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 18th October 2020, 11:43 PM   #1841
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Al sorts of people have made all sorts of claims about these murders yet somehow a bunch of deranged, high "Hippie" home invaders managed to get into the house and kill 3 people in a particularly horrid way and not leave a trace of themselves. Whatever.

The crap is MacDonald's absurd story, which from the get go makes no sense. That so many journalists and lawyers fell and continue to fall for it is hilarious.
The crime scene investigation in the MacDonald murders is now used as an example in Detective schools as an example of how not to do it. You go by the evidence in these cases not just by your opinions in favor of the prosecution:

"Jeffery MacDonald- The Crime Scene

It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.
Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly
secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.
The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to
determine the original position of the bodies.
They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in
the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long
before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.
They also allowed the trash to be picked up without being checked for evidence!
The investigators indicated that MacDonald picked up an overturned flower pot, but Kenneth
Mica, MP, stated it was not MacDonald. At the Army hearing, 6 months after the crime, Mica
testified MacDonald was taken to the hospital early in morning.
Shortly after that, a long haired man wearing jeans and a field jacket, uprighted the overturned
flower pot. Then he sat down on the couch in the living room!
No one knows who this man was, when he came or left.
He was not part of the investigative team.
The children were still on their back when MacDonald was taken to the hospital, but they were
photographed on their sides.
At the scene a medic described seeing wounds in Kristen’s back. These wounds were not
exposed in the photographs or when the bodies were on their backs, as MacDonald last saw
them. This brings up the question of “how many people had the opportunity to change the
positions of the bodies? And why would anyone do that?” Jeffery MacDonald- The Crime Scene
It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.
Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly
secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.
The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to
determine the original position of the bodies.
They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in
the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long
before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.
They also allowed the trash to be picked up without being checked for evidence!
The investigators indicated that MacDonald picked up an overturned flower pot, but Kenneth
Mica, MP, stated it was not MacDonald. At the Army hearing, 6 months after the crime, Mica
testified MacDonald was taken to the hospital early in morning.
Shortly after that, a long haired man wearing jeans and a field jacket, uprighted the overturned
flower pot. Then he sat down on the couch in the living room!
No one knows who this man was, when he came or left.
He was not part of the investigative team.
The children were still on their back when MacDonald was taken to the hospital, but they were
photographed on their sides.
At the scene a medic described seeing wounds in Kristen’s back. These wounds were not
exposed in the photographs or when the bodies were on their backs, as MacDonald last saw
them. This brings up the question of “how many people had the opportunity to change the
positions of the bodies? And why would anyone do that?”
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 12:02 AM   #1842
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

Judge Dupree invited O’Neill to respond, “Mr. Murtagh is correct. There is a phenomenon of aberrant mental patients, people who read about an event and are looking to take part in this event through this bizarre phenomenon of claiming. Wacky as it is, we know it exists.” Id. Stoeckley, Mitchell, and Perry, are all examples of this phenomenon, and they all have the common denominator of substance abuse.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't think O'Neill was up to much as a criminal defense lawyer. It was only because MacDonald was fearfully aggrieved with Segal at the time.

The police are apt to jump to conclusions and to be idle and incompetent in investigating murders. In many of these murders there is at first a prime suspect which then often changes when more information comes in. You don't have to stick to the same suspect through thick and thin.

I think O'Neill would have done better to have challenged the corrupt bias in the case, and the forensic fraud by the FBI, and Blackburn talking a lot of fraud to the jury about pajama fibers on the murder weapon and Murtagh withholding crucial forensic evidence from the MacDonald defense and jury.

MacDonald needed a senior judge who could put his foot down about that and not be so absurdly credulous as to how innocent Stoeckley and Mitchell and Mazerolle were supposed to be. Fancy judge Dupree writing in the 1985 appeal that Michell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere! It's absurd. Stoeckley was as guilty as hell and it's not just me who thinks that.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 01:04 AM   #1843
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Partaking In Nonsense

HENRI: Your long winded post reeks of the kind of nonsense posted by MacDonald advocates in the late 90's/early 2000's. Just for shi... ah, fecal matter and giggles.

QUOTE: It was as if the crime was put in the charge of amateurs instead of trained investigators.

COMMENT: Franz Grebner had 19 years of experience as a CID investigator and William Ivory/Robert Shaw did an outstanding job in the supervision/collection of the physical evidence.

QUOTE: Many people, including civilians, roamed through the crime scene that was never properly secured, greatly interfering with the collection of evidence.

COMMENT: Greatly interfering, eh? More nonsense.

QUOTE: The agents did not draw lines around the bodies prior to this examination, making it difficult to determine the original position of the bodies.

COMMENT: Prior to what examination? It was not difficult to determine the original position of the bodies of Colette/Kimmie, and investigators determined that the baby bottle near Kristen's mouth was moved prior to the processing of crime scene photographs.

QUOTE: They moved things in the kitchen, made coffee using MacDonald's coffee pot, washed dishes in the sink, used the toilet, sat on the furniture, read magazines and listened to their stereo, long before all the evidence was collected or the investigation was complete.

COMMENT: CID investigators and lab technicians from Fort Gordon spent 4 days collecting evidence at 544 Castle Drive. The author of this list of mistakes makes no mention of the fact that 95 percent of the inculpatory evidence was collected in the 3 bedrooms.

QUOTE: Shortly after that, a long haired man wearing jeans and a field jacket, uprighted the overturned flower pot. Then he sat down on the couch in the living room! No one knows who this man was, when he came or left.

COMMENT: To quote a line from the movie Diehard, "You're late to the party, pal." The man who uprighted the flower pot and sat on the couch was one of the ambulance drivers.

QUOTE: The children were still on their back when MacDonald was taken to the hospital, but they were photographed on their sides.

COMMENT: This claim reminds me of an old joke, "What is brown and sounds like a bell? Dung!"

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th October 2020 at 01:07 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 05:05 AM   #1844
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Some of those silly and ill-informed jurors said after the MacDonald trial that the reason they convicted was because there was no blood or pajama fibers found in the living room. That is patently untrue because blood and pajama fibers were found at the entrance to the living room where MacDonald says he fell unconscious. Murtagh now admits this himself in the prosecution response to the 2012 hearing:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...aring_memo.pdf

"Shaw had seen at the end of the hallway. Shaw stated, “I remember seeing a tangled bunch or
ball of threads or fibers. As I recall they were a blue color.” TTr. 2480-81.55
During cross-examination Ivory was asked if there was a speck of blood on the step leading
to the hallway, and stated that there was. TTr. 2056-2057. On direct examination, Shaw
described searching the living room for possible blood stains with Craig Chamberlain. “There
was a spot on the entrance to the hallway—that would really be the hallway floor. There was a
spot there we collected. TTr. 2377. During the cross-examination of Chemist Craig
Chamberlain, Segal sought to adduce that there was a “place in the living room in the
MacDonald house where there was blood recovered and which was later on subject to
examination for dried blood stains in the laboratory.” TTr. 3474. Segal could not recall the
exhibit number, which Chamberlain needed in order to find the results in his notes. TTr. 3474.
Chamberlain also asked Segal to define what he meant by “living room.” TTr. 3475. After
much back and forth, Segal asked Government counsel to supply the exhibit number. TTr. 3476-
3478. Prosecutor Murtagh stated, “I believe counsel is referring to D-144, which... Mr.
Chamberlain would know by the same number.” TTr. 3478. Chamberlain then testified, “[t]here
was a stain on the hall floor as I described it at the west entrance to the living room.” TTr. 3479.
Segal then had Chamberlain mark on the crime scene model (GX 1) where Exhibit D-144 was
55 MacDonald now points to the Government’s final argument that “no blue pajama top threads and yarns” and “no
Type B blood” were found in the area of the living room, where MacDonald claimed to have been attacked, as being
an improper suggestion “that proved the lie to [MacDonald’s] account.” DE-126 at 7, 23; DE-343 at 87.
MacDonald’s claim is based on two assertions: that based upon Shaw’s testimony, supra, MacDonald’s pajama top
“fibers” were found on floor of the hall at entrance to the living room, and post-trial release of USACIL reports
under FOIA “show that ‘Type B’ in Exhibit D-144 was found precisely where Macdonald said he struggled.” Id.
Neither of these factual assertions withstands close scrutiny. There was no further testimony elicited at trial to
establish what these threads or fibers described by Shaw were made of or whether any of them matched the
composition of MacDonald’s pajama top. In 1974, Specimen Q94 (#32), described as a “Vial w/ yarns from hall,”
was examined at the FBI Lab by Shirley Green. GX 3062.99. As her notes reflect, she mounted 1 slide of fibers,
and placed in a pillbox “1 long drk blue yn (9", 1 ply Z, del acrylic-not like Q12).” Id. (emphasis added). “Q12"
was the FBI’s exhibit number for MacDonald’s pajama top (GX 101). In other words, Green found a 9 inch long
dark blue delustered acrylic yarn which was dissimilar to MacDonald’s pajama top. Id. Regarding D-144, see supra
at 76, and infra at 104 n.56."

MacDonald was convicted on false evidence. MacDonald was supported by police in California and the nuns from his hospital in California.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2020 at 05:11 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 19th October 2020, 12:08 PM   #1845
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
The Game Remains The Same

HENRI: When you began posting on this case in the early 2000's, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to you genuinely believing in MacDonald's innocence. Fast forward to 2020, and your posts indicate and/or demonstrate that there is not a genuine bone in your body. Your intent was to simply create a persona whose only goal is to take contrarianism to new heights. You clearly enjoy this little game of repeatedly copying/pasting defense related claims that have been addressed/debunked for decades. So be it.

QUOTE: Some of those silly and ill-informed jurors said after the MacDonald trial that the reason they convicted was because there was no blood or pajama fibers found in the living room. That is patently untrue because blood and pajama fibers were found at the entrance to the living room where MacDonald says he fell unconscious.

COMMENT: There was not a single fiber sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top nor a drop of his Type B blood found IN the living room. I repeat, no pajama fibers or Type B blood was found IN the living room. In terms of evidence found on the hallway floor, yup, there was a single spot of Type B OR Type O blood on the top step of the stairs at the end of the hallway and 2 pajama fibers were found in that same area. Ya know what else was found in the hallway? Two bloody footprints matching exemplars from MacDonald's left foot were found on the hallway floor. The two bloody footprints were formed in Colette's Type A blood and both footprints were exiting Kristen's bedroom. There were also several drops of Kimmie's Type AB blood found on the hallway floor. Those blood drops formed a trail that began at the entrance to the master bedroom and ended at the entrance to Kimmie's bedroom.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th October 2020 at 12:20 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 01:29 PM   #1846
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The crime scene investigation in the MacDonald murders is now used as an example in Detective schools as an example of how not to do it. snipped
First of all, wtf is "Detective school?" It for sure isn't in the curriculum at FLETC:

https://www.fletc.gov/training-catalog

And unless you've got an actual cite that an accredited institution (FLECT would be a great start) used the JM investigation as a negative example, I'm calling ******** on your post. It's in the same realm as your earlier assertion that JM was the "go-to" doctor for SoCal SWAT units.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 19th October 2020 at 01:30 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 01:36 PM   #1847
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Snipped MacDonald was supported by police in California and the nuns from his hospital in California.
I should have read the thread before posting above - I could have killed two silly posts in one go.

The Juror's who heard the case and viewed the evidence quite rightly convicted your mancrush.

The less anyone knows about the actual evidence, the more they like JM - you being the primary example at hand
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 02:53 PM   #1848
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
First of all, wtf is "Detective school?" It for sure isn't in the curriculum at FLETC:

https://www.fletc.gov/training-catalog
In the past in the UK detectives used to be given training in dealing with crime scenes. I grant you that may no longer be the case. There was a fashion a few years ago for rotation which meant that a detective would rotate from murder squad to traffic cop to patrol officer which resulted in a lack of detectives who were in murder. That could be the reason why the Madeleine McCann case now lacks good murder investigators.

There is a good website about the MacDonald case at:

https://www.crimetraveller.org/2017/...e-of-the-case/

"For example, as detailed earlier, candle wax had been discovered on one of the slats of the upturned coffee table in the living room. The laboratory had tested this wax and found it to be recent and did not match the wax from any of the 14 candles found in the home. MacDonald had said from the very beginning, that one of the intruders was a woman “carrying a flickering light” which he assumed to be a candle.

When questioned on the candle wax, William Ivory replied, “as I recall, that wax that was found there was old wax on the table and it was similar to some candle wax of candles found within the house.” Defense attorney Segal was aware that this statement from Ivory contradicted the CID laboratory report given to Colonel Rock at the army hearing in 1970. But, since Judge Dupree had ruled the “Rock Report” inadmissible in court, Segal was unable to show the jurors that Ivory’s statement was a lie. He was not allowed to present the report, or mention anything from it.

As William Ivory remained on the witness stand, the prosecution brought in the exhibits. These included – “vials, bloody bedsheets, photographs, flipcharts of body outlines, pieces of rugs, sections of wall, boards sawn out of the floors, surgical gloves, magazines, a bed slat, and a pocket torn off MacDonald’s pajama top.” As each new exhibit was carried into open court and placed on a table, the prosecution made use of grandstanding and showmanship, by calling out the name and details of each – as though each individual item proved that MacDonald, and no one else, was somehow guilty."

That website is most severe in its criticism of the FBI pajama folding experiment in the MacDonald case. Personally, I am a bit in disagreement with MacDonald's forensic scientist, Dr. Thornton, who testified that the pajama top must have been moving when the holes were made. That muddied the waters, in my opinion.. My own theory is that either Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry COULD have stabbed the pajama top with an ice pick when MacDonald was stationary unconscious on the ground.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2020 at 02:56 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 19th October 2020, 04:05 PM   #1849
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
The Debunking Continues

HENRI: Meet the new debunked claims, same as the old debunked claims. Sorry, I'm a huge Who fan.

QUOTE: For example, as detailed earlier, candle wax had been discovered on one of the slats of the upturned coffee table in the living room. The laboratory had tested this wax and found it to be recent and did not match the wax from any of the 14 candles found in the home.

COMMENT: The CID lab reports on the candle wax found underneath the coffee table determined that the wax was old, brittle, and mixed with debris.

QUOTE: MacDonald had said from the very beginning, that one of the intruders was a woman “carrying a flickering light” which he assumed to be a candle.

COMMENT: In other interviews, MacDonald claimed he was never sure that the source of the flickering light was a candle.

QUOTE: When questioned on the candle wax, William Ivory replied, “as I recall, that wax that was found there was old wax on the table and it was similar to some candle wax of candles found within the house.” Defense attorney Segal was aware that this statement from Ivory contradicted the CID laboratory report given to Colonel Rock at the army hearing in 1970. But, since Judge Dupree had ruled the “Rock Report” inadmissible in court, Segal was unable to show the jurors that Ivory’s statement was a lie.

COMMENT: Long story short, Ivory's testimony mirrored the CID lab report, so the author of this claim is either ignorant or a liar.

QUOTE: As William Ivory remained on the witness stand, the prosecution brought in the exhibits. These included – “vials, bloody bedsheets, photographs, flipcharts of body outlines, pieces of rugs, sections of wall, boards sawn out of the floors, surgical gloves, magazines, a bed slat, and a pocket torn off MacDonald’s pajama top.” As each new exhibit was carried into open court and placed on a table, the prosecution made use of grandstanding and showmanship, by calling out the name and details of each – as though each individual item proved that MacDonald, and no one else, was somehow guilty.

COMMENT: Long story short, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary exhibits that were sourced to members of the MacDonald household and the MacDonald household only.

QUOTE: My own theory is that either Helena Stoeckley or Cathy Perry COULD have stabbed the pajama top with an ice pick when MacDonald was stationary unconscious on the ground.

COMMENT: Long story short, there is no evidence that Stoeckley or Perry ever stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive. No DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no fingerprints, nothing, nada, zip.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2020, 11:55 PM   #1850
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI:

QUOTE: For example, as detailed earlier, candle wax had been discovered on one of the slats of the upturned coffee table in the living room. The laboratory had tested this wax and found it to be recent and did not match the wax from any of the 14 candles found in the home.

COMMENT: The CID lab reports on the candle wax found underneath the coffee table determined that the wax was old, brittle, and mixed with debris.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
At the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 Browning, the forensic chemist at the Army CID lab testified that candlewax which had come from Helena Stoeckley was in no way similar to the candles, or candlewax which came from the MacDonald family. It only became similar to MacDonald candles after the forensic fraudsters at the FBI had a go at the problem and Judge Dupree prevented the jury from hearing what was said about the matter at the Article 32 on the grounds that the information was ten years old!:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-browning.html

Q We've also talked about wax, and you've compared the wax in these exhibits against six candles, you say?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you know whether there are other candles yet to be compared against?
A Yes, last Thursday I received six more candles from the apartment for comparison. I have not done analytical work on these as yet.
Q Are any of those candles multi-colored?
A Yes, one is multi-colored.

CPT SOMERS: I have nothing further.

Questions by MR. EISMAN:
Q So the point of your testimony today, your testimony is that the wax found is not similar to any wax found on the candles you have been supplied thus far by the criminal investigation. Is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q And the reason why -- isn't it preferable to have the hair samples from the head of the person you are trying to compare it with?
A Yes, I would prefer this.
Q And in this case they were not provided because someone did not take hair samples. Is that correct?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th October 2020 at 11:59 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 20th October 2020, 03:51 AM   #1851
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 31
I think Henri is what in the old days was known as a "stirrer" ("a person who deliberately causes trouble by spreading rumours or gossip", Oxford Dictionary).

Maybe it's just a hobby, but his proliferation of fake news these days instead of proven facts, is disappointing. I was brought up to believe that it was better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Not a good look at all. Anyway, the killer is still guilty and in a cage where he belongs.
GiSEQ 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 20th October 2020, 09:16 AM   #1852
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Cavalier hand-waving snipped
You can't prove your assertion that the JM case is taught as an example of bad "detective" work.

We can add that assertion to the long list of falsehoods you've posted in this thread.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2020, 10:23 AM   #1853
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
I think Henri is what in the old days was known as a "stirrer" ("a person who deliberately causes trouble by spreading rumours or gossip", Oxford Dictionary).

Maybe it's just a hobby, but his proliferation of fake news these days instead of proven facts, is disappointing. I was brought up to believe that it was better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Not a good look at all. Anyway, the killer is still guilty and in a cage where he belongs.
I notice on some other anti-MacDonald forums that some posters are now raising the libel matter of MacDonald supposedly having sexually assaulted the two little girls because Freddie Kassab and Bob Stevenson thought so, as well as their discredited amphetamine psychosis theory. This seems to coincide with this American crap Smerling TV documentary. There was never any medical or any other evidence of such sexual assault.

The matter was never raised at the Article 32 or the Grand Jury or the trial. There were never any violent arguments in the MacDonald family. Bob Stevenson, Colette's brother, still seems to believe the Army CID theory without facts that his sister Colette murdered one of the little girls. He can't be well.

Something needs to be done about Murtagh coaching witnesses. It's a mistrial. The North Carolina judicial system is like a third world country. The innocent should not get convicted.

There is a bit about all this in the British book The Rule of Law by Tom Bingham:

"There are countries in the world where all judicial decisions find favour with the powers that be, but they are probably not places where any of us would wish to live."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th October 2020 at 11:11 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 20th October 2020, 10:50 AM   #1854
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
FIFY
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2020, 11:08 AM   #1855
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You can't prove your assertion that the JM case is taught as an example of bad "detective" work.

We can add that assertion to the long list of falsehoods you've posted in this thread.
I can assure you that Segal did make that remark about the crime scene once but I never noted an exact reference then. It seems to be no longer available on the internet. This is what I wrote in 2013 on this forum when I first seem to have mentioned the matter, and I stand by this:

Henri McPhee 19th September 2013 11:20 PM

"Americans are an emotional people rather like most Britishers are sentimental softheads........

Just because the two little girls suffered horrific injuries doesn't mean that Dr. MacDonald did it. The Army CID failed to photograph Dr. MacDonald's injuries until many months later when his injuries had practically healed . That was poor police work.

A military policeman knelt on the pajama top when he first arrived at the scene which must have shed pajama fibers all over the place, and even under bodies. We don't know for certain if any bodies were moved at the same time. There was no proper crime scene manager or protection of the crime scene. Segal once remarked that the MacDonald case crime scene is now used in police training schools as an example of how not to do it.

A complete stranger sat on the couch before it had been examined for blood spots or pajama fibers. It's just like saying Dr. MacDonald could not have made the emergency phone call because none of his fingerprints were found on the phone.

The surgical glove fragment was described by a world expert at the trial to be "exceedingly unlikely" to have come from a MacDonald surgical glove. The bath mat was moved when Dr. MacDonald was in hospital.

Hairs and fibers have been described as junk science in the past. It's exceedingly weak evidence and in the MacDonald case there are doubts about accuracy. Browning of the Army CID at first described the blonde synthetic hair-like hairs as female which can't be scientifically correct. The FBI lab technician Kathy Bond talked about "pajama-like" fibers which isn't a definite opinion to me."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th October 2020 at 11:16 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2020, 11:25 AM   #1856
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
FIFY again.

You're citing yourself as the source for your assertion that the JM case is taught as an example of poor police work? No wonder actual evidence and investigatory procedure is beyond your understanding.

And FTR, citing British police procedure or 70 year old British legal commentary wrt the JM (or any other U.S.) case is a waste of bandwidth.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2020, 04:00 PM   #1857
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
HENRI: DNA test results, blood stain analysis, bloody fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence definitively link inmate to the brutal murder of Colette MacDonald.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th October 2020 at 04:19 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2020, 06:34 PM   #1858
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
HENRI: There is also sourced physical evidence that definitively links inmate to the murders of his two daughters.

Kimberley MacDonald

- Type AB blood found on the left elbow of inmate's torn pajama top.

- Type AB blood found on the blue bedsheet used to carry Kimmie back to her bed.

- 14 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Kimmie's bedcovers.

- 1 fiber sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

- 1 warp yarn (e.g., 20.5 inches in length) sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found under Kimmie's pillow.

Kristen MacDonald

- 2 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Kristen's bedcovers.

- 1 fiber sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail.

- Kristen's Type O blood was found on the outer lens of inmate's reading glasses.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th October 2020 at 06:37 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2020, 08:08 PM   #1859
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
HENRI: Not one piece of evidence collected at 544 Castle Drive was definitively linked to a known intruder suspect.

Kenneth Barnett

- In 1970, fingerprint exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Barnett's print exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive.

Annette Cullity

- In 1970, fingerprint exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Cullity's print exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive.

Gary Burnett

- In 1970, fingerprint exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Burnett's print exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive.

Joseph Lee

- In 1970, fingerprint exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Lee's print exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive. Lee was also interviewed by CID agent Bennie Hawkins and Lee denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders.

Helena Stoeckley

- In 1971, fingerprint and head hair exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Stoeckley's print/hair exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints or hairs found at 544 Castle Drive. In 1999, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology received Stoeckley's DNA exemplars (e.g., head hairs) and in 2006, the AFIP reported that none of the 29 exhibits matched her DNA profile.

Greg Mitchell

- In 1971, fingerprint and head hair exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Mitchell's print/hair exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints or hairs found at 544 Castle Drive. In 1999, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology received Mitchell's DNA exemplars (e.g., tissue samples) and in 2006, the AFIP reported that none of the 29 exhibits matched his DNA profile.

Bruce Fowler

- In 1971, fingerprint and head hair exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Fowler's print/hair exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints or hairs found at 544 Castle Drive. The MacDonald defense team did not request that Fowler's DNA exemplars be collected and sent to the AFIP for DNA testing.

Don Harris

- In 1981, fingerprint exemplars were obtained by the FBI, and Harris' print exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive. Harris was also interviewed by the FBI and he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders. The MacDonald defense team did not request that Harris' DNA exemplars be collected and sent to the AFIP for DNA testing.

Allen Mazzerolle

- In 1982, fingerprint exemplars were obtained by the FBI, and Mazzerolle's print exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive. Mazzerolle was also interviewed by the FBI and he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders. The MacDonald defense team did not request that Mazzerolle's DNA exemplars be collected and sent to the AFIP for DNA testing.

Dwight Smith

- In 1982, Smith was interviewed by the FBI, and he denied any involvement in the MacDonald murders. Smith offered to provide fingerprint exemplars to the FBI, but they were satisfied with Smith's denials. The MacDonald defense team did not request that Smith's DNA exemplars be collected and sent to the AFIP for DNA testing.

Cathy Perry

- In 1971, fingerprint and head hair exemplars were obtained by the CID, and Perry's print/hair exemplars did not match any of the unidentified prints or hairs found at 544 Castle Drive. In 1984, Perry contacted the FBI and confessed to participating in the murders, but she recanted that confession later that same year. The MacDonald defense team did not request that Perry's DNA exemplars be collected and sent to the AFIP for DNA testing.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 20th October 2020 at 08:13 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 12:24 AM   #1860
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: There is also sourced physical evidence that definitively links inmate to the murders of his two daughters.

Kimberley MacDonald-

- Type AB blood found on the blue bedsheet used to carry Kimmie back to her bed.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That was just manufactured evidence by the Army CID. There is no hard evidence that any dead bodies were moved anywhere. Stombaugh of the FBI was quoted in court by Murtagh as saying that Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads. That's not hard evidence to convict somebody of murder.

The murderers like Mitchell and Mazerolle were waving the murder weapon all over the place which could have caused all sorts of blood contamination.

The matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 with CID agent Shaw. This demonstrates that it was just Army CID, and dare I say JTF conjecture and speculation. The Army CID lacked good murder investigators. There was a lack of INVESTIGATING:

QUESTIONS BY CAPTAIN DOUTHAT:
Q Mr. Shaw, you said a few minutes ago that you were of the opinion that Kimberly did not, in fact, receive fatal injuries in her own bedroom, but that in fact they were inflicted someplace else and she was then returned to her own bedroom. Am I correct in saying that you said that?
A Yes.
Q And I thought I heard you also say that that was for the purpose of making the investigators believe that she had been killed in her own bedroom. Am I correct in stating that?
A That is correct.
Q Would you tell me on what you base your opinion that someone did either of those things, if in fact they happened at all, for the purpose of misleading investigators?
A I am not sure what you mean when you say that.
Q You stated in your answer before that you pieced together just what you called the sequence here of an injury inflicted on the child other than in her bedroom?
A Yes.
Q That she was then, in your opinion, returned to her own bedroom?
A (Affirmative nod.)
Q Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And that that was done to make it appear--I believe those were your words--that she had in fact been fatally injured in her own bedroom rather than fatally injured in the master bedroom, is that what you have concluded?
A Yes.
Q What I want to know is, what is the basis for your opinion that someone was trying to lead investigators to believing that she was killed in her own bedroom, if you think there is evidence to the contrary?
A Well, I think the killer was trying to set up a false set of circumstances to be reconstructed by the investigators in this case, and just that.

QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY ATTORNEY EISMAN:
Q What possible motive would Jeffrey MacDonald--assuming your theory is that he did it--that is your theory, isn't it? I assume that is why we are here. Assuming that Jeffrey MacDonald did it, what possible motive would he have for removing the child from the master bedroom and placing her back in her own bed and making it appear like she was killed in her own bed? Do you have any possible motive for that?
A Well, I know that he has told us and others, that during the time he was being attacked he heard his oldest daughter, Kimberly, screaming or calling, yelling in her bedroom.
Q He said he heard her yelling in the bedroom and he said he knew where she was yelling from?
A That was the impression I received from what he said. You have copies of his statement.
So in my opinion that places her in her own bedroom, according to his statement, and under some kind of stress. As to why he would stage this scene, specifically this way, I do not know. I have no opinion about"
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 21st October 2020, 01:02 AM   #1861
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Weak Sauce

HENRI: That's it? That's your only retort to the laundry list of evidence that inculpated MacDonald and exculpated the New York Four/Stoeckley Seven? Relying on testimony given at the Article 32 hearing is classic weak sauce. For the past 50 years, MacDonald has claimed he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his two daughters in their beds nor did he touch the bundled bedding (e.g., blue bedsheet/multi-colored bedspread) found in the master bedroom.

Kimberley MacDonald

- Type AB blood found on the left elbow of inmate's torn pajama top.

- Type AB blood (e.g., Kimmie's blood) and massive Type A blood stains (e.g., Colette's blood) were found on the blue bedsheet.

- Bloody impressions of inmate's pajama cuffs (e.g., 2 impressions from right cuff, 1 impression from left cuff) were also found on the blue bedsheet. The impressions were formed in Colette's Type A blood and proved that someone wearing inmate's torn pajama top transported BOTH Kimmie and Colette in that blue bedsheet.

- 14 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Kimmie's bedcovers.

- 1 fiber sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

- 1 warp yarn (e.g., 20.5 inches in length) sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found under Kimmie's pillow.

Kristen MacDonald

- 2 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Kristen's bedcovers.

- 1 fiber sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail.

- Kristen's Type O blood was found on the outer lens of inmate's reading glasses.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 04:20 AM   #1862
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter of the proposed boxing trip to Russia was discussed at the August 24 1979 trial. I believe MacDonald was telling the truth about it.
I know you like to believe the weird and untrue henri but the insistence on believing that a boxing trip to Russia was even possible is ridiculous!

First - it was not known as Russia in 1970 it was the USSR.
Second - the USA and the USSR were engaged in the Cold War in 1970
Third - no way in hell the US Army would be sending a boxing (or any other team) behind the Iron Curtain.
Fourth - if such a boxing match were even being discussed it would have been for a neutral location.
Fifth - everyone who had official connection to the US Army Boxing team at Ft. Bragg said no such event was even talked about.

however, even if a boxing trip was planned a man whose wife was due to deliver his baby during the "allegedly proposed timeframe" would have said NO. Especially considering that Colette had difficult birth experiences with both Kimmie and Kristy.

AND, inmate having intimate relationships with women outside of marriage is at a minimum morally offensive - it is called ADULTERY.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 06:30 AM   #1863
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
I know you like to believe the weird and untrue henri but the insistence on believing that a boxing trip to Russia was even possible is ridiculous!
I still don't believe that any proposed trip to Russia was necessarily anything to do with adultery. That's just assumption. People can do odd things in their lives even though they are legal. I expect MacDonald now regrets he even joined that boxing club. His mother had to sell her house as well as all the endless worry and anxiety of it all.

You assume that the boxing coach was telling the pure unadulterated truth about it all at a time when Murtagh was known to be coaching witnesses to lie and to perjure themselves.

This is a bit about that proposed trip to Russia from Grand Jury testimony. There is more on the internet but I think MacDonald was being frank, candid and open about it:

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

Q Now, while you were at Fort Bragg, after getting there in August of 1969, did you have anything to do with a boxing team?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you work out with them?
A Yes, for a short period of time.
Q And beginning when was that?
A During the winter sometime. It actually wasn't that many workouts. I didn't make it every day, and it was only a period of weeks really.
Q What did these workouts consist of?
A Exercises, situps, exercises for your neck, and your back.
Q And sparring or boxing or...?
A A few times.
Q Well, you've always had an interest in boxing, I take it?
A Right.
Q And in college you were on the boxing team, or high school?
A In college. It was a very loose club. There is no college boxing, but we had a club at Princeton and I worked out with them. We never had any matches.
Q Were you pretty good at it?
A No. I usually got knocked on my butt as a matter of fact.
Q Now, was there any talk between you and the coach or anyone else about being the team physician?
A Right.
Q Tell us about that.
A I don't know if he's really -- yes, the training coach. He was in the army. Said they needed a physician, and I had just come into the gym to work out one day, and I was watching the boxers work out, and we started talking, and he said, why don't you work out with us, and I started working out with them. And then he mentioned on field trips -- not field trips but matches at other posts -- they needed a physician. So, I thought that was a great idea. So, I said, well, if it were possible I would like to do that. And he mentioned specifically there was a long trip to Russia coming up that he would like to have a physician on board for.
Q When was that trip to be made?
A Sometime in the spring.
Q Do you remember when you talked about this Russian trip?
A No. It came up on several occasions. This wasn't a long period of time that I was working out with the club. It was a period of weeks. And, again it was a loose kind of association. I didn't make all their workouts.
Q Well, we're getting into the area very close to February 16, 17. Did you -- on that day did you, did you meet the coach and discuss this Russian trip?
A I don't remember whether I did or not, sir. I've been asked that several times. And, in the middle of the summer when my lawyers were questioning me about the events, that was really the first time that it ever clicked that that may have been the day, that there may have been a discussion on that day -- one of the discussions. But I'm not sure. I don't honestly recollect that.
Q You recall Colonel Pruett, do you not?
A I certainly do.
Q You had a meeting with your attorneys and Colonel Pruett and some of his associates in 1971, didn't you, on a couple of occasions?
A Correct.
Q Do you remember the approximate dates?
A No, I don't.
Q Was it about February or March of 1971?
A Probably. It sounds about right.
Q I think there were two sessions, were there not?
A One in Philadelphia, I think; and one in New York.
Q And do you recall discussing this with Colonel Pruett at that time?
A No, I don't, at this time. I may have.
Q And well, do you recall telling him on February 16 you had had a talk with the coach about the Russian trip -- February 16, 1970?
A I would assume that I put it the same way I just told you, that it's a recollection that came on some time during the summer -- that that may have been the day, but that was already six months past. It didn't seem very important.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2020 at 06:33 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 21st October 2020, 06:57 AM   #1864
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
HENRI: That's it? That's your only retort to the laundry list of evidence that inculpated MacDonald and exculpated the New York Four/Stoeckley Seven? Relying on testimony given at the Article 32 hearing is classic weak sauce. For the past 50 years, MacDonald has claimed he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his two daughters in their beds nor did he touch the bundled bedding (e.g., blue bedsheet/multi-colored bedspread) found in the master bedroom.

Kimberley MacDonald

- Type AB blood found on the left elbow of inmate's torn pajama top.

- Type AB blood (e.g., Kimmie's blood) and massive Type A blood stains (e.g., Colette's blood) were found on the blue bedsheet.

- Bloody impressions of inmate's pajama cuffs (e.g., 2 impressions from right cuff, 1 impression from left cuff) were also found on the blue bedsheet. The impressions were formed in Colette's Type A blood and proved that someone wearing inmate's torn pajama top transported BOTH Kimmie and Colette in that blue bedsheet.

- 14 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Kimmie's bedcovers.

- 1 fiber sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

- 1 warp yarn (e.g., 20.5 inches in length) sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found under Kimmie's pillow.

Kristen MacDonald

- 2 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found under Kristen's bedcovers.

- 1 fiber sourced to inmate's torn pajama top was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail.

- Kristen's Type O blood was found on the outer lens of inmate's reading glasses.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The cuff impressions are highly technical and the details would bore most readers to death. Suffice to say is that MacDonald's forensic experts Dr. Thornton and Dr. Morton testified in court that the Army CID lab and the FBI lab got it wrong.

Any pajama fiber under Kristen's fingernail could be explained by MacDonald carrying Kristen to her own bed kicking and screaming and clawing after she wet the bed in the master bedroom as MacDonald always said happened.

You seem to be making the mistake of ASSUMING any pajama fibers were deposited on the night of the MacDonald murders. You assume nothing in a murder investigation. There is no absolute certainty of that at all.

The matter was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with a textile expert:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-wolfgang.html

Q Professor Wolfgang, assuming that certain fibers from a garment such as men's pajamas were found, some on a rug, some on bed sheets, some in other places in contact with the house, is there ways of determining from an examination of the fibers themselves, how they came to be on the rug and sheet and other places?
A No.
Q Is there any way of determining from the examination of the fibers as to whether they were torn from the garment or they had fallen from the garment, or had merely just disintegrated after considerable wear?
A No. There are some extenuating circumstances in which it might be possible. In general, however, no.
Q Was there anything in the report prepared by Mr. Browning that you examined, or in his testimony that you read, that indicated that such extenuating circumstances were present and that he testified to in his examinations?
A Not that I noticed.
Q Is there any way of telling from the examination of fibers that there were found, again in the same places as I described a moment ago, how long those fibers had lain, or been in the position that they were prior to being collected?
A By examination of the fibers, no.
Q Professor Wolfgang, again based upon your examination of the materials that we have submitted to you in writing, did you find that there was any basis upon which Mr. Browning could testify to reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the fibers and threads being definitely from the tops of the pair of pajamas that he had submitted to him?
A No. There are -- perhaps, I don't know whether you want this qualified or not --
Q Go right ahead.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2020 at 07:01 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 21st October 2020, 08:29 AM   #1865
OneWhoCares
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 18
TO Henri

You said and I quote: "I can't quite see why Gwyka, or Christina as she is sometimes known, still tries to defend Helena Stoeckley on internet forums."

OMG Henri - These women are not one and the same. You have been around long enough to know that. Next thing you know you will be saying that I am somebody else. PLEASE try to stay focused.
OneWhoCares is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 08:45 AM   #1866
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

- Bloody impressions of inmate's pajama cuffs (e.g., 2 impressions from right cuff, 1 impression from left cuff) were also found on the blue bedsheet. The impressions were formed in Colette's Type A blood and proved that someone wearing inmate's torn pajama top transported BOTH Kimmie and Colette in that blue bedsheet.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
My understanding is that Stombaugh testified that he found an area of blood that testified to the right cuff of Colette's pajama top in regard to the sheet taken from the master bedroom. This was hotly disputed by the MacDonald defense and by Dr. Morton:

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

D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 3:10 p.m. (resumed)

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Mr. Morton, were you present -- you don't even look alike -- just the beards. That's all. Were you present in this court during the testimony of Mr. Stombaugh -- Mr. Paul Stombaugh -- formerly of the FBI?
A Yes; I was.
Q Did you hear his testimony in regard to the sheet taken from the master bedroom of the MacDonald house?
A Yes; I did.
Q And I want to hand you this sheet again -- 211 -- and just let me leave this here for a few minutes and take these other things away. Were you present when Mr. Stombaugh testified that in the area he has marked "G" he found an impression in blood that he described as one which conforms to the right cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top?
A Yes; I was.
Q Now, based upon your own knowledge, information, experience, and your own examination in this matter, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the impression that Mr. Stombaugh identified as "G" was made or could have been made by the pajama cuff of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes; I do.
Q And what is your opinion, sir?
A That it was not.
Q It was not.
A That is correct.
Q By the way, I perhaps presumed something I hadn't fully stated. Had you examined that sheet you have in front of you prior to my handing it to you today?
A Yes; I have.
Q And have you examined the pink pajama top that has been identified as being taken from the body of Colette MacDonald?
A Yes; I have.
Q Now, with that as background, would you tell us, please, on what did you base your conclusion that the area "G" was not made by the pink pajama top cuff of Mrs. MacDonald?
A My examination of the area "G" showed that there was a strip of blood staining -- apparent blood staining -- which was approximately 3/4 of an inch wide which approximated the width of the cuff on the pajama top --
Q (Interposing) May I interrupt? Would it help if we displayed the sheet? If it does, we will have to bring something in for one moment.
A I think so.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2020 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 21st October 2020, 08:48 AM   #1867
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by OneWhoCares View Post
You said and I quote: "I can't quite see why Gwyka, or Christina as she is sometimes known, still tries to defend Helena Stoeckley on internet forums."

OMG Henri - These women are not one and the same. You have been around long enough to know that. Next thing you know you will be saying that I am somebody else. PLEASE try to stay focused.
Are you kidding?
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 21st October 2020, 09:07 AM   #1868
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Are you kidding?
No henri OneWhoCares is NOT KIDDING and she is 100% correct Gwyka and Christina are 2 very distinct and separate individuals. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that fact very clearly. it is easy to see the difference because among other things the writing styles of each person is very distinct.

you should know we notice things like that since we called you out every time you showed up on a board under a different name...Albie, Artie, etal....
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 09:19 AM   #1869
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still don't believe that any proposed trip to Russia was necessarily anything to do with adultery.
I never said his "alleged trip to Russia" was anything to do with adultery. I said and I meant that no such trip was planned. Pay attention henri:

1. It was NOT called Russia in 1970 it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics aka USSR.

2. USA and USSR were engaged in the Cold War in 1970 and no way in hell would the US Army send a boxing (or any other team) behind the Iron Curtain.

3. IF such an international boxing event was being planned it would have been planned for a neutral location.

4. The people who were officially involved in the US Army boxing team have stated unequivocally that no such trip was contemplated, planned, or even being planned PERIOD.

In other words, and in simple language Inmate Lied about going to "Russia".


by the way inmate was not a part of the boxing club, he sometimes worked out with them but he did not join and my guess is he probably was not skilled enough to be on the team anyway.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
You assume that the boxing coach was telling the pure unadulterated truth about it all at a time when Murtagh was known to be coaching witnesses to lie and to perjure themselves.
I do not ASSUME anything. Yes, I am sure that the Coach and other Army Officers who were questioned about inmate's participation in the boxing club were telling the truth. I also KNOW that Murtagh did no such thing as coaching witnesses to perjure themselves. IF that had ever happened the entire world would know it and Brian Murtagh would not have retired with all the accolades he had accumulated in his stellar career.

why don't you stop flame baiting and go away.

Also, I KNOW that inmate is a lying narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer so I KNOW he lied about most of his boxing team contact.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 10:40 AM   #1870
OneWhoCares
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 18
TO Henri

Byn is right.

From the CID Final Report for the period Feb. 17, 1970 to April 10, 1972: SSG Sherridale Morgan, coach of the Ft. Bragg Boxing Team, when Jeffrey MacDonald was associated with that team, furnished a written statement regarding his association with Jeffrey MacDonald. He stated that there was never any information given to Jeffrey MacDonald that the team would be going to Russia for matches and he does not know how Jeffrey MacDonald obtained such information.

This was the height of the Cold War. No way a US Army "anything" would have been going to Russia. They would not have been invited to enter the USSR nor would our government have approved such a trip.

Last edited by OneWhoCares; 21st October 2020 at 10:47 AM. Reason: Additional information
OneWhoCares is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 11:51 AM   #1871
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
The difference between the love struck and the professional.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still don't believe that any proposed trip to Russia was necessarily anything to do with adultery. That's just assumption. People can do odd things in their lives even though they are legal. I expect MacDonald now regrets he even joined that boxing club. His mother had to sell her house as well as all the endless worry and anxiety of it all. Snipped
HM, the above bolded is a prime example of why your thoughts on this (or any other) case can be dismissed as a whole.

You assert that JM's poor mother suffered terribly from the worry that her son JOINED A BOXING TEAM.

Not that he joined the Army, Not that he went through and graduated from Airborne School at Ft. Benning, and not that he had successfully qualified for Special Forces..IN 1970..at the height of SF involvement in Vietnam.

Boxing! oh! the horror!

You are so fixated on your love interest that the real world and the reality of where JM was and what he was doing and where he was doing it isn't anything more that a backdrop for your fantasy construct of JM's innocence.

This is the reality you wish to ignore. Ft. Bragg was and is a place that is well known by locals that outsiders can come to a quick end if they involve themselves on base with individuals stationed there.

JM was the only real world viable threat to any intruder or group of intruders and yet he was the least injured and only surviving victim on the crime scene.

There is -0- evidence of any "intruder or intruders."

Case closed. Your love interest is exactly where the lowlife belongs.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 21st October 2020 at 11:58 AM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 12:17 PM   #1872
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post

I do not ASSUME anything. Yes, I am sure that the Coach and other Army Officers who were questioned about inmate's participation in the boxing club were telling the truth. I also KNOW that Murtagh did no such thing as coaching witnesses to perjure themselves. IF that had ever happened the entire world would know it and Brian Murtagh would not have retired with all the accolades he had accumulated in his stellar career.

why don't you stop flame baiting and go away.

Also, I KNOW that inmate is a lying narcissistic sociopathic familial slaughterer so I KNOW he lied about most of his boxing team contact.
Well what about Murtagh and the Lockerbie case in Scotland then? Murtagh has been accused of coaching witnesses there. Murtagh almost certainly coached the babysitter and Colette's mother to lie in court about the murder weapons in the MacDonald case. I don't know how much Murtagh pays journalists to write anti-MacDonald articles and TV documentaries but I don't think they do it for free:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...sses-were-paid

"U.S. attorneys Brian Murtagh and Dana Biehl were representatives of their nation’s Department of Justice at the trial. Murtagh drew up the indictment against Al-Megrahi and Fhimah. The two would sit close to the prosecution team, and pass across advisory notes and legal papers, or to lean over with whispered advice.

“For a person, other than the advocate examining him at the time, to attempt to communicate with a witness in the witness box in such a way as to influence his evidence, is both contempt of court and the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice,” Pr Black argues.

“The defence believed that Murtagh and Biehl were engaging in such behaviour, particularly when Giaka was in the witness box. They brought their concerns to the attention of the court, which simply noted them and took no further action,” Pr Blak adds."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2020 at 12:20 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 21st October 2020, 01:10 PM   #1873
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by JTF View Post

- Bloody impressions of inmate's pajama cuffs (e.g., 2 impressions from right cuff, 1 impression from left cuff) were also found on the blue bedsheet. The impressions were formed in Colette's Type A blood and proved that someone wearing inmate's torn pajama top transported BOTH Kimmie and Colette in that blue bedsheet.


https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
There seemed to be some confusion from the Morton testimony, which has still not been fully resolved, as to whether it was bloody impressions of inmate's pajama cuffs or Colette's pajama cuffs. It seems like a lack of firm evidence to convict somebody of murder to me. From the Morton testimony at the trial:

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


MR. MURTAGH:
Q Okay. Well, do I take it, then, that you did not measure, say, with calipers or some other device, the dimensions of this stain and compare them to the dimensions of the cuff of the pajama top?
A No; I did not.
Q Okay. You didn't do that lengthwise or --
A (Interposing) That is correct.
Q Or the width?
A I measured the width with a ruler.
Q Okay. And did that conform?
A Yes, generally in the area of three-quarters of an inch.
Q Okay. Now, with respect to Dr. Thornton's testimony this morning, I believe he testified that area "F," which is not depicted in the photograph here, conformed to the left cuff or could have been made by the left cuff of Colette MacDonald's pajama top. Do you recall that, sir?
A I believe that is Jeff MacDonald's pajama top.
Q No, sir.
A Not Colette MacDonald's.
Q I don't believe it is Jeffrey MacDonald's. I will be happy to show it to you.

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, either way. The only thing I asked him about were two other areas. And I don't know what we are doing going into this particular matter he wasn't asked to examine, Your Honor.



l

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 21st October 2020 at 01:12 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 21st October 2020, 01:35 PM   #1874
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Well what about
Your lack of knowledge and/or honesty?

It's been covered ad nauseam.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2020, 12:11 AM   #1875
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
No More Chances

Errol Morris' reaction to the WOE series is similar to his reaction to the 2012 evidentiary hearing. In both instances, he appeared unprepared for the case presentations put forth by the government and Marc Smerling. Considering that Morris and inmate's defense team got their collective butts handed to them at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, one would have thought that Morris' usual bravado would have been absent when being interviewed by Smerling. I guess you don't die square if you're born round because Morris was his old self during the WOE series. Morris either posed questions in which he already knew the answers (e.g., what was the motive, what evidence links MacDonald to the murders) or he presented claims (e.g., McGinniss lied to MacDonald, 1979 trial was rigged) with no corroborative evidence. My guess is that Morris is already in the process of moving away from this case.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd October 2020 at 12:25 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2020, 03:39 AM   #1876
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,793
There is an interesting analysis on the internet of tunnel vision which applies to the MacDonald miscarriage of justice case and conviction of an innocent man for murder:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...justice-system

"Confirmation bias describes the natural human tendency to interpret new information in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, to remember previous events in a way that confirms those beliefs, and to discount or discard information that challenges them (also a part of belief perseverance). Confirmation bias led the various actors in the criminal justice system (from the investigating officers and detectives to the prosecutors to the trial judge), once they had focused on Anderson as the key suspect, to exaggerate the relevance of evidence supporting his guilt, and to downplay contradictory evidence supporting his innocence (namely, that which pointed away from Anderson and toward Lincoln)."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd October 2020 at 03:40 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2020, 07:59 AM   #1877
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,060
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

"Confirmation bias"
I'm sure the irony of your cite escapes you.

If there were royal titles given out for practitioners of this logical fallacy you'd be in the running for a kingdom of your own.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2020, 01:35 AM   #1878
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Evidence Doesn't Lie, But People Do

After viewing WOE for a 2nd time, I was stunned by Morris' limited grasp and/or interest in the mass of evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. He places importance on claims/confessions, while spouting bumper sticker slogans in order to avoid addressing inculpatory DNA, hair, fiber, and fabric impression evidence. His claim that "human beings are compelled more by a narrative than by the evidence," is utter nonsense. Joe McGinniss hit the nail on the head when he told a television reporter (e.g., outside the courthouse during the 2012 evidentiary hearing) that Morris' book was a "meretricious piece of ****."

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2020, 02:54 AM   #1879
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,407
Classic Stuff

The following are some excerpts from Joe McGinniss' e-book Final Vision.

Much of Morris’s book involves the troubled young woman Helena Stoeckley, who testified as a witness for the defense at the 1979 trial. Morris bays about her like a hound dog who thinks he’s got a raccoon trapped up a tree, but in the end it’s much ado about nothing.

The CID eventually tracked down, interviewed, and polygraphed every person whom Stoeckley had ever named as possibly being involved in the crimes. All denied involvement, and all denials were supported by cross-checking stories and through polygraph results. For Errol Morris or anyone else to say, forty years later, that “the girl in the floppy hat” was never fully investigated is preposterous.

While making dozens of reckless allegations, impugning the integrity of Brian Murtagh in particular (and, yes, my integrity too) Morris averts his eyes from the mountain of undisputed physical evidence that led to MacDonald’s conviction. But if he’d allowed fact, not fantasy, to guide him, he would have found himself without a book.

Morris quotes, uncritically and at length, those who agree with his conspiratorial hypothesis, never acknowledging that they constitute only a fringe minority of the large population of individuals who have extensive knowledge about the case. And because he’s a polemicist, not a journalist, he doesn’t bother to talk to anyone who has learned the truth at which he scoffs: that the physical evidence proves MacDonald’s guilt.

In his attempt to deconstruct the narrative of Fatal Vision and replace it with one of his own devising, Morris utterly ignores the vast body of physical evidence that proved MacDonald’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet every bit of it has stood the test of time. To simply wish it away by pretending it doesn’t exist is as ineffective as it is irresponsible.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 07:45 AM   #1880
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Well what about Murtagh and the Lockerbie case in Scotland then? Murtagh has been accused of coaching witnesses there.
first - the Lockerbie Scotland case has absolutely nothing to do with inmate and his case.

second - I have heard no such accusations made against Murtagh. IN FACT, I have heard accolades upon accolades about his performance in acting on behalf of the United States against the infamous terrorists who claimed so many lives.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh almost certainly coached the babysitter and Colette's mother to lie in court about the murder weapons in the MacDonald case.
you have no evidence to support such ridiculous accusations. Murtagh has always been the best advocate for the VICTIMS in this case. Somehow you seem to forget the victims were Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and the unborn baby boy.

you are lucky that you are so insignificant in the world because slandering honest hardworking lawyers is NOT a good idea in general- legal action could be taken against you and frankly you'd deserve the strictest of penalties.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know how much Murtagh pays journalists to write anti-MacDonald articles and TV documentaries but I don't think they do it for free:

.....were engaging in such behaviour, particularly when Giaka was in the witness box. They brought their concerns to the attention of the court, which simply noted them and took no further action,” Pr Blak adds."
wow the defense made complaints against the prosecution what a shocker. however, just because they wished there was some wrong doing on their behalf does not mean there was any impropriety and it is obvious that the court did not find their actions in any way illegal. Oh, and by the way it is NOT against the judicial rules for the prosecution to share information and/or documentation or conversations during the trials. There is no requirement for them to be mum or to keep the information in their possession only in their possession. really, you cannot really believe the nonsensical crap you post.

Murtagh has absolutely nothing to do with anyone who writes negative or positive articles about inmate nor does he have anything to do with any television, forums, or blogs that say anything about inmate. to suggest otherwise is one of your more ignorant comments.

the FACTS of this case are that inmate is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by the courts of law of the United States of America. And, with the DNA results we can say he is guilty beyond all doubt.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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