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 Yesterday, 02:55 PM   #601
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 444
Henrietta's find admits to coaxing a drunk into saying something. Yeah, that's believable. NOT.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:20 PM   #602
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,027
Still Waiting

HENRIETTA: Still waiting (e.g., 15 years and counting) on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. Your claim that there was circumstantial evidence linking Mitchell to the crime scene is not backed by any lab analysis. Again, the following data proves that Mitchell never stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like Mitchell, there is no evidence linking Dwight Smith, Bruce Fowler, or Allen Mazzerolle to the crime scene. No DNA, no head hairs, and no fingerprints. Like Mitchell, Fowler passed a polygraph exam administered by CID Hall of Famer Robert Brisentine, and Fowler's alibi is so airtight that the defense gave up on him as a suspect in 1988. The defense also gave up on Smith as a suspect in 1997, and Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70.

So, you are literally the ONLY person on this earth who believes in inmate's innocence AND pitches Fowler, Smith, and Mazzerolle as being viable suspects.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Yesterday at 03:24 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 Yesterday, 08:14 PM   #603
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 78
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Griffins say they did contact some people after Mitchell's drunken confession to the MacDonald murders, including that drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinnis, but they were disregarded and not believed. I agree that it may not be strictly legal evidence but it's interesting just the same. The matter is discussed in more detail at this website:

http://www.constantinereport.com/upd...l-vision-case/
Since you have no credibility on this forum anyway, I find it amazing you continue to pile onto that by descending into cheap racist stereotyping. Why do you continue to call McGinnis "drunken Irish" & other nonsense? Who cares whether he's Irish or not? Is that supposed to make some sort of difference? I'd venture to guess that the Griffins' story about Mitchell's "drunken confession" wasn't believed because it simply lacked credibility. If they were serious about doing the right thing regarding this so-called confession then they should have gone to their local police and let those officials handle it from there.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:38 AM   #604
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,089
I reckon Murtagh had Mitchell and Stoeckley bumped off because they knew too much for the 1985 Judge Dupree MacDonald appeal. They knew too much and they were talking too much. Stoeckley had just previously said on TV that she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. That would never do. Mitchell had recently made several unofficial confessions and aroused the interest of the FBI in him.

I also think the MacDonald lawyer Eisman was bumped off before the 1992 Judge Dupree MacDonald appeal, perhaps because he knew too much, or he was becoming a bit too outspoken about the MacDonald case, or he had obtained some knew information about the case. I know the official version was suicide but he was also involved in another big controversial drugs case at the time.
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 Today, 03:01 AM   #605
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,089
Bruce Fowler just said " I don't remember" which is much the same as the usual "no comment" at a police interview:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ler_bruce.html
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:17 AM   #606
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,089
Bruce Fowler is mentioned in the testimony of the 'genius detective' from the Washington Army CID, Mahon, at the 1975 Grand Jury:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-21-mahon.html

Quote:
Q Now, you mentioned that Smith, I think it was, had been at Bruce Fowler's trailer that night. By the way, were all these people -- were they all drug users, Kathy Smith, for example?
A Yes, sir.
Q Dianne Cazares?
A I believe she was also, yes, sir.
Q Bruce Fowler, how about him?
A Yes, sir, he was.
A All right, now, you were able to locate Bruce Fowler?
A Yes, sir, I located Bruce Fowler in a prison at Mount Meigs, Alabama. I believe it's M-e-i-g-s.
Q And he had a wife, I take it?
A Yes, sir, he was married and his wife's name was Janice.
Q Were they separated in February -- February 16, 17, 1970 or -- well, we have him in a trailer with Kathy Smith. Tell us about that.
A Yes, sir, as I understand it, both Bruce Fowler and Mrs. Fowler are from Alabama. That Mrs. Fowler's parents were in the Army stationed at Fort Bragg.
And so Mrs. Fowler left her husband for a period of time, and went to live with her parents in North Carolina.
Apparently Mr. Fowler followed her up there. They were not living together to my knowledge in February of 1970. I believe she was employed as a go-go-dancer in Fayetteville, and I'm not certain as to where he was employed, if he was in fact employed.
Q But he was living in a house trailer there?
A He was livinkg in a house trailer in Fayetteville.
Q All right, now, what did he tell you with respect to having any knowledge of the murders of the MacDonald family?
A Well he -- he stated that he did not recall where he was on the night in question.
He denied that he had any knowledge about the homicides, and stated that he did not know where Miss Stoeckley was on the night in question.
He -- he also identified his automobile as a 1967 blue Mustang.
Q All right, was he given a polygraph?
A Yes, sir, he was.
Q And was it given by Mr. Brisentine or Brisenteen?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what were Mr. Brisentine's conclusions?
A Mr. Brisentine concluded that Mr. Fowler was truthful when he denied having any knowledge of the murders.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 03:19 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 Today, 06:19 AM   #607
Ygraine
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 19
Umm - Henri or Henrietta (whoever you are today):
So, while Helena lay dying alone in her apartment (with her infant child), she called her mother and confessed that she lied on the stand? Then you "reckon" that Brian Murtagh had both Helena and Mitchell "bumped off?" Why didn't Helena mention that someone was killing her during that last phone call? If I remember correctly (and someone sensible please correct me if I am wrong), Helena died of pneumonia complicated by her chronic drug use. Show us the phone logs from that time frame. I've had pneumonia, and believe me, I barely could draw in enough air to breathe, let alone have a telephone conversation like that.
And Brian also had Eisman bumped off? Really? Another conspiracy!!!!
Ygraine 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 Today, 06:35 AM   #608
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,027
All Alone On A Tiny Island

HENRIETTA: It's not surprising that for the past 15 years, you've consistently refused to produce the non-existent evidence that sources someone not named Jeffrey MacDonald to these murders. What is somewhat surprising is how you seem to take comfort and joy in being the ONLY person to currently claim that Fowler, Harris, Smith, and Mazzerolle were involved in these murders. Bizarre and/or sad claim? Yes. A claim based on the evidence collected at the crime scene? No.

As I'm sure you already know, even diehard advocates like Fred Bost gave up on Fowler, Harris, Smith, and Mazzerolle as being viable suspects. No physical evidence tied them to the crime scene, Harris and Smith publicly called out Stoeckley as being a lunatic, Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70, and Fowler had an airtight alibi. Oh, and despite their ability to do so, the defense did not request that exemplars be obtained from these 4 individuals for DNA testing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; Today at 06:44 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 Today, 08:22 AM   #609
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,089
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Your mind reading skills aren't any better than your legal skills.

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

Voting to convict isn't evidence of misconduct.

As far as bribery being a necessary component of being wrong about something, folks are fully capable of being wrong all on their own, and some folks have no difficulty inserting themselves into notorious criminal cases for their own reasons. That might ring a bell with certain crime buff posters

In a way I agree with you that some people have no difficulty inserting themselves into notorious criminal cases. There have been a few on the internet forums which I could mention. These people have even been involved attending a deadly place like a courtroom to spout their silly remarks.

However my point about the affidavits indicating corrupt bias by the foreman of the jury in the MacDonald case were not motivated by any kind of JTF or Byn interest in the case, or financial interest, or desire for revenge. They just simply reported on what the foreman of the jury said to them before the trial, and what Mitchell confessed to them. There is no law against that. They didn't think it important, though it is important to MacDonald. The 4th Circuit judges should have taken up the matter instead of just ignoring those affidavits.

I know America is a different country to the UK, but in the UK corrupt bias by a juror, or the foreman of a jury, is considered contempt of court, which can be punishable by imprisonment. There was a case in the UK a few years ago when a female juror had unwittingly looked up the defendant's previous convictions in the case she was on when she was not supposed to have done that. She was sentenced to six months for that which I thought was a bit harsh. It must have been an unpleasant surprise for her.

There is a discussion about this sort of thing at this website:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/corru...se-james-daily

Quote:
California's Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 provides:

(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true..,(3) (A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding...(6) (A) For any reason:..(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

Sounds pretty easy. But once the judge approves their own Self-confirming statements "I can be fair" what another person may think becomes a litigation in an of itself. Filing of a 170.1 results in the case being sent to another court, likely another county. A hearing may or may not be given. When the supervising court decides that the judge is not biased as happens in 98% of the time according to the Guardian - the case is sent back to the very same judge for handling.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 08:27 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:00 AM   #610
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,089
Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
Umm - Henri or Henrietta (whoever you are today):
So, while Helena lay dying alone in her apartment (with her infant child), she called her mother and confessed that she lied on the stand? Then you "reckon" that Brian Murtagh had both Helena and Mitchell "bumped off?" Why didn't Helena mention that someone was killing her during that last phone call? If I remember correctly (and someone sensible please correct me if I am wrong), Helena died of pneumonia complicated by her chronic drug use. Show us the phone logs from that time frame. I've had pneumonia, and believe me, I barely could draw in enough air to breathe, let alone have a telephone conversation like that.
And Brian also had Eisman bumped off? Really? Another conspiracy!!!!
I suppose it's possible that it was Jimmie Proctor who arranged for Stoeckley and Mitchell to be bumped off to prevent any problems for his former father-in-law, Judge Dupree, in preventing MacDonald from winning his 1985 appeal from a talkative Mitchell and Stoeckley. Proctor seems to have been in the CIA for about a year at the time.

From what I have read, Helena was concerned at the time that there were strange men in dark glasses around her apartment and, as far as I can remember, there was a witness who corroborates this. She had even contacted Detective Beasley about that to express to him her worries. MacDonald was so suspicious about her death that he arranged for a medical colleague to attend the Helena autopsy, but he was unable to establish any proof of foul play. I concede that she was not at all well and she had been heavily into drink and drugs for years.

There is an article on the internet about the MacDonald case private investigator, Ted Gunderson, which is a discredit and hatchet job on him. Personally, I think Gunderson and Detective Beasley were on the right murder trail in the MacDonald case. For some reason Gunderson just concentrated on Stoeckley when the next logical step would have been to investigate the other suspects. I suppose that may have been due to a lack of money by MacDonald:

https://llbahreligion.wordpress.com/...blic-paranoid/

Quote:
Of course, Gunderson too was in mortal danger for his trifling into Satanic affairs. MacDonald murder confessor Helena Stoeckley had been found dead in her apartment in January of 1983 from pneumonia and cirrhosis of the liver — a not-so-mysterious death according to the coroner’s report — though Gunderson would be “convinced that she was silenced using one of the many covert, untraceable assassination techniques known to government intel agencies.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 09:05 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
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 09:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.