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 8th September 2016, 09:11 AM   #2001
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
In all the years since Fatal Vision was published, there has been not even one substantive error found in that masterpiece.
There are numerous errors in that Fatal Vision criminal libel book by that drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinniss. These were discussed at the McGinniss v MacDonald case in 1987 with MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick, if you ever bother to read up on that case. The American public believe anything McGinniss ever said The American public, and their court of public opinion, are a bit simple.

The matter is discussed in a blog on Google under the heading '**** Joe McGinniss - Fatal Vision'. This is part of it:

"Gary Bostwick (MacDonald’s lawyer during MacDonald v. McGinniss) also had this to say about McGinniss:

“McGinniss said he owed it to Colette and to the kids to write the book, but – as I said in my closing argument – it wasn’t them he owed, it was the Bank of New England. If you read those letters to MacDonald, you’ll see that he was in financial trouble the whole time.”
(A reference is made to “those letters.” Those will be posted at a later date. Just know for now that McGinniss sort of pretended to be MacDonald’s friend. Look for my opinion on that matter much later in a post that I guess can only be titled “**** Joe McGinniss, Part II”).

The black wool fibers with NO KNOWN SOURCE on the murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and on her arms and biceps was never disclosed to the MacDonald defense before or during the 1979 trial. That's exculpatory evidence which should have been disclosed by the prosecution under the American Brady law.

The blond synthetic hairs in the MacDonald case were also never disclosed to the defense. This is another vast complex aspect of the MacDonald case. Suffice to say that Malone of the FBI was a total liar with regard to those synthetic hairs.

The matter is mentioned at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...se-motion.html
Mod WarningDo not circumvent the autocensor.
Posted By:kmortis

Last edited by kmortis; 8th September 2016 at 09:26 AM. Reason: edited to let the autocensor do its job
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 8th September 2016, 09:22 AM   #2002
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
there are NO SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS in Fatal Vision. The black wool fibers were not sourced but they WERE mentioned to the defense. I find your comments racist and offensive. I also see them for the bs that they are.....

No errors in FV but tons and tons of errors in FJ and WOE - FACT not fiction like what you write.
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 9th September 2016, 03:16 AM   #2003
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
there are NO SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS in Fatal Vision. The black wool fibers were not sourced but they WERE mentioned to the defense. I find your comments racist and offensive. I also see them for the bs that they are.....

No errors in FV but tons and tons of errors in FJ and WOE - FACT not fiction like what you write.
The black wool fibers with no known source were never disclosed to the defense before, or during, the 1979 trial by that trickster lawyer Murtagh.

It's not everybody who has such a high opinion of Fatal Vision. This is a quote by Evan Hughes from "The murders and the journalist" The AWI, 5 September 2012: "But forgive me if I lose a little of my own judicious restraint for a moment. Fatal Vision is a dishonest and unserious book."

This is a review of Fatal Vision on the internet by somebody called Caroline:

"I had to stop reading this halfway through, which is still an achievement since it is a 600 page behemoth of crap. I have no idea how this book gets such glowing reviews!

McGinniss is not only highly biased and fails to present a convincing case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, a doctor accused (and later convicted) of killing his family in 1970. First, the book is poorly written and lacking in editing. It seems that McGinniss includes anything anyone ever said about anything related to this case at all. It's not exhaustive, it's exhausting. McGinniss' book is basically a character assassination rather than a forensic argument for guilt. MacDonald is an *******, but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. I am not so sure that McGinniss understands this.

My breaking point was when McGinniss begins over-analyzing the class notes Colette MacDonald took in her Child Psych class the night of her murder, as if her study notes were some kind of diary. Come on.

I have read neither Janet Malcolm nor Errol Morris' book about Fatal Vision, but I am eager to. Seems like we are on the same page (yuk yuk)."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th September 2016 at 03:21 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 9th September 2016, 05:31 AM   #2004
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The black wool fibers with no known source were never disclosed to the defense before, or during, the 1979 trial by that trickster lawyer Murtagh.
the unsourced dark woolen fibers WERE included in the material provided to the defense. even the defense doesn't claim they didn't know about them, so why do you insist on lying?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's not everybody who has such a high opinion of Fatal Vision.
Good for you, your internet search ability found you 2 of the vocal minority. The vast majority of sentient beings who have read Fatal Vision AND are also cognizant of the FACTS of the case have a high opinion of FV. THE FACT REMAINS THAT NO SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN FATAL VISION. While the defense supported Fatal Justice and Wilderness of Error BOTH are replete with demonstrable errors. I know you dislike it when I insist on clouding the issue with FACTS, but FACT is FACT.
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 9th September 2016, 08:11 AM   #2005
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
the unsourced dark woolen fibers WERE included in the material provided to the defense. even the defense doesn't claim they didn't know about them, so why do you insist on lying?
You have got the wrong end of the stick with regard to that exculpatory evidence of the black wool fibers and the blonde synthetic hairs. It was never disclosed to the defense by the Army CID or FBI or by Murtagh and Blackburn prior to the trial, or during the trial. As a result it was never presented to the court at the 1979 trial. The judge and jury were kept in ignorance about it. You can dispute that it was not deliberate till the cows come home. To my mind it looks like a cover-up because that kind of information and evidence would cause reasonable doubt in any average jury.

The matter was discussed at the 1992 MacDonald appeal with MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate and biased old Judge Dupree:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...991-06-26.html

"THE COURT: Were the typed notes of the investigators not made available to defense counsel prior to trial?

MR. SILVERGLATE: There were two sets of typed notes, Your Honor. The typed reports of Janice Glisson; that is to say the typed reports relating to the hair and fiber analysis were made available. However, they pointedly exclude any reference to the blond synthetic wig hairs, no reference.

THE COURT: I understand that this came up later in material which you have discovered well within the last year, let's say, or so, showing that there were handwritten bench notes which contain more than the typed notes; is that correct?

MR. SILVERGLATE: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

MR. SILVERGLATE: And some of it was discovered back in '84; some of it was discovered last year. And the bottom line is that those bench notes that were discovered include references to blond synthetic wig hairs, fibers made to look like hair which were found in a clear handled hair brush in the MacDonald residence and was not matched to any item in the house. There was no wig in the house that matched those hairs. They are twenty-two inches long and those were pointedly omitted from the report by the forensic examiners. So looking at the report you would never guess that they were there.

Interestingly, Your Honor, the Government claims, which I'll get to in a moment, the Government claims that it doesn't matter that these bench notes were not turned over because the defense forensic expert, Doctor Thornton, was able to, if he wanted to, examine all of these physical exhibits and he could have found --

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

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

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

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

The second set of bench notes that is the core of the case this morning was the examination by Mr. Frier, James Frier, FBI Forensic Examiner, and Your Honor asked about the reports. The report of Frier's re-examination was never turned over to Segal. Had it been turned over to Segal, he still wouldn't have known anything about the fact that black wool fibers were found in Colette MacDonald's mouth, on the bicep area of Colette MacDonald's arm and on the club, murder weapon that murdered Colette MacDonald. Had the report been turned over, which it wasn't, it would still not been evident but had the report been turned over Segal may have decided to examine Frier on the witness stand because he would have probably wanted to know why Frier did a re-examination; why was it that Mr. Murtagh requested a re-examination. In fact, Frier was asked to do two re-examinations. So there's a chance it would clue Segal in that there was something amiss and he should have examined Frier.

Instead, what happened was he got nothing and then at the trial Segal agreed to a stipulation proposed by the Government that instead of putting Frier on the stand his testimony, which was rather insignificant, simply be stipulated to. So Segal, completely naive that Frier could have blown the whole case wide open, as could Glisson had, agreed to the stipulation. Frier never got put on the stand and there was no way inadvertently Segal could have learned from Frier he found these black wool -- he identified black wool threads right on the murder victim, in her mouth and on the club.

THE COURT: You know Mr. Segal?

MR. SILVERGLATE: I have met him once for about an hour, Your Honor. I didn't know him before and I can't say I know him well now.

THE COURT: Your description of him as being naive is not exactly consonant with my observation of him over a long period of time. I thought he was a very astute counsel and very thorough.

MR. SILVERGLATE: I will be sure to communicate that to him as soon as this argument is over. I'm sure he'll appreciate it but, Your Honor, this case is such that I must say even the astute would be fooled. I do consider Mr. Segal to be an astute lawyer but there's no way that he would have dreamed what Glisson or Frier found in this case. Your Honor didn't know about it either; it was kept from the court and obviously the jury didn't know about it.
Now, why is this important? Why is it material? Why is this evidence different from all of the rest of the evidence? And that's where I'm now going to head, if I may, with my argument.........."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th September 2016 at 08:14 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 9th September 2016, 08:44 AM   #2006
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
That writer called Evan Hughes writes a lot of sense about the MacDonald case, and the flawed arguments. I don't know if he was hired by MacDonald lawyers to make a media campaign for MacDonald, rather like McGinniss and Weingarten did for the MacDonald prosecution.

I can't seem to link that Evan Hughes article to this forum for some reason but it's under the heading : Jeffrey MacDonald case : Gene Weingarten and Joe McGinniss, on Google.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th September 2016 at 08:52 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 9th September 2016, 05:40 PM   #2007
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Meaningless

HENRIBOY: Your penchant for posting random articles constructed by uniformed MacDonald advocates speaks to the weak hand you present in each and every post. The only meaningful documentation in this case are the thousands of pages of CID/FBI reports and the grand jury/trial transcripts.

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 10th September 2016, 02:35 AM   #2008
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Your penchant for posting random articles constructed by uniformed MacDonald advocates speaks to the weak hand you present in each and every post. The only meaningful documentation in this case are the thousands of pages of CID/FBI reports and the grand jury/trial transcripts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There is meaningful documentation in the exculpatory evidence that was never disclosed by the prosecution before or during the 1979 trial. Glisson of the Army CID lab was in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI about the blood evidence, and the fabric impressions, but she just kept her mouth shut and left it to the simpleton jury to decide. The FBI never disclosed that they had discovered that the Army CID had made mistakes in blood typing. That is relevant to the MacDonald case theory of moving bodies. The jury were never informed about that and neither were the MacDonald defense.

I can't link that Evan Hughes article to this forum. It was from December 19 2012. It is rather long. I hope the moderator doesn't have a fit about that, but I think it's important:

"Finally, last week, McGinniss published a 22,000-word e-book, right on the heels of a 6,500-word magazine feature about the case by Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post. Both of them say, essentially, “Don’t worry, MacDonald obviously did it.” The Weingarten piece in particular has garnered widespread and near unanimous praise online. But Weingarten’s piece and McGinniss’ e-book are seriously flawed, and both are much too confident of their conclusions.

This past summer, I read the four major books on the MacDonald case, numerous articles, and a decent chunk of court testimony and other primary sources. Morris’ book makes some missteps, as I noted in a review-essay about it, and Weingarten and McGinniss point out a few that I did not catch. But Morris’ account is nonetheless far more persuasive than McGinniss’. Fatal Vision, which posits that MacDonald went into a homicidal rage unleashed by an excess of diet pills, tries to turn readers against MacDonald so thoroughly that they do not notice how much McGinniss relies on innuendo, omission, and unsupported inference. Vast portions of the book rest on a logical error that Weingarten also dabbles in: MacDonald is a creep. Ergo, he killed his entire family. As I wrote then, it’s a dishonest and unserious book—dishonest to the reader, not just MacDonald.

As Janet Malcolm exposed, McGinniss led MacDonald to believe he was in his corner while working on the book that would work so hard to persuade readers of his guilt. Shortly after the jury rendered its verdict, he wrote to MacDonald, “What the **** were those people thinking of? How could 12 people not only agree to believe such a horrendous proposition, but agree, with a man’s life at stake, that they believed it beyond a reasonable doubt?”

But in his modestly titled new e-book, Final Vision: The Last Word on Jeffrey MacDonald, which is dedicated to debunking “Morris b.s.,” McGinniss is just as certain as he was in Fatal Vision that, in fact, “the full truth about the murders did come out at his trial.” McGinniss has to massage the timeline to account for the blatant contradictions in his letters. He says now that he knew MacDonald was guilty during the trial, but that after the conviction,

my doubts revived. He was such a good guy, how could he have done such a terrible thing? I must have missed something. The prosecution must have fooled me, and the jury, with sleight of hand.

For more than a year, I expressed sympathy to MacDonald. Finally, I came to believe he was a psychopath …

But we should trust him this time.

Advertisement
Weingarten does. He has been a champion of McGinniss’ book and his view of the case for years. “It is impossible to read Fatal Vision and not KNOW that [MacDonald] killed his wife and children,” Weingarten wrote in 2011. “Impossible.” Back in 1989 he wrote a letter of support to McGinniss after Janet Malcolm seriously damaged his reputation. In the Washington Post piece, Weingarten calls Fatal Vision “among the best true-crime books ever written.” As a person with great respect for Weingarten, I find these statements baffling.

But leave McGinniss aside for a moment and consider Weingarten’s own case for MacDonald’s guilt. Weingarten focuses on Brian Murtagh, the prosecutor in the case—and a co-worker of Weingarten’s wife for years. (Elsewhere he has described them as “good friends.”) Weingarten discloses this; indeed, with Janet Malcolm’s shadow looming, he acknowledges, “I intend to spin you toward a certain conclusion. The process is stealthy and has already begun.” These are honest admissions on Weingarten’s part, but they also play a strategic role. Weingarten grants that stories “are seldom completely arm’s-length,” and that journalists are liable to spin you. But then he poses his own piece as an exception, owing to his full disclosure. “OK, I think we’re at arm’s length now,” he writes. “We’re good to go.” Weingarten seems to want it both ways—he’s hoping you’ll trust him because he admitted that you shouldn’t.

I object, Your Honor. My point is not that MacDonald is definitely innocent—it’s that you ought to keep checking your wallet to be sure that Weingarten and McGinniss haven’t picked it.

Weingarten portrays Murtagh, his wife’s friend, as the unassuming, unsung hero of the MacDonald saga. Unlike MacDonald, an Ivy League womanizer with a yacht, Murtagh is a “resolutely boring” government employee who wears suspenders not as a fashion statement, but because “I need ’em to hold my pants up.” (Think about why Weingarten is telling us this.) “Through it all,” he writes, “Murtagh alone persisted.” (I would say that MacDonald has persisted too, but never mind.) Weingarten says that Murtagh wrote out a long rebuttal to Errol Morris but “didn’t release it to the media,” because he’s above that or something—but apparently he showed it to a columnist for the Washington Post, because Weingarten quotes from it.

Advertisement
Murtagh’s determination to keep MacDonald behind bars is, to Weingarten, a self-evident virtue: “He has stayed on because of an abstract sense of justice, but also because of a concrete duty he feels to three people who died very badly.” Weingarten then notes that to Murtagh, “it is personal.” And of course it is. But hang on, does Murtagh’s personal investment make him a good person to listen to or a bad one? Weingarten has hung his account of a huge controversy on a man with an enormous stake in the matter. After MacDonald called Murtagh a “viper,” the “resolutely boring” public servant drove around with a vanity license plate: “VIPR.”

And Murtagh, a plodding and careful man in Weingarten’s view, decided that MacDonald was guilty right from the start, when he entered the case late as an inexperienced 27-year-old and was shown the files and photos. He said so himself, speaking to Vanity Fair in 1998:

As Murtagh immersed himself, Kearns kept bringing more materials, culminating with the crime-scene photographs of Kimberly and Kristen. “I was feeling sick looking at them,” says Murtagh. “I must have made then some kind of emotional commitment that however long it took—whatever it took—I was going to do nothing that, either through act or omission to act, was going to see this guy get away with this.”

But … believing MacDonald guilty was one thing, finding someone willing to prosecute him something else.

Advertisement
There is no distance in the piece between Weingarten’s version of events and Murtagh’s. For nearly 1,000 words, the prosecutor walks us through how the crime went down. One of the daughters, according to Murtagh, slept through the murderous beatings of the other two victims, whose rooms were a few steps from hers in a small apartment. (It helps him if that’s true.) He narrates as if he’s relating facts: “[MacDonald] goes into the living room and breaks down. An upstairs neighbor hears what she identified as either laughing or crying. There’s a magazine on the coffee table with a story about the Manson murders. He gets his idea.”

In a rare interjection, Weingarten asks about one of MacDonald’s clever moves, “He was thinking that analytically?” Yeah, I was wondering that too. Murtagh posits a man so devilishly brilliant in his cover-up that we’re still debating the crime 42 years later, but so dumb that he intentionally stabbed his wife through his own shirt as part of his frame job. He then called the police, satisfied he had his story straight, and consistently told investigators that he was still wearing the punctured shirt in the other room when his wife was killed. So, he was thinking that analytically? Murtagh answers, “By the end, he was. When he was moving the bodies.” Oh, OK, carry on.

Another source Weingarten chooses is McGinniss, whom he calls “Joe.” Weingarten has McGinniss air his theory about why MacDonald asked to re-enter his house some time after the murders. (He was denied because it was still a sealed crime scene.) “They never found the scalpel blade he used on himself. I think he knew where he’d hidden it. Maybe between floorboards. I think he wanted to get rid of it.” The quote closes a section of the piece, as if Weingarten wants to emphasize it. He seems impressed, though it’s hard to tell since he has no response of his own. Occam’s razor suggests a possibility that Weingarten does not: Perhaps this hidden blade was never found because it did not exist.

Weingarten relates damaging testimony from an evidentiary hearing held this year, in late September—and some of it was indeed damaging—but he leaves out the notable moment that hurt the prosecution. A central question in the MacDonald case is whether an addict named Helena Stoeckley was the woman with the floppy hat and blond hair and boots whom MacDonald said was among the intruders that night. Stoeckley confessed repeatedly and no one has provided an alibi for her. She was known to wear a floppy hat and boots and owned a blonde wig that she said she burned just after the crime. In the 1979 trial, she denied any memory of the MacDonald house and said she could not recall her prior confessions, a massive blow to MacDonald’s defense. In September, after the judge waived attorney-client privilege owing to Stoeckley’s death, her lawyer testified that after initial denials, she confessed to him privately, during the week of the trial, that she was there when her companions committed the murders.

Weingarten strongly emphasizes, with reason, that Stoeckley was a troubled young woman who waffled over what happened that night and sometimes offered claims that did not add up. It’s difficult to know what to make of her confessions. To McGinniss and Weingarten, though, it’s easy: You dismiss them. Granted, people often falsely confess to crimes. What concerns me is that Stoeckley is the very person MacDonald needed to confess for his story to hold water. You might think a guilty man would cast a wider net, but he told a strange story and gave a fairly detailed description. What incredible luck that it matched a person who not only had no alibi but then repeatedly incriminated herself. Stoeckley said she was with her boyfriend that night, Greg Mitchell. He passed a polygraph but later also confessed repeatedly. The former L.A. County Coroner, hired by the defense, gave the opinion that there were multiple killers and that one was left-handed. Mitchell was left-handed, and MacDonald is not. Weingarten does not speak to any of this. He is utterly confident that it means nothing.

How can Weingarten and McGinniss be so sure? This is a difficult case. There were no witnesses, no incriminating fingerprints, and no evident motive. The crime scene was badly compromised by inexperienced military police. Items were moved and even stolen; gawkers were allowed to wander through the house; more than 40 fingerprints and a footprint were destroyed. This is what Murtagh had to work with when he entered the case. Weingarten grants the shoddiness of the police work in an aside, as if it were barely relevant. For him it was a gotcha moment when a bloody hair found in MacDonald’s wife’s hand turned out to be Jeffrey MacDonald’s. He accuses Morris of slipping past this fact. But it is not actually revealing: When the police arrived, MacDonald was sprawled across his wife’s body, both of them covered in blood. No one disputes this.

An open-and-shut article like Weingarten’s may be comforting, but there are reasons this case has remained controversial for decades. Weingarten and McGinniss write as if only a deluded person could have any doubt—and they unfairly portray Errol Morris as a devious conspiracy theorist. Reasonable people can disagree here, and for 42 years they have. In the first inquiry into the case, the Army Colonel who presided over a month’s-long hearing found the charges against MacDonald to be “not true.” One circuit court judge, Francis Murnaghan, wrote in a 1982 opinion, “The case provokes a strong uneasiness in me. … I believe MacDonald would have had a fairer trial if the Stoeckley related testimony had been admitted.” Janet Malcolm has been cagey about her view, but in 1997 she said, “The more I read about the case, the more I move toward the view that he could very well be innocent.” All these people must be deluded too."
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 10th September 2016, 06:36 AM   #2009
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Save Yourself

HENRIBOY: Another example of wasted time and effort. The very first sentence of your post demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the fundamental issues in this case. According to the only opinions that matter, there was no exculpatory evidence in this case. If there was a shred of exculpatory evidence in this case, inmate would not have been convicted or the 4th Circuit Court would have overturned his conviction in either 1992 or 1998.

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 10th September 2016, 08:52 AM   #2010
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Another example of wasted time and effort. The very first sentence of your post demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the fundamental issues in this case. According to the only opinions that matter, there was no exculpatory evidence in this case. If there was a shred of exculpatory evidence in this case, inmate would not have been convicted or the 4th Circuit Court would have overturned his conviction in either 1992 or 1998.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That's a load of bollocks. The exculpatory evidence was deliberately withheld by Murtagh and Blackburn with their 'win at all costs' prosecution strategy and 'FBI reconstructions' legal waffle.

Some of that exculpatory evidence came to light for the 1992 MacDonald appeal, like the black wool fibers with no known source, and the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers. Judge Dupree just dismissed that evidence in 1992 by saying a different jury would have come to the same wrong verdict if they had been informed about it. In those days there were time limits on the presentation of new evidence. That changed about ten years go with a ruling by the Supreme Court that the 'evidence as a whole' should be considered in appeals. Biased Judge Fox was not even listening to the evidence for any 1998 appeal.

The matter is discussed at this website by former MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate:

https://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=28481

This is part of that Silverglate article:

"Furthermore, the manner in which the government qualified its expert witnesses (stipulating, for instance, that one lab analyst who discovered exculpatory fiber evidence would testify only as a serology expert) made it highly unlikely that defense counsel, on cross-examination, would trip across the suppressed Brady material at the heart of this second habeas proceeding. All in all, we had discovered, and alleged, a very neat scheme by which the prosecutor could avoid turning over truly exculpatory evidence in a format that would be of practical use to defense counsel, all the while taking steps to protect himself against a later charge of failure to fulfill his obligations under Brady.

As a result of the failure of the prosecution to turn over Brady material in a format and at a time when it could be useful to the defense at trial, some enormously potent exculpatory evidence was not available for use by MacDonald’s lawyers at his trial and never made its way to the jury."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 10th September 2016 at 08:59 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 10th September 2016, 06:31 PM   #2011
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Keep Running

HENRIBOY: The stench of distortion and hyperbole has been a staple of your posts for the past decade plus. I repeat, according to the ONLY opinions that matter, the defense was unable to provide a single piece of SOURCED evidence linking a known intruder suspect to these murders. Again, the key word is SOURCED. Opinions do not trump science. No DNA, fibers, hairs or prints were SOURCED to any member of the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

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 11th September 2016, 09:38 AM   #2012
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: The stench of distortion and hyperbole has been a staple of your posts for the past decade plus. I repeat, according to the ONLY opinions that matter, the defense was unable to provide a single piece of SOURCED evidence linking a known intruder suspect to these murders. Again, the key word is SOURCED. Opinions do not trump science. No DNA, fibers, hairs or prints were SOURCED to any member of the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
It's true that the exculpatory evidence can now no longer be SOURCED to Mazerolle's velveteen clothes, or Helena Stoeckley's blonde wig, because that evidence and information is now no more. It's still exculpatory evidence and it should have been presented to the court at the 1979 trial. It still raises reasonable doubt. DNA, or advanced DNA technology was not around in those days. Murtagh gets round all this by saying it is hearsay evidence under the rules of evidence, while using hearsay evidence himself against Jeff MacDonald.

The New York Four is only relevant in so far as it is connected to MacDonald's drug addict brother Jay.

The exculpatory evidence is mentioned in this website written by the late Ted Gunderson:

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

This is part of it:

"Today there are roughly 40 witnesses who strongly corroborate Dr. MacDonald's version of events. This is in addition to the seven witnesses excluded at trial in 1979. Shockingly, the group he described existed, was drug and violence-oriented, was seen going to and coming from the house, was seen in bloody clothing, and fits his descriptions. Insider information and independently arrived at forensic information ties the group of assailants to the crime scene. And, most incredibly, three of the group of assailants have confessed and other admissions of guilt were overheard by third parties. Dr. MacDonald has passed a polygraph and five legitimate forensic psychiatric examinations. He suffered multiple wounds in the assault, at least one of which could have been fatal.

The "evidence" convicting him in 1979 was simply "forensic" evidence of a confusing nature that did no more than place him in his own home on the night of the murders. There is no evidence that says he committed murder -- and there is voluminous evidence that points to the guilt of Helena Stoeckley, Greg Mitchell and their co-assailants. Yet, as of this date, Dr. MacDonald remains in federal prison, a victim of injustice of the worst sort.

Additional evidence was recently developed that further corroborates Dr. MacDonald's innocence. This evidence was presented in the U.S. District Court. Judge Dupree ruled in favor of the government. The decision was then appealed to the Fourth Circuit. They also ruled in favor of the government. An effort will be made to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 11th September 2016 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 11th September 2016, 07:45 PM   #2013
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Reality Check

HENRIBOY: Sorry to break the bad news, but neither you nor the unhinged Ted Gunderson, determines whether evidence is exculpatory or inculpatory. Two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have concluded that the defense has yet to provide a single piece of exculpatory evidence.

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 12th September 2016, 03:06 AM   #2014
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Sorry to break the bad news, but neither you nor the unhinged Ted Gunderson, determines whether evidence is exculpatory or inculpatory. Two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have concluded that the defense has yet to provide a single piece of exculpatory evidence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Ted Gunderson was never unhinged. He was a senior FBI man until he retired from the FBI. Murtagh tried to discredit him, like Murtagh tried to discredit Detective Beasley, and also Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard, who Murtagh accused of being an alcoholic. There is exculpatory evidence in the MacDonald case and it's academically satisfactory. That's like saying Donald Trump is only interested in tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of the banks, which is probably true.

The two District Court judges, Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were biased. I don't know the full details of the appointment of judges in America because I'm not American. From what I can gather they tend to be political benches. President Reagan appointed anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. President Kennedy was said to have appointed Afro-American judges in the north of America, but dangerously right-wing judges like Judge Dupree, in the South to appease the people in places like North Carolina. I think Dupree was appointed by Nixon.

From what I can make out the 4th Circuit judges have been more skeptical in the past about the MacDonald case than Judge Dupree or Judge Fox. It's just that they meekly and timidly went along with the Supreme Court majority verdict, and the court of public opinion, after the publication of the Joe McGinniss libel book and TV movie about the case.

Judges are human. I admit many of them are competent and just. Judge Carnes in the American JonBenet Ramsey case is a good judge. Things are not perfect in the UK. This is part of a website about some British judges:

http://www.bentlawyersandcops.com/a_..._judiciary.htm

' THE DRUNK AND DISORDERLY JUDGE '

JUDGE PAUL CARNEY spent three hours in a police cell after he was arrested for abusing bar staff at a hotel. He refused to leave and because he was denied another drink, the hotel called the police to deal with the situation, which they said ' was awkward with him being a Judge.'



' JUDGE WITH CHILD PORN ON HIS COMPUTER '

SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID SELWOOD was arrested by Hampshire Police on charges of having child pornography on his computer. This came about after it was discovered that a tip off said that his credit card was linked to having made payments to a child website. Judge Selwood presided over trials involving paedophiles and other sexual natures. He was often covering cases in the Portsmouth Crown Court, and was due to answer bail by appearing before Bow Street Magistrates Court.

However, before that date could be met, he retired on health grounds and retired with a pension of £33,000 a year, and a lump sum of £74,250. The Lord Chancellor's Department said they had no legal powers to forfeit the pension, the case was later discontinued because it was said that he was unwell.



' JUDGE CHARGED WITH INDECENCY IN PUBLIC TOILETS '

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RICHARD HOFFMAN confessed to having sex with another man when police raided the toilets in the King Street Bus Station in Wrexham. The Police said it was a notorious place for men and boys to meet up for sex or seeking it. ' We did not expect to find a Judge in our catch, especially as some colleagues see him regularly holding court at the Mold County Court. The North Wales Police declined to give any further information and the Judge was said to be on leave.



' THE CASE OF THE SPANKING JUDGE '

JUDGE MARTIN BOWLEY was questioned by police over his spanking and caning obsession with rent boy Philip Lafferty, Letters were produced with the headed notepaper of the QC's office in King's Bench Walk, London, saying - ' the consequences of your offence could mean another taste of the cane without padding ' and addressed to his naughty boy - Philip Lafferty,26. Judge Bowley quit his post after fresh allegations from his toy boy - Lafferty accused him of beginning the affair when he was just sixteen and under the legal limit.



' THE JUDGE AND THE RENT BOY '

CIRCUIT JUDGE GERALD PRICE QC is being investigated after he let his male escort Christopher Williams 25 sit on the bench and have access to three courts as ' a law student'. The 60 year-old Judge a father of two is accused of exposing his office to possible blackmail threats and bringing the court into disrepute. His nine month affair with the rent boy was discovered by officials who doubted the presence of the so called law student. He has been taken off all cases for the time being while investigations take place, which has been quoted ' at least a month '. The Judge normally attended Swansea Crown Court.



' THE DRINK/DRIVE JUDGE '

CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE VICTOR HALL was given a serious warning from the Lord Chancellor after the £91,000 a year Judge was caught drink/driving by police when they stopped his car in Leicester. Magistrates fined him £1,000 and disqualified him from driving.

He was jeered at by people outside the court as he left, and is said to have offered to retire, but was suspended on full pay instead.



' JUDGE SWINDLES THE ELDERLY OUT OF £85,000 '

JUDGE RICHARD GREEN was jailed for three years at Lewes Crown Court after it was known that while he was a solicitor, he took £85,000 from clients' investment funds. He did this while he was a partner in the Law Firm of Barwell's in Seaford. The thefts committed were on elderly people around 80 to 90, he had complete control over their money, and spent it on cars, luxury holidays and a yacht.

Although Judge Green had made restitution, Judge John Gower said 'it is intolerable that somebody in your position should so abuse the trust you held.'



' JUDGE RUNS AWAY FROM SCENE OF ACCIDENT '

JUDGE VISCOUNT COLVILLE landed into trouble when he collided into two cars in Belgravia. It was heard that the Judge - also a circuit Judge in Maidstone, Kent -- went into the back of a diplomat's car which in turn hit a taxi. The Taxi driver said ' he knew full well heid been in an accident with both of us, but ran off down the road with me chasing him. I took the registration number of his vehicle and gave it to the police.

When interviewed by the police, the Judge claimed he had not hit either car but scraped a bollard. He appeared before Horseferry Road Court and was fined £500 and given five penalty points on his driving licence.



' SENIOR JUDGE RESIGNS OVER MISCONDUCT AT TRIAL '

JUDGE FRANK CHAPMAN, presiding over a trial in the Birmingham Crown Court passed on information during the hearing to the Prosecutor Barrister Simon Davis that could help the failing prosecution case which was already costing the public purse more than £50,000. The message was on his voice mail, and as a result the trial was aborted. The Judge's forty year legal career collapsed in an instant and he quickly made the decision to retire instead of face complaints lodged.



' JUDGE RESIGNS AFTER DRINK/DRIVE CASE '

DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE ROBERT SMITH was convicted of drink/driving by magistrates. The judge from Whitby formally resigned after the case.



' JUDGE ACCUSED OF BIAS '

JUDGE - MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES was accused of bias towards the prosecution by Barrister Ronald Thwaites during the ' De Menzies Case'. The Barrister for the Defence said that the Judge was lacking in objectivity and very pro-prosecution that made a fair trial almost out of the question.'



' SPANKING JUDGE CAUGHT IN POLICE RAID '

A hearing at KNIGHTSBRIDGE CROWN COURT withheld the name of a Judge caught in a vice raid who had already paid his £100 for the spanking session only to find the police. The Judge was questioned by police at the scene and allowed to leave. The Owner of the parlour said ' The Judge was in a terrible state, the poor dear, he was one of our regulars.'



'NO CAR TAX JUDGE IS NOT CHARGED '

The Somerset Police stopped a vehicle in Bristol while on a ' crackdown on illegal cars and road tax dodgers' and found it belonged to a Judge. Detective Sergeant Bond said ' you wouldn't expect a Judge to check the licence disc would you? not on his Daimler.'

After the stop check, they gave the Judge a police escort??



' DRINK-DRIVE JUDGE RESIGNS AFTER SECOND OFFENCE '

JUDGE BRUCE MACMILLAN who presided over cases in the Liverpool Crown Court was arrested after being stopped twice by traffic cops in the same month. He was observed driving erratically on the M6 by the motorway patrol. He was first stopped in 2008 in August and then for a second time on September the 30th 2009 and was awaiting a court hearing concerning drink driving. The Judge decided to resign rather than be ordered to stand down.



' JUDGE SUED FOR LIBEL BY HER MOTHER '

JUDGE CONSTANCE BRISCOE was at the High Court being sued by her mother Carmen Briscoe-Mitchell after including a piece in her book which said ' that when her daughter brought home a school photograph her mother screamed and said - 'Jesus Christ, me give birth to that, Lord, sweet Lord, how comes she is so ugly? Ugly, Ugly'

'JUDGE ARRESTED --- JUDGE BRISCOE was arrested by police who would not divulge the charge. The Police redirected enquiries to the Office of Judicial Complaints. Kent Police would only confirm that an arrest was made.

JUDGE BRISCOE CHARGED WITH PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE -- 12th of June 2013. High Profile Female Judge Constance Briscoe is accused of lying to police a report says, in connection with the MP Chris Huhnes Case of speeding (he went to jail for lying). She was arrested in October 2012 and was suspended from the Judiciary, she is due to appear before Westminster Magistrates on the 24th of June 2013. It is stated that she was very unhappy with the decision to prosecute by the CPS who authorised the Kent and Essex Police to charge her on two counts of intending to pervert the course of justice. The two charges are in connection with the following: 1) that she knowingly gave an inaccurate statement 2) A copy of a witness statement that had been altered.

JUDGE BRISCOE denies altering statements when she appeared at The Old Bailey. The charges arose from The Chris Huhnes Case....and she was charged with perverting the course of justice. A trial at Southwark Crown Court has been set for January 2014.

THE JUDGE BRISCOE CASE CONTINUES....'Judge Briscoe wanted to bring down Minister' and 'Judge's desperate attempt to influence expert witness'.....so the Newspapers say in the long saga of a Judge now being looked at in a different way than being heralded as the first woman judge on TV....who will bring a new meaning to justice? It is now being said in court that she manipulated the criminal justice system after lying to the police. It is also said she tried to 'pull the wool over the jury's eyes' by deliberately giving an expert witness the wrong copy of a statement to make sure his report would back up her claims. It is stated that only when a second expert examined the statement that it was found to be a different version....the long trial at Southwark Crown Court continues.....

JUDGE BRISCOE JAILED FOR 16 MONTHS --- JUDGE CONSTANCE BRISCOE was found guilty on three charges of perverting the course of justice when she appeared at the Old Bailey. Justice Baker said that it was very regrettable and sad, but due to the arrogance showed a jail sentence had to be imposed. It was said that the Judge lied, falsified documents and tried to mislead the jury by using her skills to mask what she had done in the hope that she would emerge from court free.

Update -- Briscoe is described as 'penniless' in recent reports outlining her financial status since leaving prison. She is also £150,000 in debt according to the report, and that's what the HMRC want. She is said to be now living with her son and daughter, he bought her flat to help her with money problems.



' JUDGE DISREGARDS LAW '

JUDGE HUMFREY MALINS was caught parking his car in a 'disabled drivers only' bay i50 yards away from the court in Isleworth. The Tory Judge who presides at the Crown Court actually said he parked in the bay rather a lot . Lorna Reith of Disability Alliance commented ' it is digraceful that this judge can flout the law in taking space reserved for someone disabled.'



' DRINK/DRIVE JUDGE JAILED AFTER CRASH '

DISTRICT JUDGE ANGUS MACARTHUR was jailed for 28 days and banned from driving for ten years. It was the third drink/driving offence of this judge, past offences resulted in being drunk in charge of a car when he was fined £300, and another offence when he was fined £3000 and banned from driving for two years. Macarthur was a judge in Nottingham, Northampton and Leicester. At the time of this offence he was a circuit judge for Peterborough. Besides jail he was fined £2,000 and had to pay £100 costs. The case was heard at Peterborough Magistrates Court.



' JUDGE FACING FRAUD CHARGES ESCAPES JUSTICE '

THIS IS THE STRANGE AND SUSPICIOUS CASE OF JUDGE RICHARD GEE who is currently enjoying a lavish lifestyle in the states. Back in 1998 he claimed sickness and was too stressed to face trial over a £1million mortgage scam. He then claimed the retirement pension of £500,000 a year, yet ran up the legal aid bill to £1million funding the trial that collapsed due to 'his stress and depression' -- and then he disappeared out of the country and headed to the U.S.A. Now in 2010 this judge has been tracked down in New York without stress or any depression, in fact he is fit and has wealthy investments and property - a nine bed roomed house on Rhode Island. This kind of thing certainly shows what it's like to have friends in high places (attorney General and Chancellor's Department) and to be able to move on when the heat turns up, and what about the mortgage fraud? well, that is now forgotten and the judiciary would prefer it it is confined to a locked cupboard."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th September 2016 at 03:11 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 September 2016, 04:16 AM   #2015
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,212
Ted Gunderson was a nut, he most likely had paranoid personality disorder.

http://www.process.org/discept/2012/...blic-paranoid/
Strawberry 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 September 2016, 05:20 AM   #2016
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
Ted Gunderson was a nut, he most likely had paranoid personality disorder.

http://www.process.org/discept/2012/...blic-paranoid/
Well stated! Ted Gunderson never met a satanistic theory he didn't like! The man was a disgrace! He was investigated TWICE by the FBI (his own employing agency) and he chose to retire rather than be terminated (or so I understand). Also, the only FBI Special Agent to ever be black balled by the Former Special Agent's Society (or so I have been told).
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 September 2016, 08:53 AM   #2017
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Well stated! Ted Gunderson never met a satanistic theory he didn't like! The man was a disgrace! He was investigated TWICE by the FBI (his own employing agency) and he chose to retire rather than be terminated (or so I understand). Also, the only FBI Special Agent to ever be black balled by the Former Special Agent's Society (or so I have been told).
Ted Gunderson got into dangerous waters with regard to child sex abuse in America. He is supposed to have thwarted six attempts on his life before he is supposed to have died of natural causes in about 2011. Years ago there were masses of postings on the internet forums about the Franklin Credit Union cover-up, and the McMartin child abuse scandals, and about child prostitutes at the White House under Bush. I never got involved then because I was unable to verify anything. It's just I don't think there is smoke without fire. Satanic activity is a bit beyond me.

Part of the trouble is that child abuse victims tended to change their stories for one reason or another. There were some mysterious deaths. Personally, I think there were child abuse scandals in the JonBenet Ramsey case which were either ignored, or covered up. Nancy Krebs was simply not believed, though I admit she did make some mistakes.

With regard to the MacDonald case Murtagh said that MacDonald has himself to blame."If he had kept his mouth shut we could not have convicted him." MacDonald's friends hired the retired chief of the FBI's Los Angeles bureau, Ted Gunderson.

There have been similar child sex scandals in the UK. For the past twenty or thirty years Private Eye Magazine has been on about child sex scandals in the UK, Northern Ireland. and Jersey involving the political and business elite. Several celebrities have been imprisoned. There is now a massive investigation which will take many years to complete. Three of the chairwomen have already resigned over the years because it is so complex, but it still seems to be pegging away, even though the victims have very little confidence in the Home Office officials on the investigation.

There is some background to all this at a website which does not link. I admit it might not be entirely true.
This is part of it:

"For the past couple of years, Britain has been trying to put the lid on a sex scandal that touches the breadth of the elites of that nation, police forces and spy agencies we now suspect have long been working for a Nazi secret society, a government of pedophiles, name after name leading to name after name with no one left out anymore.

Considerable effort was made to “get to” Ted Gunderson, to discredit him and silence him. John DeCamp who was an aid to former CIA Director William Colby while in Vietnam, is similarly subjected to continual attack.

DeCamp is alive but silent, though very much “on the record.” Their stories lead to the Bush family and beyond, from the presidency to the banking centers of the world, to the royal families of Europe and throughout the American military. When we turn on our televisions the people we see the men, often bible in hand, spend much more time crouching before naked little boys.

The evidence is there, volumes, pervasive, proven and ignored. Take a look at congress. Would you allow any of these people to take your children for an ice cream cone?

I think not. Instead of going after them, we have, for decades now, been fed an endless stream of pedophile priests. When comparing the two, looking at the facts, the real evidence, the priests simply molest the children, they don’t kill them, or not so many anyway. Was Adam Walsh a victim?

Where do these people come from? Where do we get the people who love and support them? Isn’t it about time we learned to consistently refer to our leaders and “heroes,” yes I am referring to the perfumed princes of the Pentagon, as Colonel David Hackworth used to refer to them as, in a more reality oriented context?

Hey, I’m voting for Senator XXX, you know the one, the guy who hangs out with Al Qaeda, you know, the one of has sex with kids then has his staffers throw their bodies out in the desert?

We’re really not referring to any one person. We are referring to hundreds."



l

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 12th September 2016 at 08:55 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 September 2016, 08:57 AM   #2018
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,212
What an utter and complete load of tosh.
Strawberry 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 September 2016, 09:39 AM   #2019
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,380
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The two District Court judges, Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were biased.
Stated for the umpteenth time, but never documented.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know the full details of the appointment of judges in America because I'm not American. From what I can gather they tend to be political benches.
Political appointees, yes, but also generally from the qualified candidates.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
President Reagan appointed anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. President Kennedy was said to have appointed Afro-American judges in the north of America, but dangerously right-wing judges like Judge Dupree, in the South to appease the people in places like North Carolina.
Was Thurgood Marshall, whom you've lauded here, a political appointee?



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think Dupree was appointed by Nixon.
Guilt by association. A Logical Fallacy. Don't do it if you want to be perceived as a reasonable and logical person.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...by-Association


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
From what I can make out the 4th Circuit judges have been more skeptical in the past about the MacDonald case than Judge Dupree or Judge Fox. It's just that they meekly and timidly went along with the Supreme Court majority verdict, and the court of public opinion, after the publication of the Joe McGinniss libel book and TV movie about the case.
Can you cite for the "meekly and timidly"? Does this court have a history of being "meek and timid" or is this supposedly only the case where MacDonald is concerned? If the former, why should they act differently for MacDonald, and if the latter, why would they act differently for MacDonald?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judges are human. I admit many of them are competent and just. Judge Carnes in the American JonBenet Ramsey case is a good judge. Things are not perfect in the UK. This is part of a website about some British judges:

http://www.bentlawyersandcops.com/a_..._judiciary.htm
So nothing pertinent to MacDonald's case whatsoever. For the life of me, sometimes I wonder why you go off on these bizarre tangents, and then I remember: That's right, he has no evidence to speak of.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   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 September 2016, 09:44 AM   #2020
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,380
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
sex abuse... yada yada... mysterious deaths... yada yada... pedophile priests... yada yada... Bush family and beyond... yada yada... CIA... yada yada...
As I said: So nothing pertinent to MacDonald's case whatsoever. For the life of me, sometimes I wonder why you go off on these bizarre tangents, and then I remember: That's right, he has no evidence to speak of.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th September 2016 at 09:47 AM.
HSienzant is online now   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 September 2016, 12:24 PM   #2021
ScottPletcher
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was no MacDonald Eskadrol addiction. That's not entirely true. That was one of Kassab's inventions, like Kassab's theory without any facts that the two little girls had been molested. The matter was discussed on an internet forum in 1997. It says there that McGinniss never interviewed the boxing coach, who is now deceased, who supposedly said later on that what MacDonald had said about a proposed boxing trip to Russia, was indeed true:

"Thanks - Ginny Hench (law prof)

Brian may have a better cite but from "Fatal Justice" the following
delightful exchange occurred in McGinniss' deposition:

Q: Are you personally convinced that the explanation that you
suggested with respect to the diet pills and the psychotic snap
actually happened?

A: I'm not convinced that it actually happened.

Transcript of Continued Deposition of Joe McGinniss by Gary L.
Bostwick, October 30, 1986, pp. 130-133.

Most of the country actually believes Joe's fiction.


Best, Terry"
You can't possibly know whether MacD was addicted to amphetamines or anything else at the time. Nor can I, nor did McGinniss, who admitted he didn't know for sure.

But McG devised a reasonable theory given MacD's own words (always my favorite way to convict MacD again) and other contemporaneous evidence. MacD was at least abusing amphetamines -- again, by his own (intended-to-be-private) admission -- and it's not a big leap from there to addiction, conscious or unconscious.
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 13th September 2016, 03:45 AM   #2022
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
You can't possibly know whether MacD was addicted to amphetamines or anything else at the time. Nor can I, nor did McGinniss, who admitted he didn't know for sure.

But McG devised a reasonable theory given MacD's own words (always my favorite way to convict MacD again) and other contemporaneous evidence. MacD was at least abusing amphetamines -- again, by his own (intended-to-be-private) admission -- and it's not a big leap from there to addiction, conscious or unconscious.
The point is that you have said on this forum that MacDonald was addicted to diet pills containing amphetamines, and that is the cause of the MacDonald murders. What I am saying is that was patently untrue, and that McGinniss testified in the MacDonald v McGinniss case in 1987 that he didn't even believe it himself, though he tried to persuade the American public it was true.

Lots of people consume all sorts of drugs. There are reports of university students taking all sorts of legal and illegal highs to help them with their exams. That doesn't make them murderers.

Ted Gunderson honestly believed MacDonald was railroaded. There was a story that he stopped investigating the pals of Stoeckley, like Mitchell and Mazerolle because he was owed about $150000 by MacDonald. That was a pity. I believe it's possible to contribute to the MacDonald defense fund and that it is tax deductible, which is explained on MacDonald's website.

I can't remember now what JTF thinks about Brisentine, but Brisentine seems to have been ignored by Murtagh as the usual hearsay evidence. Brisentine testified at the 1979 trial. I seem to remember that Brisentine remarked once that it was highly unlikely that both Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry would have a similar story about the MacDonald case, and that both of them were not telling the truth. I agree that Cathy Perry embellished her story, rather like Helena's dripping blood statements.

This is some of what Brisentine said about the MacDonald case:

"a. That due to a "mental block" she does not remember her activities or whereabouts between 0030 and 0400 hours, 17 February 1970.

b. That during a period of three or four months subsequent to the homicides in the MacDONALD resident she was concerned that she participated in the murders of Mrs. MacDONALD, her two children.

c. That she presently is of the opinion that she did not actively participate in these homicides but may have been physically present at the time of the murders.

d. That prior to the homicides she had heard that the "hippie" element was angry with Cpt MacDONALD as he would not treat them by prescribing methadone for their addiction to drugs. Miss Stoeckley later retracted this statement and said that she only thinks that she heard of CPT MacDONALD before the murders.

e. That she had never to Cpt MacDONALD residence prior to the homicides.

f. That prior to the homicides she had visited Castle Drive, Fort Bragg, North Carolina for the purpose of delivering illicit drugs to an officer she knew only as "Bob."

g. That approximately 2400 hours, 16 February 1970, she and man named Greg MITCHELL consumed LSD and Mescaline(sp).

h. That she was using all types of drugs (Opiates-Heroin, Marijuana, depressants, stimulates, and hallegenics) prior to and immediately following the homicides.

i. That during April 1970, she was admitted to the University of North Carolina hospital for hepititus (sp) and drug addiction.

j. That as a result of excessive drug use during the time of the homicides she was not always oriented as regards, times, dates and surrounding.

k. That since the deaths of Mrs. MacDONALD and her children, she (Stoeckley) has suffered nightmares whenever she sleeps.

l. That due to these frightening dreams, she is afraid to sleep, causing insomnia.

m. That her original dreams portrayed the word "Pig" in blood on the headboard of Mrs. MacDONALD's bed. Miss STOECKLEY described her dream by printing the word "Pig" horizontally on the left side of a drawn picture of a bed headboard. She asserted that in her dreams the word "Pig" is always on the left side of the headboard.

n. That during the past three to four months her dreams places her on the couch in Cpt MacDONALD's living room, and that Cpt MacDONALD is pointing at her with one hand while holding an ice pick that is dripping blood with the other hand.

o. That during February 1970, she possessed and occasionally wore a pair of white boots, a "floppy" type hat and a blonde wig.

p. That following the homicides she discarded the boots, wig and hat.

q. That about the same time as the homicides she stole some floral wreathes from a florist in Fayetteville, North Carolina and displayed

page 2

them in front of her residence.

r. That one of the wreathes had the word "Mother" written on it's ribbon while one or more of the others wreathes had the name sister written on them.

s. That immediately following the homicides she wore black clothing and on the day of the funeral of Mrs. MacDONALD and her children, she (Miss STOECKLEY mediated and wore black clothing.

t. That she desired to attend the MacDONALD funerals but did not attend as none of her friends would accompany her.

u. That she went into hiding to evade police arrest subsequent to the homicides and considered fleeing from Fayetteville, North Carolina.

v. That she knew the identity of the persons who killed Mrs. MacDONALD and her children.

w. That if the Army would give her immunity from prosecution, she would furnish the identity of those offenders who committed the murder and explain the circumstances surrounding the homicides.

During the interview on 23 April 1971, Miss STOECKLEY repeatedly acknowledged knowing the identity of the persons who committed the murders in question. However; on 24 April 1971, Miss STOECKLEY related that she had been incorrect in her statements, had "talked too much", and that she only suspected some people of committing the homicides. At this time Miss STOECKLEY stated suspected Don HARRIS, a caucasian male who told her after the homicide that he must leave Fayetteville, North Carolina as he could find an alibi for the time of the murder; Bruce FOWLER, the owner of the blue Mustang automobile in which she (Miss STOECKLEY) was a passenger or driver on the night of the homicide; Janett FOWLER, the wife of Bruce FOWLER and was employed as a "Go-Go" dancer in Fayetteville, North Carolina at the time of the homicides; Joe Kelly, a negro soldier who was assigned to a Medical Holding Detachment at Womack Ary Hospital, Fort Bragg, North Carolina at the time of the homicides; and a negro male she knew only as "Eddie", who introduced her (Miss STOECKLEY) to heroin. At one time during the pre-test interview on 24 April 1971, Miss STOECKLEY asserted that she had been lying when she admitted knowing who committed the homicides and stated that Cpt MacDONALD had killed his family. Further, that her rationale was based on the fact that four "hippies" could not have entered Cpt MacDONALD's home without being observed by neighbors or causing dogs to bark. The examiner pointed out that the homicide was alleged to have occurred at about 0330 hours in the morning and it supposedly raining. Miss STOECKLEY immediately exclaimed that it had been drizzling rain during the night but that it did not start to rain hard until after the homicide. When the examiner inquires as to how she acquired this information, Miss STOECKLEY exclaimed "I have already said too much". Later during the interview Miss Stoeckley repeated her previous statement by saying she suspected "hippie type" individuals of the crime.

Based on a polygraph examination conducted on 24 April 1971, it is concluded that Miss STOECKLEY is convinced in her mind that she knows the identity of those person(s) who killed Collette, [sic] Kimberly, [sic] and Christine [sic] MacDONALD. It is further concluded that Miss STOECKLEY

page 3

in her mind is convienced/that she was physically present when the three members of the MacDONALD family were killed."
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 September 2016, 04:30 AM   #2023
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It is further concluded that Miss STOECKLEY in her mind is convienced/that she was physically present when the three members of the MacDONALD family were killed."
There is no physicial evidence placing her at the scene.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   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 September 2016, 08:18 AM   #2024
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post

Was Thurgood Marshall, whom you've lauded Stated for the umpteenth time, but never documented a political appointee?

Hank
The answer to your question is on the internet. Somebody has said on the internet that a third of all judges on the American Supreme Court are to become members of the Jewish race. I don't think they will give much practical encouragement to Jeff MacDonald. This is some background information:

"President Lyndon Johnson appoints U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Thurgood Marshall to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Tom C. Clark. On August 30 (1967), after a heated debate, the Senate confirmed Marshall’s nomination by a vote of 69 to 11. Two days later, he was sworn in by Chief Justice Earl Warren, making him the first African American in history to sit on America’s highest court.

The great-grandson of slaves, Marshall was born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1908. In 1933, after studying under the tutelage of civil liberties lawyer Charles H. Houston, he received his law degree from Howard University in Washington, D.C. In 1936, he joined the legal division of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), of which Houston was director, and two years later succeeded his mentor in the organization’s top legal post.

As the NAACP’s chief counsel from 1938 to 1961, he argued 32 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, successfully challenging racial segregation, most notably in public education. He won 29 of these cases, including a groundbreaking victory in 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and was thus illegal. The decision served as a great impetus for the African American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s and ultimately led to the abolishment of segregation in all public facilities and accommodations.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals, but his nomination was opposed by many Southern senators, and he was not confirmed until the next year. In June 1967, President Johnson nominated him to the Supreme Court, and in late August he was confirmed. During his 24 years on the high court, Associate Justice Marshall consistently challenged discrimination based on race or sex, opposed the death penalty, and supported the rights of criminal defendants. He also defended affirmative action and women’s right to abortion. As appointments by a largely Republican White House changed the politics of the Court, Marshall found his liberal opinions increasingly in the minority. He retired in 1991, and two years later passed away."
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 September 2016, 08:53 AM   #2025
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,380
So your answer is yes, Marshall was a political appointee.

That would have been simpler and easier than what you quoted.

So you're opposed to political appointees exactly why?

And how is that pertinent to MacDonald's case?

Hank

PS: You can't even quote me correctly.

You quoted me as saying (butchering it in the process): "Was Thurgood Marshall, whom you've lauded Stated for the umpteenth time, but never documented a political appointee?"

What I actually asked was" "Was Thurgood Marshall, whom you've lauded here, a political appointee?"

PPS: Are the rest of the issues I pointed out not worth responding to?
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th September 2016 at 08:55 AM.
HSienzant is online now   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 September 2016, 08:57 AM   #2026
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
There is no physicial evidence placing her at the scene.
I disagree with that. The blonde synthetic hair-like fibers are highly suspicious of Helena Stoeckley being placed at the scene. Those blond hairs were never disclosed to the judge or jury, or the MacDonald defense, before or during the 1979 trial by the MacDonald case trickster prosecution lawyers.

Malone of the FBI later made up a theory without facts that wigs don't contain saran, and that the fibers must have come from MacDonald dolls. That is not scientifically reliable. Her wig was never the sort of wig that might be used by an actress. It was a cheap sort of wig that was probably manufactured in the Far East, or China, and which she later discarded. This MacDonald doll theory has never been double checked. Malone has now been proved to have been a total liar in other cases. Malone has been under investigation by the Department of Justice for years and years and it will probably all be covered up as usual.

It's true that in many of these difficult murders that there are no forensics at all, like DNA or fingerprints. Clever criminals, like Mazerolle, wear gloves and keep their mouths shut, and falsify their jail records. The cops then have to rely on other circumstantial evidence, like confessions and eyewitnesses, and investigating alibis, in order to prosecute.

The matter is discussed at the MacDonald website at:

www.themacdonaldcase.org/Case_Overview.html

"Suppressed Evidence on the Bodies of Kimberley and Kristen

A brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberley's bloody fingernail. This hair was found not be Jeffrey MacDonald's. It remains a foreign hair in the hand of a murder victim, and was unreported. (CID Lab Note R-11) The DNA lab could not get a full typing from this hair.
A bloody hair, root intact, under the nail of 2 year old Kristen was not presented at trial and only disclosed via DNA testing- it remains unsourced. (CID Lab Note R-11)

Additional Suppressed Evidence

Blonde, synthetic wig hairs, 22 inches in length, were found in a clear-handled hair brush on a table near the living room where MacDonald said he saw the blonde female and near the phone, which Helena Stoeckley said she answered. These wig hairs would have been critical to MacDonald's defense. Army investigator William Ivory knew Helena Stoeckley wore a blonde wig, which matched the descriptions given by MacDonald and MP Kenneth Mica, but didn't reveal the presence of these long blonde wig hairs at the crime scene. (CID Lab Notes April 20 and May 7, 1971, items E-323 and Q75)

A bloody, adult palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed on the morning of the murders, near Colette MacDonald's body. The print did not match palm prints of either Jeffrey or Colette MacDonald, nor could it be matched to palm prints from persons known to have been at the crime scene that morning. Despite extensive efforts by the FBI, the source of this bloody palm print remains unidentified. (CID Lab Reports, CID Lab Notes, a prosecution memo, and FBI Report on Palm Print 3X30)"
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 September 2016, 04:19 PM   #2027
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Prove It

HENRIBOY: Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

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 14th September 2016, 03:22 AM   #2028
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
You don't seem to know how these difficult murders are solved. It's often by routine police work, like going around and asking questions and 'information received' type police work rather than by brilliant detection, or by DNA and fingerprints.

The blond synthetic hair like fibers and the black wool fibers with no known source, and the candle wax, are highly suspicious of intruders. That evidence was never presented to the court during the 1979 trial.

Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were bad judges. They were not impartial, and they allowed an innocent man to be convicted by false testimony. The 4th Circuit judges just rubber stamped Dupree and Judge Fox, without weighing the evidence themselves. Only three judges at the Supreme Court had right judgment in the MacDonald case.

It was bad and dishonest police work by the FBI. Mitchell and Mazerolle and Bruce Fowler and Dwight Smith and Don Harris were never thoroughly or properly investigated by the FBI or by the Army CID, or I admit, by Gunderson or Detective Beasley.

This is some background information about that total liar Malone of the FBI, who was involved with the MacDonald case, from the internet:

"When then-Inspector General Michael Bromwich released his 517- page report in April 1997, he hammered Malone for "testifying falsely."

The report stopped short of accusing anyone of fabrication of evidence, as Whitehurst alleged, but it criticized 12 other agents, including Whitehurst, for errors in testimony and scientifically flawed reports in some of the most celebrated criminal cases of the century.

Suddenly, Malone found himself in the downdraft of celebrity, avoiding reporters who, he says now, were unfairly trashing him.

Bromwich recommended that Malone be disciplined, but the "false testimony" allegation ultimately went nowhere. The FBI defended him, saying he might have been misleading but "was not intentionally deceptive."

The Justice Department agreed. Saying the Hastings case was too old and the mistakes too small, prosecutors declined to discipline Malone or even give him a letter of censure.

He again voluntarily transferred, this time to the Richmond field office to be near his aging mother-in-law. The FBI kept assigning him big cases and prosecutors kept praising him.

Still, his work in up to 5,000 cases - including 500 trials (more in Florida than anywhere) - became suspect.

"Oh, my God,' Nick Cox, a former Hillsborough prosecutor, remembers telling himself. "This is going to be unbelievable. A gob of cases are going to be in trouble."

In Lake County, Malone fended off a charge he embellished evidence against James Duckett, a former police officer on Florida's death row for raping and killing an 11-year-old girl.

And he shrugged off a new nickname: Jay C. Smith, a former Pennsylvania school principal freed from death row, dubbed Malone "Agent Death" because, Smith says, Malone could find hair and fiber evidence where none existed.

By the fall of 1999, new reports trickled in from the Justice Department, showing Malone had made forensic errors in at least four Tampa Bay area homicide cases. But like past obstacles, the new ones didn't prove to be a problem. In December 1999, Malone quietly retired, leaving the FBI on good terms, with a full pension.

'Dumbo or Rambo?'

There was no graceful exit for Whitehurst, however.

Inspector General Bromwich criticized him for some of the same mistakes the chemist had laid at his colleagues' door: failing to document forensic tests, overstating allegations, using "hyperbole and incendiary language that blurred the distinction between facts and his own speculation."

Investigators depicted him as a G. Gordon Liddy type, some sort of loose cannon or war casualty still haunted by memories of Vietnam.

In tacit acknowledgement that some of Whitehurst's criticisms were well-founded, the FBI ordered reforms in the lab. But Whitehurst himself was suspended, escorted from the FBI building and stripped of his gun and gold badge."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th September 2016 at 03:28 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 14th September 2016, 04:14 AM   #2029
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blond synthetic hair like fibers and the black wool fibers with no known source, and the candle wax, are highly suspicious of intruders. That evidence was never presented to the court during the 1979 trial.
You do realize that "not presented to the court" does not mean "not disclosed to the defence", don't you?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   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 14th September 2016, 06:06 AM   #2030
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Henri cannot put up or shut up...as sad as that is (the not being able to shut up part) because there is absolutely no SOURCED evidence to support is rambling nonsensical position. Obviously he cannot shut up or he'd have stopped posting a long time ago since he's been PROVEN WRONG time after time yet he comes back with his "lather, rinse, repeat" posts that are just as incorrect as every other time.......
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 14th September 2016, 08:51 AM   #2031
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
You do realize that "not presented to the court" does not mean "not disclosed to the defence", don't you?
The reason the exculpatory evidence was not presented to the court is because it was not disclosed to the defence. There are numerous affidavits on the internet by Segal and Dr. Thornton explaining that they were never told about the black wool fibers with no known source, and the blonde synthetic hairs, and all the rest of it. They were given typewritten reports by Murtagh which deliberately left out the exculpatory evidence. The jury were never told about it.

It was only because MacDonald lawyers found out about the exculpatory evidence in later years by the Freedom of Information Act that it ever came to light.

The matter is mentioned in an article on the internet from 2012. This is edited by me:

Quote:
BY MARGO HOWARD
October 26, 2012

Americans love a good procedural, and the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case is right up there with O.J. Simpson in the true crime genre. Ever since MacDonald, a Green Beret doctor at Fort Bragg, was arrested for allegedly murdering his wife and two young daughters over 40 years ago, Americans have been captivated by the sordid tale, and bitterly divided over its meaning.


The result of the military's initial investigation was that the evidence and charges against MacDonald were "not true," so he was released. But in 1975 his formerly supportive father-in-law, with an assist from the writer Joe McGinniss (who was soon to publish a book arguing MacDonald's guilt) succeeded in getting MacDonald indicted in a civilian court. In 1979 he was tried and found guilty. MacDonald has been imprisoned for the duration of the interim, though he and his supporters have never ceased claiming his innocence. The fervor of these claims—at a parole hearing, MacDonald was told if he admitted guilt and showed remorse, he would be freed; he wouldn't do it—still compels the public's attention.
...
Edited by jsfisher:  <snip> Copied content redacted for compliance with Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement. Quote tags added for readability. Original content available here.

Last edited by jsfisher; 15th September 2016 at 06:19 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 14th September 2016, 08:54 AM   #2032
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Henri what part of "there was no exculpatory evidence" are you NOT understanding? IF exculpatory evidence existed IT WOULD BE THE DEFENSE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESENT IT. So, despite the prosecution providing all the evidence to the defense as required, no "exculpatory evidence" was presented therefore there was no exculpatory evidence to present. it really is that simple henri.
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 14th September 2016, 07:16 PM   #2033
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Prove It

HENRIBOY: Your attempts to avoid my challenge are futile. I'm no longer going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

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 15th September 2016, 05:05 AM   #2034
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Your attempts to avoid my challenge are futile. I'm no longer going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Come on henri.......you are so determined to continue to insist their was exculpatory evidence but you have never ever not even once been able to provide documented reliable corroborated evidence to support your claims. JTF has asked you a direct question, so answer it or go away......
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 15th September 2016, 08:36 AM   #2035
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRIBOY: Your attempts to avoid my challenge are futile. I'm no longer going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There never has been any conclusive evidence against the real culprits in the MacDonald case. Whether that is due to the poor investigation by the Army CID and FBI, or whether it's because clever criminals are careful not to leave behind DNA and fingerprints is open to legal argument.

There are blond synthetic hairs and black wool fibers from no known source, and candle wax which didn't come from MacDonald candles, and a surgical glove fragment which didn't come from MacDonald gloves, but that is not conclusive evidence.

That murderer Tommy Lynn Sells who boasted he had murdered at least 50 men women and children before he was executed in 2014 was always very careful not to leave behind any forensics at his murder scenes. He also boasted that there are several people in prison now wrongly convicted as a result of his murders. Police and prosecutors in Illinois seem particularly prone to become attached to a theory, and then prosecute the wrong man or woman. It could happen to anybody and unfortunately for Jeff MacDonald it happened to him.

The Boston mafia boss Whitey Bulger was never relentlessly pursued by the FBI until he was an old man because he had been an informant for the FBI in days gone by.

It's possible to get away with murder and prosper in New Jersey as Mazerolle has proved. It's the same with Fleet White and Chris Wolf and Santa Bill in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Mitchell was never caught, or Dwight Smith, though they did come under suspicion. It's not something I would ever risk because I would end up in a police cell in no time at all.

The evidence against MacDonald is quite ludicrously unsatisfactory. It's Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be and the same with the threads.

Judges are not always competent and just. Judges are not competent and just in the MacDonald case. The FBI is sticking to a mistake through thick and thin. The American public believes anything Joe McGinniss has said about the MacDonald case. There needs to be some genius detectives on the MacDonald case. It's just it seems there aren't any. There needs to be some professional criminal investigators on the case who can get it right, and a careful investigation, but I suppose that costs money.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th September 2016 at 08:48 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2016, 09:15 AM   #2036
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
<snip>
Would it not have been faster to say "I have no evidence, only my unfounded belief that all the judges, juries, prosecutors and defence counsel involved in this case got it wrong"?
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   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 15th September 2016, 08:02 PM   #2037
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Prove It

HENRIBOY: Your attempts to avoid my challenge are futile. I'm no longer going to let you off the hook. Since you religiously avoid the FACT that two District Court judges and three Circuit Court judges have determined that no exculpatory evidence exists in this case, I challenge you to provide a single lab document that SOURCES a fiber, hair, print and/or DNA profile to a known intruder suspect. This is a singular challenge and DOES NOT include your opinion or the opinion of another MacDonald advocate. It's time to put up or shut up.

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 15th September 2016, 08:26 PM   #2038
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 835
Case Talk

For those not named Henriboy, pretty weak stuff from Joey Z in his reply to the government's brief. Like Henriboy, however, Joey Z makes claims that are in stark contrast to documented fact. For example, he continues to insist that a hair was found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy. Ah, NO.

The only trace evidence found under the fingernails of Kristen was a fiber sourced to inmate's pajama top. There is a big, fat blank in the section of the CID report that lists hairs under Kristen's fingernail. The ONLY document linking hairs found in the hands of Kristen is Glisson lab note R-11.

That document was produced almost 6 months after Kristen's autopsy and no prior document made mention of this 5mm hair fragment. No mention of it in the pathologist's report nor any mention in the CID reports. No wonder the government concluded that this hair was the result of lab contamination. Unlike the pajama fiber, this hair was clearly an extraneous artifact.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/dna.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 16th September 2016, 02:41 AM   #2039
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
For those not named Henriboy, pretty weak stuff from Joey Z in his reply to the government's brief. Like Henriboy, however, Joey Z makes claims that are in stark contrast to documented fact. For example, he continues to insist that a hair was found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy. Ah, NO.

The only trace evidence found under the fingernails of Kristen was a fiber sourced to inmate's pajama top. There is a big, fat blank in the section of the CID report that lists hairs under Kristen's fingernail. The ONLY document linking hairs found in the hands of Kristen is Glisson lab note R-11.

That document was produced almost 6 months after Kristen's autopsy and no prior document made mention of this 5mm hair fragment. No mention of it in the pathologist's report nor any mention in the CID reports. No wonder the government concluded that this hair was the result of lab contamination. Unlike the pajama fiber, this hair was clearly an extraneous artifact.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/dna.html
Any hairs under Kristen's fingernail went unreported, so I can't quite see how JTF can be so sure there were never any hairs under Kristen's fingernail. Joey Z may be on to something that I, or JTF, don't know about. It's possible there was a pajama fiber found under Kristen's fingernail as a result of Jeff MacDonald carrying her into her bedroom after Kristen's urine stain in the master bedroom, which later magically became Kimberley's urine stain according to the Army CID to somehow prove the moving bodies theory.

In the initial and preliminary investigation Ivory 'lost' a piece of skin from under somebody's fingernail when he said he was transporting it to the lab. That would have provided crucial DNA evidence one way or the other if it was still around now.

The police and FBI are apt to jump to conclusions. You assume nothing in a murder investigation.

One good thing Cameron did when he was in charge in the UK was to appoint elected crime commissioners for police forces around the country to prevent the police investigating the police, or the Israeli army investigating the Israeli army, or the FBI investigating the FBI, or the CIA investigating the CIA. I was skeptical about that at first because I thought that those amateurs would know nothing about routine police work. Imagine my surprise when my own local crime commissioner fired three local chief constables in the space of a few years. At least there was no fear or favor there. That crime commissioner was elected again a few months ago.

There is a bit about this sort of thing from an old English law book published in 1932:

"Magistrates are apt to think that their main duty is to convict and punish guilty persons, and that the rules of evidence and procedures which they have sworn to observe are mere red tape, hindering them in their work. Not only do most of them make no attempt to rid their minds of what they know about a case before proceeding to hear it, but they pride themselves on their inside information, and pass it on to their colleagues.

Women magistrates are especially bad in dealing with matrimonial and affiliation cases. As a rule they have either a violent prejudice against their own sex or else they think the sole purpose of their being put on the bench is that they make separation and affiliation orders for the benefit of women or girls. Women magistrates too, are even more prone than men to convict on insufficient evidence in charges of offences against children, a class of case where the evidence needs exceedingly careful sifting. Women magistrates are like women drivers, either very good or very bad, but usually the latter."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th September 2016 at 02:43 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 16th September 2016, 02:52 AM   #2040
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,995
There is a mention of Ivory's lost skin in one of Segal's affidavits in 1984:

5)" During the entire course of my representation, I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of clothing or boots. Moreover, Army Captain James A. Douthat was under no duty to the defense team to keep the defense informed after his official representation of Dr. MacDonald ended at the conclusion of the Article 32 proceeding.

(6) Although at the Article 32 hearing the defense was aware of the possibility that a small fragment of skin had been found under Colette MacDonald's fingernail, the CID laboratory reports furnished to the defense team led the defense to believe that this skin never existed. The lab report stated: "Re-examination of Exhibits D-233 through D-239, E-4 and E-5 (fingernail scraping from the left and right hands of Colette, Kimberly, Kristen and Jeffrey MacDonald, debris from Colette MacDonald's right and left hands, did not reveal the presence of any skin particles."

(7) The defense never received copies of Ivory's statements regarding the skin. Therefore, replying on the representation in the lab reports the defense believed that what had appeared to be skin to the naked eye of Dr. Gammel was not actually skin. Moreover, the defense did not incorporate the fact of the lost skin in the Kassab/Malley allegations as the defense was not aware of the loss of the skin."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.