous with regard to Helena Stoeckley, and with regard to Mitchell, and even more so with regard to Mazerolle.
Ivory investigated. First, he confirmed beyond all doubt that Allen Mazerolle was in jail on the night of the murders PERIOD and therefore he was eliminated as a possible suspect immediately. EVEN THE DEFENSE ADMITS THAT AM COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE INVOLVED BECAUSE HE WAS INDEED BEHIND BARS.

Ivory investigated further, and once again not a single piece of evidence pointing to Greg Mitchell or Helena Stoeckley was found. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I fully appreciate that some doctors do not always get into the correct lanes with regard to diagnosis and some doctors think that if you told a psychiatrist you thought you were being bugged or telephone tapped or your emails were being read and recorded and it was disturbing your mind then he would say you are schizophrenic.
I have no IDEA why you think this would be in any way relevant.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still think that MacDonald's medical colleague Dr. Manson always testified to sense in the MacDonald case. He never had the quite ludicrous medical opinion without facts that MacDonald's injuries were self-inflicted, like some of the other doctors connected to the case:
Well actually, only the injury that partially collapsed his lung was said to be self-inflicted. It was a 1mm incision in the intercostal space on his ride side, there was no damage to the bones, and was described as neat, clean, and surgically precise. THAT WOUND could not have been made during a drug fueled frenzied attack. the rest of the wounds he had were more minor.
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 28th November 2018, 10:57 AM   #763
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
This is interesting:

https://www.theawl.com/2012/09/the-m...e-journalists/

Quote:
WADE SMITH [a defense lawyer]: … it’s been so long. I don’t know whether [Stoeckley] said those things right then. I just don’t know.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th November 2018 at 10:59 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 28th November 2018, 12:53 PM   #764
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I read it so no one has to. It's a pro-macdonald/pro-Errol morris piece with the quote taken out of context, like it's amazing that Wade Smith has forgotten a particular witness' precise wording after 30-odd years. At the time, he told the judge that she said on the stand exactly what she'd said to the defense earlier.
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 28th November 2018, 02:55 PM   #765
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Well actually, only the injury that partially collapsed his lung was said to be self-inflicted. It was a 1mm incision in the intercostal space on his ride side, there was no damage to the bones, and was described as neat, clean, and surgically precise. THAT WOUND could not have been made during a drug fueled frenzied attack. the rest of the wounds he had were more minor.
I don't think the other doctors in the MacDonald case really believed MacDonald's collapsed lung was self-inflicted, though they may have been coached to say as such by the army CID and Murtagh and Blackburn. Dr. Gemma thought it would be very dangerous if it was self-inflicted. This is from his testimony at the grand jury in about 1975 which was mostly about how minor his injuries were supposed to be. The injuries may have been minor to a hospital doctor who probably sees life threatening injuries every day but they were a serious matter for Dr. MacDonald:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html..._gemma_gj.html

Quote:
JUROR: I have one question. In your professional opinion, are wounds such as Captain MacDonald had, could it be self-inflicted?

A It could be self-inflicted. If it were in the back I would say that's a lot less likely to be self-inflicted. Although, we know of instances of people putting knives in doors and backing up against them and being able to walk in with a knife in their back that they had put in there in a manner like that.

JUROR: What I meant was, I know anybody can do this, but I meant, being a person, being a physician that he would know exactly what's going to happen. That's what I meant.

A If I were going to introduce a knife, I certainly wouldn't introduce it on the right side this low. I would be well up high to avoid the chance of damaging the liver. In fact, I would prefer the other side, up here. Now, you get down you can see there would be some danger of getting the heart or the periocardium if you were down a little bit lower.
But, this is the safest area and this is the second safest, let's say. And, if you come down on the right, this could be very dangerous area to inflict a wound upon yourself and if you are going to inflict a wound with an instrument to give a pneumothorax, say or something like that, an ice pick or something with round endges would be safer than something with a sharp edge for fear of cutting the little arteries that run underneath the ribs here and causing significant hemorrhaging, and you could bleed to death.

Q In other words, when you give yourself a self-inflicted wound, you're not going to do it in exactly that spot?
A No. This would be --
Q It's something that could be done if it's done under controlled conditions, I take it? It's also your testimony when I say control conditions, the depth to which the instrument is inserted, particularly and whether it's inserted whether the lungs are fully inflated on inspiration or whether they are fully collapsed on expiration would make a great difference.
A Yes. It would make a great difference --
Q With full inflation of the lungs, which are full expansion of the lungs, which would lower the diaphragm and push down the liver, then you would have to go very deeply down, going straight in possibly as much as six inches in order to strike the liver. Is that correct?
A That's correct.

JUROR: About him being a doctor, he would know that would be very dangerous. Correct?

A Yes. I would think that he would. Being a surgeon, I'm sure I'm much more conscious of it than the average physician...……..

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 28th November 2018 at 02:58 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 04:02 PM   #766
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Still Waiting

HENRIETTA: I'm assuming that when you wake up in the morning, the first words out of your mouth are "absurdly and ludicrously credulous." This type of nonsense has been your mantra for the last 15 years. When presented with documented fact, your rebuttal relies solely on your own special brand of carnival barking. I know you are fully aware of the following facts, but...

HELENA STOECKLEY

Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told Fayetteville Reporter Pat Reese the SAME story she told jurors at the 1979 trial. Due to her excessive use of multiple substances, Stoeckley stated that she had no memory of her whereabouts on 2/17/70. In 1971, the CID thoroughly investigated Stoeckley and none of her head hair and/or fingerprint exemplars matched hairs/prints collected at the crime scene. In 1981, the FBI interviewed Stoeckley and she repeated the story she told to Reese and jurors at the 1979 trial. 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.

GREG MITCHELL

Mitchell was Stoeckley's boyfriend at the time of the murders. Stoeckley implicated Mitchell as being the ringleader of the Stoeckley group. In 1971, CID investigators Dick Mahon and William Ivory interviewed Mitchell, he denied any involvement in the murders, and he passed a CID-administered polygraph exam. The CID collected head hair and fingerprint exemplars from Mitchell, and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1981, the FBI questioned and cleared Mitchell as a suspect. 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 Greg Mitchell.

BRUCE FOWLER

Fowler was acquainted with Stoeckley, Mitchell, and Don Harris. In 1971, Dick Mahon and William Ivory interviewed Fowler, he denied any involvement in the murders, and he passed a CID-administered polygraph exam. The CID collected head hair and fingerprint exemplars from Fowler, and no match was found at the crime scene. In addition, Fowler had an alibi for his whereabouts on February 17, 1970. Stoeckley's roommate, Kathy Smith, told the CID that she was with Fowler at his trailer on Highway 59 until 7:00 a.m. In 1981, the FBI questioned and cleared Fowler as a suspect.

DON HARRIS

Harris was acquainted with Stoeckley and Mitchell. The CID obtained fingerprint exemplars from Harris and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1982, the FBI questioned and cleared Harris as a suspect. In 1983, Harris was interviewed by Fayetteville newspaper reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders. Harris called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "ravings of a madwoman." Harris also had an alibi for the morning of February 17, 1970. Stoeckley roommate Diane Cazares told the CID that Harris was with her at 1108 Clark Street until 5:00 a.m.

DWIGHT SMITH

From 1970-1997, the MacDonald defense team considered Smith to be the prime African-American intruder suspect. Smith lived in the same apartment complex as Pat Reese, he was questioned by the FBI in 1982, and subsequently cleared as a suspect. In 1983, Smith was interviewed by Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders. Smith called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "craziest thing I've ever heard," and "totally insane." In 1997, author Fred Bost admitted that it was unlikely that Smith was a viable suspect. Bost based this on the fact that Smith does not match the physical descriptions of the unidentified black male intruder provided by MacDonald in 1970 and 1979.

ALLEN MAZZEROLLE

Mazzerolle was dealing drugs in the Fayetteville area during the time of the murders and he was well acquainted with Helena Stoeckley. Mazzerolle was arrested on January 28, 1970 for possession and transportation of 539 doses of LSD. He remained in jail until March 10, 1970 making his presence at 544 Castle Drive on February 17th, a physical impossibility. Mazzerolle was questioned by the FBI in 1982 and cleared as a suspect. The FBI also obtained fingerprint exemplars from Mazzerolle and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1983, Mazzerolle was interviewed by Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders. Mazzerolle labeled Stoeckley's statements as "ridiculous," adding that Stoeckley was "the one who fingered me to the narcotics agents."

CATHY PERRY

Perry was an acquaintance of Stoeckley's, but Stoeckley did not implicate her in the murders until the early 1980's. In 1971, CID investigators Mike Pickering and Jack Bennett interviewed Perry in Florida and she denied any involvement in the murders. The CID also obtained head hair and fingerprint exemplars from Perry, and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1971, Perry was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and she had a history of severe drug use. In 1984, Perry called the FBI and stated that she wanted to confess to being involved in the MacDonald murders.

Perry's confession was a bizarre tale with no connection to the facts of this case. Perry claimed that she was picked up off the streets by a group of unknown individuals who recruited her into partaking in a home invasion. Perry states that the group entered through the front door of the MacDonald residence, that she went upstairs to kill one of the two MacDonald boys, and that Jeffrey MacDonald was subdued in the living room with narcotics. Perry added that one of the white male intruders was dark-skinned and that she killed Colette by stabbing her in the legs and stomach. Perry recanted this confession later that same year.

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

Last edited by JTF; 28th November 2018 at 04:09 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 December 2018, 03:52 AM   #767
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Surely there are inconsistencies in this statement by Don Harris? The suspects in the MacDonald murders were never relentlessly pursued by the Army CID or by the FBI. The North Carolina Bureau of Investigation and Detective Beasley were on the right murder trail the day after the MacDonald murders but they were then quickly taken off of the case because it was supposedly not their jurisdiction:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...984-06-29.html

Quote:
4. Harris said too the best of his knowledge he has never heard of Bruce Johnny Fowler, Allen Mazerolle, Dwight Smith, or Gregory Howard Mitchell. He said the Mitchell person may be Stoeckley's boyfriend but does not know this for certain. He also noted that during this period of time Stoeckley's boyfriend Mitch was considered to be "strung out" on drugs. He also stated that he thinks that Stoeckley is really not a witch but claims to be one just to draw attention to herself. He reiterated that he knows nothing about the murders nor did he ever know any of the above named individuals who Stoeckley alleges participated in the murders
Harris stated that he would be more than willing to take a polygraph exam regarding the above information.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd December 2018 at 03:54 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 December 2018, 07:46 AM   #768
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
so what if there is? there is absolutely no evidence suggesting ANYONE other than inmate and his victims (Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy) were inside 544 Castle Drive the night he slaughtered them all in cold blood.
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 3rd December 2018, 02:38 PM   #769
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
This is the so-called evidence in the MacDonald case as proclaimed by the very bad judge, Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial, and he was not impartial and he was in bed with the prosecution:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html

Quote:
THE COURT: If I have ever heard a man disclaim, not one time but fifty, old Stombaugh kept saying that, "I only said it could be."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd December 2018 at 02:40 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 4th December 2018, 05:40 AM   #770
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is the so-called evidence in the MacDonald case as proclaimed by the very bad judge, Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial,
The Honorable Judge Dupree was a dedicated, skilled, professional, and good jurist. Your problem is that you don't like that he presided fairly and did not allow Bernie Segal to get away with improper, illegal, and unethical tactics to get inmate out of trouble.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and he was not impartial and he was in bed with the prosecution:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html
The clip you posted does not show Judge Dupree to be partial. It shows that he paid close attention to the testimony of the expert Stombaugh who testified PROPERLY in saying "I only said it could be...." or in other cases "within a reasonable scientific certainty" and other such common phraseology of expert testimony. You don't appear to even have a basic understanding of the evidence in this case....maybe in no cases.....your clipped piece of testimony does not support your claims.
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 4th December 2018, 09:56 PM   #771
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Shooting Blanks

Leave it to Henrietta to choose the suspect that MacDonald advocates feel is the weakest of the seven viable or not so viable home invader candidates. The only reason why Don Harris is less of a suspect than Allen Mazzerolle is due to Prince Beasley's misinterpretation of Mazzerolle's arrest records.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the CID obtained fingerprint exemplars from Harris and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1982, the FBI questioned and cleared Harris as a suspect. In 1983, Harris was interviewed by Fayetteville newspaper reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders. Harris called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "ravings of a madwoman." Harris also had an alibi for the morning of February 17, 1970. Stoeckley roommate Diane Cazares told the CID that Harris was with her at 1108 Clark Street until 5:00 a.m. This is similar to the scenario involving suspect Bruce Fowler. Stoeckley's roommate, Kathy Smith, told the CID that she was with Fowler at his trailer on Highway 59 until 7:00 a.m.

Henrietta will most certainly repeat for the 100th time that Harris and Fowler were not thoroughly investigated which leads to the inevitable question.

In Henrietta's world, what defines a thorough investigation? If Henrietta is honest, his or her definition will place an emphasis on the investigation coming to a conclusion that he or she agrees with as opposed to a conclusion drawn from sourced physical evidence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 4th December 2018 at 10:01 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 11th December 2018, 07:31 AM   #772
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Leave it to Henrietta to choose the suspect that MacDonald advocates feel is the weakest of the seven viable or not so viable home invader candidates. The only reason why Don Harris is less of a suspect than Allen Mazzerolle is due to Prince Beasley's misinterpretation of Mazzerolle's arrest records.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the CID obtained fingerprint exemplars from Harris and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1982, the FBI questioned and cleared Harris as a suspect. In 1983, Harris was interviewed by Fayetteville newspaper reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders. Harris called Helena Stoeckley's confessions the "ravings of a madwoman." Harris also had an alibi for the morning of February 17, 1970. Stoeckley roommate Diane Cazares told the CID that Harris was with her at 1108 Clark Street until 5:00 a.m. This is similar to the scenario involving suspect Bruce Fowler. Stoeckley's roommate, Kathy Smith, told the CID that she was with Fowler at his trailer on Highway 59 until 7:00 a.m.

Henrietta will most certainly repeat for the 100th time that Harris and Fowler were not thoroughly investigated which leads to the inevitable question.

In Henrietta's world, what defines a thorough investigation? If Henrietta is honest, his or her definition will place an emphasis on the investigation coming to a conclusion that he or she agrees with as opposed to a conclusion drawn from sourced physical evidence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Facts not in evidence, ever.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 07:33 AM   #773
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is the so-called evidence in the MacDonald case as proclaimed by the very bad judge, Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial, and he was not impartial and he was in bed with the prosecution:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-green-tt.html
Favorite phrase of the self-appointed street lawyer.

There's nothing "so-called" about it. Your man crush wass properly convicted and sentenced based on the evidence.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 04:08 AM   #774
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Favorite phrase of the self-appointed street lawyer.

There's nothing "so-called" about it. Your man crush wass properly convicted and sentenced based on the evidence.
MacDonald was convicted on quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence, and by a foreman of the jury who was overheard saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started, and by very bad judges who were in bed with the prosecution, and by forensic fraud. There is a bit of legal waffle about this sort of thing at this website:

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.co...-v-the-queen/#

Quote:
When Can a Jury’s Verdict Be Set Aside?

The High Court found that there are certain situations where a court can intervene to set aside a jury’s verdict.

The Court relied upon English case law which held that a verdict could be set aside if it was ‘unsafe or unsatisfactory,’ provided that a court had ‘some lurking doubt in our minds which makes us wonder whether an injustice has been done.’

Significantly, the English cases found that this ‘lurking doubt’ did not have to be based on evidence presented in the case, but could arise from the ‘general feel of the case as the court experiences it.’

For the lay person, this approach might seem dubious: implying that a jury’s verdict can be set aside based on the “vibe” of a case.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Anthony Mason, along with Justices Deane, Dawson and Toohey managed to clear things up for those of us left feeling a little lost.

The majority found that while this may be the case in England, Australian law does not allow a court to set aside a jury’s verdict ‘upon any speculative or intuitive basis.’

Rather, Australian courts require a much higher threshold to be satisfied before overturning a jury’s verdict.

That threshold is set out in section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which states that an appeal against conviction can only be allowed on the following grounds:
1. If the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence;
2. If there has been a wrong decision of any question of law;
3. On any other ground whatsoever there was a miscarriage of justice.
Where one of these grounds is established and the court decides to set aside a verdict, the court will normally find that the verdict was ‘unsafe or unsatisfactory.’

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th December 2018 at 04:12 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 05:23 AM   #775
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald was convicted on quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence,
this statement one again PROVES what BStrong said...a phrase used by "street" lawyers who think they know but don't actually know...

there was over 1,100 pieces of evidence presented at trial. It was OBVIOUSLY QUITE SATISFACTORY or it would not have been admitted as evidence. henri seems to be unaware of the FACT that the time to object to evidence is when it is first offered as evidence AT TRIAL. The defense lawyers didn't object, the defense experts agreed with huge portions of the forensic evidence, the Judge accepted the evidence and the jury reviewed the evidence.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and by a foreman of the jury who was overheard saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started,
Not possible.....the jury foreman could not have known that he would even be on the jury until the trial started and he certainly would not have been the foreman of the jury until deliberations began AT WHICH TIME THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY IS SELECTED BY THE OTHER JURORS. This is a ******** piece of information that was brought forward years after the trial/conviction and has NEVER been proven or even come close to being validated.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and by very bad judges who were in bed with the prosecution,
Since there has been only excellent jurists involved in the case (except perhaps the current 4th Circuit Court) this is another piece of ******** that henri likes to post because he cannot rebut the facts or make a salient argument. henri needs to stop bringing up disproven waffle over and over again thinking that somehow a different outcome will result.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and by forensic fraud.
There was no forensic fraud in this case. continuing to say otherwise is childish, ignorant, foolish, fraudulent, ridiculous, and immature.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit of legal waffle about this sort of thing at this website:
when are you going to learn that "legal waffle" IS NOT A GOOD THING?
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 12th December 2018, 09:43 AM   #776
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post


Not possible.....the jury foreman could not have known that he would even be on the jury until the trial started and he certainly would not have been the foreman of the jury until deliberations began AT WHICH TIME THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY IS SELECTED BY THE OTHER JURORS. This is a ******** piece of information that was brought forward years after the trial/conviction and has NEVER been proven or even come close to being validated.
There were at least three witnesses, and maybe four, who heard the foreman of the jury, Hardison, say he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the 1979 trial even started. That's contempt of court in my eyes though I suppose it may not be in Arab or Turkish or Russian courts. That's not making up his mind after listening to the evidence.

It could be that the 4th Circuit judges may now be at last on the murder trail after the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation and Detective Beasley and Gunderson were taken off of the case and discredited by Murtagh:

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

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th December 2018 at 09:46 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 13th December 2018, 05:56 AM   #777
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were at least three witnesses, and maybe four, who heard the foreman of the jury, Hardison, say he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the 1979 trial even started.
There may have been some people that CLAIMED that to be true henri....but the problem is THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE because Hardison would have had NO WAY TO KNOW THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE ON THE JURY. NOT ONLY THAT BUT HE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THAT THE OTHER JURORS WOULD ELECT HIM FOREMAN BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED.

Try to grasp these FACTS henri
1. the jury pool would not be notified of their POSSIBLE participation on a jury until a very short time prior to the trial being convened. In my State/County you will get a notice about 10 days prior to possible jury service will be required.

This notice gives you a few days to return the slip with justification of inability to serve if one exists (and because I don't want to is not an acceptable justification).

There is also a code and phone number on the notice with a date at which you must call to see if your code is one that is called to service. The notice gives you the date and reminds you that you are to be at the court house in the jury assembly room by a specific time. IF your code is among those called.

You check in, you get an overview of the process, and the jury coordinator lets you know how many panels they are expecting to seat. (My last time there were 8 panels expected to be seated). When each Courtroom and Judge are ready to impanel a jury the coordinator's office creates a random list of jury candidates, assigns a color, and they call each potential juror forward and hand them a colored card, line everyone up and an escort takes the panel to its assigned courtroom. (There is no talking allowed).

Once seated in the courtroom the voir dire process begins. Once a jury is selected the remainder of the candidates are returned to the jury assembly room. This process is repeated until all the juries are seated.

In my County you serve for 1 day or 1 trial whichever is longest. Some criminal trials they've ended up sending 2 or more groups of possible jurors to the courtroom in order to fill the jury panel. So, since the process is similar in the USA across the country, you should be able to tell that even if Hardeson KNEW he would be on jury duty he could NOT have known that he would serve. Both sides get a certain number of "no I don't want that person" for which they do not require a justification.

You know as well as any that many people will say all sorts of untrue things in order to get their 15 minutes of FAME. The FACTS are that Hardeson could not repeat COULD NOT have known that he was going to be on the jury and the foreman is not decided until deliberations begin. Try and grasp these very simple facts.
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 13th December 2018, 09:37 AM   #778
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
You know as well as any that many people will say all sorts of untrue things in order to get their 15 minutes of FAME. The FACTS are that Hardeson could not repeat COULD NOT have known that he was going to be on the jury and the foreman is not decided until deliberations begin. Try and grasp these very simple facts.
I don't think those witnesses who overheard Hardison saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial started did it for fame or celebrity and certainly not for money. It's just the same in a way with Helena Stoeckley providing information in the MacDonald case, or Nancy Krebs in the JonBenet Ramsey case. There is a bit of legal waffle about this matter at this website which is relevant to the MacDonald case:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...r-contempt.pdf

Quote:
Jurors engaging in other prohibited conduct
10. Clause 58 makes it an offence for a member of a jury, trying an issue before a court, intentionally to engage in conduct from which it may be reasonably concluded that the person intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 13th December 2018 at 09:39 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 13th December 2018, 10:01 AM   #779
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,529
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald was convicted on quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence...
So far it's evidence 1, man-crush/HM -0-.

Your track record of failure is intact.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 02:21 PM   #780
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Running Away

HENRIETTA: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Your responses to the documented record are regurgitated slogans that don't even begin the address the mass of inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's lifetime ban from society. If you had any stones, you would fess up to this forum that you don't really believe that the evidence in this case is "ludicrously unsatisfactory." The only ludicrously unsatisfactory outcome in this case is inmate getting to spend 9 years of freedom in sunny California, and then returning to California for 18 months of additional freedom.

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 21st December 2018, 02:59 PM   #781
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 879
Merry Christmas Fire Brigade. The 4th Circuit Court rendered its decision. Over 100 pages upholding inmate's conviction. In other words he is not entitled to relief and will not get any!

Last edited by byn63; 21st December 2018 at 03:45 PM.
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 21st December 2018, 05:56 PM   #782
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Merry Christmas Fire Brigade. The 4th Circuit Court rendered its decision. Over 100 pages upholding inmate's conviction. In other words he is not entitled to relief and will not get any!
Good. I am so very happy to hear this & wondered why a decision took nearly 2 years. I hope that this will be the end of JM's attempts to get out of prison. It's ridiculous how long this case has dragged on.
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 21st December 2018, 10:47 PM   #783
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Game Over

The 4th Circuit's decision is a reminder that under the right circumstances, the system can and does work.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...136-doc055.pdf

The hard work put forth by Freddy Kassab; Brian Murtagh; Victor Woerheide; James Blackburn; Peter Kearns; Paul Stombaugh; Shirley Green; William Ivory; Robert Shaw; John Depue; John Stuart Bruce; and a host of other lawyers/investigators/lab technicians resulted in justice for Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen. This was inmate's last chance at freedom. His time has run out and he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

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 22nd December 2018, 04:18 AM   #784
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Odds Are Slim and Slim Left Town

Inmate has only two legal options left and neither option provides him with any hope.

1) A Jimmy Britt clone comes out of the shadows and provides enough information to get inmate back in court.

2) Inmate can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is a long shot that they would even hear the case.

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 22nd December 2018, 04:34 AM   #785
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
End Of The Road

HENRIETTA: The following portion of the 4th Circuit's decision says it all.

Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was “designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case.” See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald’s Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters.

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 22nd December 2018, 09:09 AM   #786
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,058
In case anyone here wants to read about the decision:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...triple-murder/
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 09:36 AM   #787
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Cor lummee days. That was just silly remarks by the rubber stamping 4th Circuit judges and a rehash of the same old debunked crap about pajama fibers. It was a wonder they never mentioned footprints. At least they never mentioned that Colette murdered one of the little girls like the Army CID, or that Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush like Stombaugh.

That silly remark that MacDonald was trained to withstand interrogation is ridiculous as well. He was never a professional lawyer and he didn't even 'no comment' or 'I don't remember' or 'categorically and vehemently deny' like a real professional criminal like Mazerolle.

People are saying openly on British TV that Murtagh prosecuted the wrong man in the Lockerbie case, and it was just the same in the MacDonald case. It's a gross miscarriage of justice and bad police work. These very bad North Carolina judges need to pull their socks up. They will be saying Burke did it in the JonBenet Ramsey case next!

I have never understood why people and judges and juries can't believe what MacDonald said happened did happen.

This is ridiculous as well. Mistakes are made and serious ones and innocent people have been PROVED to have been released form prison:

Quote:
MacDonald argues that the comments of Judge Dupree and Judge Murnaghan
demonstrate that the government’s trial evidence was weak and that he thus would have
been acquitted if Stoeckley had simply told the jury, “I was there.” By extension,
according to MacDonald, Stoeckley’s post-trial “I was there” confessions are sufficient to
prove his innocence for purposes of the § 2255(h)(1) inquiry. We disagree because —
whatever Judge Dupree and Judge Murnaghan meant by their comments (and we are far
from certain that MacDonald’s interpretations are correct) — we now know much about
Stoeckley’s untrustworthiness and lack of credibility that Judge Dupree and Judge
Murnaghan did not know then.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 01:00 PM   #788
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Nail In The Legal Coffin

HENRIETTA: I gather you couldn't get through the entire 154 page decision?

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...136-doc055.pdf

Let me help you out.

1) Nobody had a softer spot for inmate than the 4th Circuit Court, so your rubber stamping comment is laughable. Did you not read my prior post?

Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was “designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case.” See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald’s Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters.

2) The pajama fiber evidence is "debunked crap," eh? Hilarious. I love how they pointed out the FACT that your hero couldn't explain the proliferation of pajama fibers in all 3 bedrooms, yet nary a single pajama fiber was found in the room where he claims he was attacked by 3 armed home invaders.

3) Ah, they dedicated several pages to footprint evidence both inside and outside 544 Castle Drive. There were no footprints found in the wet soil leading to the back door, but 3 bloody bare footprints were found exiting Kristen's room. As you well know, one of the footprints matched inmate's left foot exemplar.

4) The 4th Circuit's commentary on the Mazzerolle issue puts your bizarre thought process in its proper context. Not only do court records prove that Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70, the defense abandoned their position that Mazzerolle was one of the hippie home invaders. Despite the FACT that they abandoned this position in 1984, you continue to be the only person on the planet who believes that Mazzerolle was one of the mythical hippie home invaders.

5) Are you implying that the 4th Circuit Court should have conflated the Lockerbie Case with the MacDonald Case? Does this same insanity apply to the Ramsey Case?

6) You can't understand why judges and juries didn't take inmate at his word? What is the color of the sky in your world?

Take heart, inmate can always admit to his guilt and demonstrate remorse to a parole board in 2020.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 22nd December 2018 at 01:04 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 23rd December 2018, 03:25 AM   #789
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
People are so predictable. The very bad judges in North Carolina and surrounding states just back each other up. They never mentioned the pajama bottoms with regard to pajama fibers which is crucial evidence.

They mentioned that MacDonald thought he might have been hit by a baseball bat and then make a silly remark that no baseball bat was found at the crime scene. Doesn't it occur to these idiots that the baseball bat might have been taken away from the crime scene at the time? Then they attempt to do a type of Murtagh discredit job on Wendy Rouder saying that she was trying to get a clerkship at the time of the MacDonald trial.

MacDonald will never get parole because he will never admit guilt to obtain parole. The next logical step would be for the Stoeckley seven to be further investigated, but the American police seem to be too idle and incompetent to do that and MacDonald cannot now afford the endless expanse and anxiety of paying for private detectives to do the job. No wonder MacDonald is devastated.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2018, 09:47 AM   #790
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
The judges in the MacDonald case are not fair-minded and they are not in touch with all classes like Helena Stoeckley. They are mistaken. The fibers found on the piece of 'lumber' were black wool fibers with no known source and not pajama fibers. This was concluded by the expert examiner Frier of the FBI lab and withheld from the trial by Murtagh. Even if the ice pick holes on the pajama top were made when the pajama top was stationary it's no proof of MacDonald guilt. The holes could have been made when MacDonald was unconscious, stationary on the ground. There is more to the MacDonald case than Jimmy Britt or DNA.

This is one example of the absurdly credulous empty waffle of the 4th Circuit judges:

Quote:
Whatever the jury’s view of the foregoing blood and thread-and-yarn evidence, it
seems likely that the guilty verdicts were clinched with other unanswered evidence
inconsistent with MacDonald’s account — namely, the two additional blue pajama top
threads on the bloodstained piece of lumber found on the ground outside the apartment,
and the forty-eight puncture holes apparently made by the ice pick in the blue pajama top.
If, as MacDonald testified at trial, the black male intruder assaulted him with a baseball
bat-like club that could not have been the bloodstained piece of lumber, and if
MacDonald did not go outside the apartment in the aftermath of the attack, how did the
blue pajama top threads get on the piece of lumber?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd December 2018 at 09:59 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2018, 02:57 PM   #791
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
You're So Predictable

HENRIETTA: Speaking of predictable, you have always hung your tattered cognitive hat on the laughable claim that the Stoeckley Seven were "never thoroughly investigated." The FACT that these suspects were investigated by the CID in 1971, and by the FBI in 1981, indicates that you either have a fixed delusion or you're deriving enjoyment from being the lone contrarian. IMO, the latter is the far more likely explanation.

In any case, inmate's attempt to manipulate the holes in the legal system has run its course, and he will forever be joined at the hip with fellow Fort Bragg mass murderer Timothy Hennis. The irony of those two cases is that DNA evidence helped send Hennis to prison and helped to keep MacDonald in prison.

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 24th December 2018, 10:26 AM   #792
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
As the late great Judge Dupree once said an opinion should be based on something. That hair in Colette's left hand was DNA fraud by Murtagh and the FBI lab. Even the 4th Circuit judges say it was a mystery. Stombaugh and Malone of the FBI lab were forensic fraudsters.

My understanding of that Hennis case was that DNA was found after Hennis had been acquitted and he is now on death row. I presume the FBI were not making it up in that case as well but I wouldn't put it passed them. A good judge would never allow all this fabricated evidence and a good and astute detective would not cheat and lie and make it up in court either. Detective Beasley was a front line police officer and he was not out of touch with what is going on.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 24th December 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 24th December 2018, 12:40 PM   #793
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Yawn

HENRIETTA: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Considering that the physical evidence has been analyzed by the CID/FBI/AFIP, and not one evidentiary item was definitively sourced to a member of the SS, I have no confidence in your ability to meet my challenge.

In regards to your newest batch of crazy...

- How is it that the FBI lab committed "DNA fraud" on evidentiary items that were DNA tested at an independent (e.g., AFIP) laboratory?

- The broken, bloody limb hair that matched inmate's DNA profile was not deemed a "mystery" hair by the 4th Circuit Court. The authors of that inaccurate label were Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter.

- Speaking of Fred Bost, he told me that he was confident that this broken, bloody limb hair would match the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. Whoops.

- The FBI was not involved in the Hennis case and his conviction was the result of the hard work put forth by the CID.

- In terms of Beasley's involvement in this case, you've always touted the better and ignored the bitter. Beasley was diagnosed with a brain disorder 5 years before the 1979 trial, and this condition resulted in Beasley having to retire from the police force. In 1991, Beasley told Fayetteville Observer reporter Pat Reese that he no longer believed that Helena Stoeckley was involved in the murder of inmate's family. Beasley was also of the opinion that the most likely suspect was, wait for it... JEFFREY MACDONALD.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 24th December 2018 at 12:45 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 26th December 2018, 03:54 AM   #794
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
The 4th Circuit judge account of the MacDonald murders is highly conjectural and pure speculation. It's like the CID saying Colette murdered one of the little girls and Stombaugh saying Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush. This is an example of the 4th Circuit theory without facts:

Quote:
The government’s account had MacDonald summoning help by telephone and
then purposely engendering chaos with the first responders to contaminate the evidence
and foster confusion. Having realized that he failed to clean and dispose of the Geneva
Forge knife, and not knowing what evidence it might contain (as it turned out, just a
small amount of blood on the tip of its bent blade), MacDonald lied and said he pulled
that knife from Colette’s chest. MacDonald also fabricated the baseball-bat-like club
before learning that the investigators had found the bloodstained piece of lumber. When
confronted with a photograph of that distinctive piece of lumber, MacDonald falsely
denied that he recognized it. He also falsely denied that he recognized the Geneva Forge
knife, the Old Hickory knife, and the ice pick, and that his family had kept an ice pick in
the apartment’s kitchen.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 04:15 AM   #795
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In regards to your newest batch of crazy...

- How is it that the FBI lab committed "DNA fraud" on evidentiary items that were DNA tested at an independent (e.g., AFIP) laboratory?

- The broken, bloody limb hair that matched inmate's DNA profile was not deemed a "mystery" hair by the 4th Circuit Court. The authors of that inaccurate label were Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter.

- Speaking of Fred Bost, he told me that he was confident that this broken, bloody limb hair would match the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. Whoops.

- The FBI was not involved in the Hennis case and his conviction was the result of the hard work put forth by the CID.


http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I still think that mystery hair in Colette's left hand was forensic fraud by Murtagh, Stombaugh, and Malone. Judge Fox was initially terrified about DNA testing that hair because it had been unidentified for years. Murtagh got round the problem by swapping that hair for a MacDonald hair which was then sent to the AFIP lab for DNA testing.

I don't know the full facts in the Hennis case but a similar sort of thing could have happened in the Hennis case with corrupt CID forensic technicians. It is technically possible for forensic technicians to obtain your DNA and then say it was found at a crime scene, if they have decided you were guilty. This would put you in grave peril and expense and anxiety if you were innocent, and it's very difficult to detect. Again, I am not saying this happens in every case.

There is a bit of waffle about this matter at this website:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...rensic-science

Quote:
Of all lines of forensic evidence, DNA analysis was considered to be the most objective. Resting on complex chemical analysis, it seems stringently scientific – a gold-standard for how forensic science should be done. Yet perhaps juries should not be too quick to trust the DNA analyses they see in court.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th December 2018 at 04:20 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2018, 12:31 PM   #796
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,231
Still Waiting

HENRIETTA: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was definitively sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Meanwhile, over 1,000 evidentiary items in this case were definitively sourced to inmate in some form or fashion, and DNA test results definitively sourced a broken, bloody limb hair found in Colette's left hand to inmate. Case closed.

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 27th December 2018, 04:14 AM   #797
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
These North Carolina judges remind me so much of the judge in the Trial by Jury opera by Gilbert and Sullivan on this youtube clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8SmtN5afbQ
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 10:54 AM   #798
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 84
Inmate's actions are still chilling, even after almost 50 years. For example, I believe he did in fact check pulses on his family multiple times as he said he did ... because he wanted to be absolutely sure they were dead beyond any hope of resuscitation before he called for help for himself. He did not do CPR on them for the same reason, as others here have conclusively proven, although he claimed he did.

Last edited by ScottPletcher; 27th December 2018 at 10:56 AM.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2018, 06:53 PM   #799
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
Perhaps a Reading for Comprehension Course?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
People are so predictable. The very bad judges in North Carolina and surrounding states just back each other up. They never mentioned the pajama bottoms with regard to pajama fibers which is crucial evidence.
Obviously, Henri(etta) either did not read the opinion (my guess) or he did not understand what he read.

The final opinion of the court DID mention the pajama bottom fibers. As in, why there weren't fibers in places where his man crush had been without his pajama top (i.e., kitchen).

Also, he would have learned that Macdonald's defense now acknowledges that the hair found in Colette's hand was his, but it got there when he was doing (his imaginary) CPR - he moved her before doing so (although as the time from the murders grows longer, so does the length he moved her from being propped up against the chair).

I suggest, Henri(etta) that you take the time to read the opinion - all the words, in order. You'll read some things about your man crush you don't like, but you'll get a sense of the horror he inflicted on his family.
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 28th December 2018, 03:10 AM   #800
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,590
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
Inmate's actions are still chilling, even after almost 50 years. For example, I believe he did in fact check pulses on his family multiple times as he said he did ... because he wanted to be absolutely sure they were dead beyond any hope of resuscitation before he called for help for himself. He did not do CPR on them for the same reason, as others here have conclusively proven, although he claimed he did.
People are unbelievably stupid. MacDonald tried to give CPR though the conditions were not perfect. The trouble was the victims were dead. They had been murdered by the Stoeckley seven. It was an inferior type of North Carolina justice and legal Woolworths. The MacDonald case judges were in bed with the prosecution. Something needs to be done about all this forensic fraud and pure speculation and it doesn't just apply to the MacDonald case.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 12:48 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.