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 17th August 2013, 02:29 AM   #201
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
My critical thinking skills are quite adequate than you very much. The problem is that the drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinniss wrote some silly book about the MacDonald case about an amphetamine psychosis which was proved later not to be true in court, and he made some naff TV movie about the MacDonald case which was no more to do with the pure unadulterated historical truth than a James Bond book, or a Star Wars movie. The American public are simpletons and they only understand straight lines, and rising house prices.

I could quite easily say that JTF murdered JonBenet Ramsey because his hairs and fibers and blood was found there and that he moved bodies in a sheet. That's because of the presumption of guilt in America. The point of the matter is that in law what the soldier said is not evidence. You must be experienced at weighing evidence.

I have been blocked from posting on Topix, I think because the White House wants to cover-up their bugging and bumping off, and imprisonment, of journalists because they don't like political embarrassment, and the media doesn't like controversy. Officialdom never admits a mistake.

The only reason Dr. MacDonald was prosecuted after he had been cleared during the comprehensive investigation at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 was because the totally inexperienced homicide detective Kearns told Fred Kassab in New York that Dr. MacDonald had been seeing another woman after the death of his wife Colette. Judge Dupree's son in law North Carolina lawyer Proctor then moved to the CIA and he wanted to cover-up the drug smuggling by the CIA with the murderous Mafia at Fort Bragg by blaming it all on Dr. MacDonald.

For JTF to say that all the evidence was not in at the Article 32 is simply not true. The controversial Stombaugh of the FBI, whose forensic work has come into criticism for his work on the Warren Commission, then made up some theory without facts that Dr MacDonald had supposedly stabbed Colette through the pajama top with an ice pick, and he had supposedly hit Colette with a hairbrush. The Army CID agent Shaw still falsely believed that Colette had murdered the two little girls. It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. The Grand Jury were fooled and conned. Doctors are not detectives.

There was a hair in Colette's left hand which miraculously became Dr. MacDonald's hair in 2006 after being unidentified since 1970. That was after the FBI had promised not to tamper with the forensic evidence in their possession. Malone of the FBI then pontificated later on that blonde synthetic hair-like fibers found at the crime scene came from a MacDonald doll with no proof to back that opinion up. Those fibers almost certainly came from Helena Stoeckley's wig. Malone is another controversial FBI lab figure who has been in trouble in other murder cases for his false testimony in the past.

The North Carolina judges have been more like novitiate judges than the elite and best judges needed for a difficult murder. I don't think they fully understand forensics and they are far too gullible about forensic fraud. Stombaugh was never qualified to render an opinion about fabric damage or blood in court. He was supposed to be a hair and fiber man after starting off as an insurance salesman.

Helena Stoeckley gave hints and clues as to exactly what happened in the MacDonald case. She might have made mistakes, or even lied, as to part, but that doesn't mean her story should have been rejected by Judge Dupree. She was never granted immunity and she was mainly interested in saving her own skin. You have got to place yourself in her place in that situation.

I believe that there have been over 100000 unsolved murders in America since the second world war. What is quite transparent to me is that these difficult murders should not be put in charge of totally inexperienced homicide detectives. That just only means the guilty go free and the innocent are convicted. Even many of the FBI are not professional criminal investigators. They are no more capable of solving a difficult murder than the cops at my local police station. This can then lead to gross miscarriages of justice like in the MacDonald case. It's faulty organisation.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th August 2013 at 02:48 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 06:34 AM   #202
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,766
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
<snip>
This led to severe financial anxiety for him with things like legal fees, and other worry and anxiety.
<snip>
Well, he should have considered that possibility before he slaughtered his family.

The case was a slam dunk based on the blood evidence.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS 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 17th August 2013, 07:15 AM   #203
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,251
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My critical thinking skills are quite adequate than you very much.
When you invoke Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories to boost your claims I am thinking not so much.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 17th August 2013, 11:09 AM   #204
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Well, he should have considered that possibility before he slaughtered his family.

The case was a slam dunk based on the blood evidence.
The blood evidence in the MacDonald case is ludicrously unsatisfactory and it boils down to guesswork that bodies were supposedly carried around in a sheet by Dr. MacDonald. It's guesswork and pure speculation. The trouble is blood is an emotive subject with any jury. There often is blood at any murder scene.

It's not true to say the MacDonald defense attorneys never disputed the blood evidence. The matter was decided by so-called experts who were not experts in blood impressions anyway.

This matter of Hoover of the FBI disregarding a warning about Pearl Harbor is not a conspiracy. It was mentioned in a British TV documentary about the British double agent Popov a few days ago, but Americans will probably never be told about it by their mainstream media. I suppose you think that American computers are never bugged by the NSA?

Judge Fox was a pal of the now deceased Judge Dupree and Judge Fox attended Dupree's funeral. There seems to be a cosy relationship between the judges in North Carolina. The MacDonald case needs some impartial judges.

This blood evidence matter in the MacDonald case was mentioned in the CID agent Shaw testimony at the Article 32 in 1970:

A Most of the bloodstains on that towel, and there was other types of blood on it also, appeared to be wipe marks, which I conjecture to be the weapons used in this case, indicating that the weapons were wiped off on that towel. I do not know that the towel or have an opinion as to whether the towel actually came in contact with Kimberly MacDonald. I think that the weapon that killed Kimberly did come in contact with the towel.
Q And that is based on your information and knowledge about this case?
A That is correct.
Q And your experience; there is no expert opinion as to how those stains got on that particular bath mat, is there?
A No.

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 17th August 2013, 12:47 PM   #205
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Oh, poor, poor Jeff MacDonald. First he slaughters his family and now he's being "defended" by a "critical thinker" like Henri.

A soul just doesn't get any lower. Bleeding hearts, violins, and all that.
desertgal 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 17th August 2013, 02:12 PM   #206
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The blood evidence in the MacDonald case is ludicrously unsatisfactory and it boils down to guesswork that bodies were supposedly carried around in a sheet by Dr. MacDonald. It's guesswork and pure speculation.
Every member of the family had a different blood type. Somehow the various bloodstains ended up where they did. If you think the prosecution theory is wrong, give us an alternative that explains the evidence with the same degree of detail.
Charlie Wilkes 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 17th August 2013, 11:34 PM   #207
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Open And Shut

In the past 43 years, not one MacDonald advocate (e.g., Bernie Segal, John Thornton, Jeffrey Elliott, Harvey Silverglate, Fred Bost, Cyril Wecht, Barry Scheck, Ray Shedlick, and Errol Morris) has made an attempt to produce a forensic timeline that bolsters MacDonald's hippie home invader tale.

For those who believe in MacDonald's guilt, presenting a murder timeline based on the physical evidence collected at the crime scene has been an easy task. Paul Stombaugh, Victor Woerheide, Brian Murtagh, and Joe McGinniss have all produced timelines that rely on documented fact.

IMO, the physical evidence tells one tale and one tale only.

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

As the 4th Circuit Court pointed out, the Government presented over 1,000 evidentiary items at the 1979 trial, and Brian Murtagh told Robert Sam Anson that this encompassed about 60 percent of their case file. Once you include the inculpatory DNA test results, this becomes an open and shut case. Jeffrey MacDonald is a serial liar, coward, psychopath, and mass murderer.
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 18th August 2013, 12:34 AM   #208
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
Helena Stoeckley provided a story and timeline as to exactly what happened and she named names. There were other witnesses who backed up her story. Unfortunately there were mistakes and lies in her story, and the genius detectives in the Army CID and FBI just disregarded her, as did Judge Dupree. It was stupidness if you get my meaning.

I fully appreciate that the MacDonald family had different blood types and there is nothing suspicious about that as far as I know. The blood evidence was hotly disputed by MacDonald defense lawyer Segal. The Army CID blood man Craig Chamberlain was cross-examined at the 1979 trial and it became so heated and acrimonious that Judge Dupree called the lawyers to the bench to ask for cooler tempers.

Craig Chamberlain was very inexperienced at the time and it was his first visit to a crime scene. Mistakes and contamination can be made in blood typing if it is not done or collected properly.

Even if you accept that the blood typing was accurate there were other irregularities. None of the prosecution theories about supposed pajama cuff impressions on the sheet and bedding were presented by a qualified blood expert. Janice Glisson at the Army CID was qualified as a blood expert but she was never asked for her opinions about the blood evidence in court and she just obeyed orders. Stombaugh of the FBI was a supposed hair and fiber man and he was not qualified to render an opinion about fabric impressions.

The mystery of the blood is that some blood spots of the different victims was supposed to have been found in different bedrooms, and I think the hallway. To my mind a perfectly reasonable explanation came from MacDonald attorney Eisman who suggested that the wooden murder club was used on all of the victims and it might easily have been dripping with blood of those different victims, which then dripped into different bedrooms.

It was unfair to ask Dr. MacDonald to explain all that or to assume that he was lying about not moving bodies in a sheet. I suppose the bodies could have been posed, or even moved, for horrific effect by the murderers but I think Allen Patrick Mazerolle has some explaining to do about 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 18th August 2013, 12:59 AM   #209
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
There are 1000 evidentiary items in every murder case. It's not necessarily proof of anything, or of guilt. What is needed is conclusive evidence, not just opinions by people who are not experts.

There was a lot of legal waffle about the blood evidence at the Article 32 proceeding There seems to be a lack of expert opinion in CID agent Shaw's opinions about the blood evidence:

Q But due to the fact that you found type AB blood, which is Kimberly's blood, on that towel, that also led you to conclude, or one of the factors that led you to conclude that she was killed in that room, is that correct?
A No, not correct. I do not think she was killed in that room and in fact her blood was found at the door where she was injured.
Q Where do you think she was injured?
A In the master bedroom.
Q That fact that she was some way injured in the doorway, does that [in] any way conflict with Captain MacDonald's version of this killing? Has Captain MacDonald ever told you he knew where his daughter was killed?
A No, he hasn't.
Q Of what significance do you think the fact that type AB blood was found in the master bedroom entrance, has to do with your opinion that Captain MacDonald was responsible for this?
A Would you repeat that, please?

ATTORNEY EISMAN: Read it back.

(Reporter complies.)

Q In other words, what is the significance, in regard to your opinion of the case, that there was, her blood was found in this bedroom and that she subsequently expired in her own bed?
A Yes, there is significance, because as one looks at Kimberly MacDonald, lying in her bed, dead, it would appear that she was killed in her sleep, and I think this is what we were supposed to believe, when in fact I believe she was injured in the master bedroom. So it would appear to me that she was injured in the master bedroom and moved to the south bedroom, injured there fatally and made to appear as though she had never left her bed.
Q Any expert opinion--when I say experts from Fort Gordon or Fort Bragg, I mean any qualified hematologist or other type of trained experts who you have in your files, which says that this blood found in the master bedroom was not contamination and was in fact occasioned when she was injured there? In other words, you have said that you have spoken to people or you have gotten some expert opinion, what I am asking you, the direct question as to who, if anyone, or who are these individuals who have said that, other than yourself?
A There is no way, to the best of my knowledge, to determine whether a piece of blood--in a contamination, of course, what we are talking about--I elicited the opinions of other Criminal Investigators, for instance [the] pathologist and laboratory technicians at Fort Gordon and asked them their opinion.
Q Is that contained at all in your reports from the laboratory or was this just your discussion with them?
A My discussion with them, because it is strictly a matter of opinion, as far as I know; it can't be technically determined.
Q Is that recorded anywhere in the laboratory reports from Fort Gordon or any report from the forensic pathologists whom you have discussed the matter with?
A My conversation with them about this?
Q Your conversation or any report that they might have made about it?
A I do not think so.
Q Because of the fact that type AB blood was found on this bath towel, did you reach any conclusion as to whether the person who placed this bath towel had also touched Kimberly MacDonald?
A Most of the bloodstains on that towel, and there was other types of blood on it also, appeared to be wipe marks, which I conjecture to be the weapons used in this case, indicating that the weapons were wiped off on that towel. I do not know that the towel or have an opinion as to whether the towel actually came in contact with Kimberly MacDonald. I think that the weapon that killed Kimberly did come in contact with the towel.
Q And that is based on your information and knowledge about this case?
A That is correct.
Q And your experience; there is no expert opinion as to how those stains got on that particular bath mat, is there?
A No.
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 18th August 2013, 02:12 AM   #210
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Burden Of Proof

HENRIBOY: For almost a decade, you've posted this same rambling/disjointed cognitive concoction on several discussion boards. Not only can't you keep your talking points straight, but your posts usually rely on dated material that you don't place in its proper context.

You have yet to comment on the Government's presentation at the September 2012 evidentiary hearing nor have you provided your own special brand of distortion to the Government's 200 page response memo.

As Joe McGinniss once said, "Facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they cannot be overcome by hype." If you want to create a fantasy about MacDonald advocates creating timelines, be my guest, but don't try to pawn that CLAIM off as reality.

Time is running out on your boy. His lawyers know it. His wife knows it. Inmate knows it. You know it. Since 1982, the burden of proof is on inmate and so far, he hasn't come close to meeting that burden.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2013, 09:11 AM   #211
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
I admire the time and effort JTF has put into his MacDonald case website. The trouble is it's a load of bull.

Just making up evidence about a supposed violent argument in the early hours of the morning with Colette supposedly hitting Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush is not academically satisfactory. You decide on the evidence.

Dr. MacDonald has spoken publicly and in court on numerous occasions about his time line and how he was attacked and knocked unconscious when he was asleep on the couch. He has never changed his story. The time the 911 call was made is official public knowledge.

I have not read the latest prosecution or defense replies. They seem to be the same old legal waffle and rehash of what has been said for the past thirty years. There seems to be nothing new. Where are the thorough interviews with the members of the Helena Stoeckley gang still living, like Greg Mitchell's pal Daniels, or the drug addicted daughter of the Head of Army CID at Fort Bragg Colonel Kriwanek, or even Mazerolle, though I suppose he would categorically and vehemently deny everything?

Dr. MacDonald has had bad luck with his appeals. His best chance seemed to be with the Supreme Court in about 1980/81 when there were several judges who were in disagreement with the majority decision to send him back to prison. The 1985 Judge Dupree appeal was a farce

That was when Judge Dupree made the silly remark that Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell had probably been courting on a bridge on the night of the murder! It was shortly after the McGinniss Fatal Vision and TV movie had come out, and that was not good for MacDonald's court of public opinion.

The next appeal somewhere around 1991. Harvey Silverglate had done some excellent legal work with regard to the fibers and he had presented evidence about Helena's blonde synthetic hair like fibers at the crime scene and unsourced black fibers on the arm and biceps of Colette and on the wooden club murder weapon. The North Carolina judges just told him the black fibers probably came from a dress Colette was seen in a photo in but that dress was never identified! Murtagh just rejected and ignored Silverglate's criticism.

Then in about 1997 there was a legal tangle in an appeal about the DNA. The trouble is there was no DNA in 1970 and by 1997 things like the wooden club and knives had become hopelessly contaminated by handling. The biased Judge Fox only allowed a few items to be tested and any incriminating DNA evidence was then tampered with by the FBI after a ten year delay. The fingerprint collection at the crime scene was a complete shambles, which was discussed at the 1979 trial. In any case they would have been wearing gloves like surgical gloves.

Part of the trouble is that appeals bristle with technicalities and time limits. Some other suspects need to be arrested to get him out of prison. He can no longer afford private detectives. If there are any rich people around who are interested in the MacDonald case, and private detectives for him, the defense fund can be contacted at the Jeffrey MacDonald website. I think MacDonald's doctor friend Shea is in charge of that and I believe contributions can be tax deductible.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 18th August 2013 at 09:15 AM. Reason: grammatical
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 18th August 2013, 11:25 AM   #212
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,251
So...still zero physical evidence of the hippies who managed to incapacitate a Green Beret using only weapons found in the MacDonald household, all while chanting like Hollywood central casting, and leaving zero forensic evidence.

Gotcha....
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 18th August 2013, 09:06 PM   #213
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Empty Claims

KB: Exactly. If you believe MacDonald's fictional narrative, there were a minimum of 6 hippie home invaders inside the cramped residence at 544 Castle Drive. If you have 6 people attacking a family of 4 in a shared residence (e.g., upstairs neighbors), there is going to be evidence of intruders present at the crime scene.

In the past 43 years, not one piece of evidence has been SOURCED to a KNOWN intruder suspect. No evidence of any member of the Stoeckley Group was found at the crime scene. No DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no bloody footprints, no fingerprints, nothing. As I stated in my prior post, the burden is on the Defense to prove that hippie home invaders murdered Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. They had their chance to do that at the September evidentiary hearing and they came up empty.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 12:20 AM   #214
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
You folks always come up with the spurious argument that there was no evidence of intruders. The thing is in these difficult murders there is often no forensics at all of the real culprits and intruders. This is admitted by the police, at least by the police in the UK, and it was particularly true before the days of DNA. It's just the same in the Ramsey case where the real culprits have been disregarded because of no footprints in the snow when there was no snow on the walkways.

There was an interesting murder case in the UK a few years ago of a serial killer of homosexuals. There were no forensics at all of an intruder until by chance the murderer got careless and left his fingerprint on the window of the house of one of his victims when he went to investigate a disturbance outside of the bedroom window.

In the MacDonald case there was no ice pick in the MacDonald house. This was stated to the police in the initial investigation by the babysitter Kalin and by Colette's mother. It's just that later on the prosecutor Murtagh coached those two ladies to lie about the ice pick in court. That was mentioned by a judge at the Supreme Court MacDonald case hearing in about 1980.

There has never been any firm evidence that the knives in the MacDonald case like the Geneva knife or Hickory knife were ever in the MacDonald apartment before the MacDonald murders.

I have also never seen the hard evidence or scientific certainty that the wooden club murder weapon came from a MacDonald bed as was suggested by the Army CID. I suppose it's possible, but most unlikely. I suppose the killer gang may have picked it up as they entered the apartment.

There used to be chanting drug addicted hippies in those days and strange religious cults like the Mormons. They were often doing drug dealing for the Mafia and the CIA. I think Dr. MacDonald may have rubbed somebody up the wrong way when he went to New York to help out his drug addict brother and some bad character might then have decided to get even with him and his family.

Both Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry confessed to being there at the MacDonald murders. Greg Mitchell confessed in conversation later on about something that had happened at Fort Bragg. I think Morris has said that Cathy Perry is now dead. She was certainly a strange one and her testimony was confused. The point is that just because somebody has been in a mental hospital doesn't mean they are unable to witness a crime. They were not educationally subnormal. There were others in the gang who might not have been directly involved but who heard gossip as to exactly what happened. What about Bruce Fowler and Dwight Smith?

I still think the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers, and the black fibers around Colette's mouth and on the wooden club murder weapon is firm evidence, and it should never have been denied by the Army CID and FBI. To just say those fibers came from a doll or Colette was once seen in black dress in a photo is ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence with nothing to back it up. I suppose that might not sway a jury and the foreman of the jury had told at least three people before the trial that he was going to convict Dr. MacDonald whatever was said in court.

I think it's all corrupt bias, although I suppose in theory I should not say that. It was never a complete investigation. The police usually just decide who did it and then they make up the forensic evidence, and other so-called evidence, and 'find' evidence. The police are apt to jump to conclusions. The police and FBI need to get it right.

It is only necessary to read the public comments occasionally made by one judge upon what another has done to realize that mistakes are made, and serious ones.

A great weakness of the jury system is the way in which they can be, and are, influenced by the tricks and emotional appeals of advocates. Juries are affected not only by the great oratorical appeals of counsel. These have their effect mainly by providing an apparently reasoned theory which a jury can adopt to save the trouble of independent thinking. It is the nods and smiles and subtle changes of tone during examination and cross-examination which win verdicts.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th August 2013 at 02:10 AM. Reason: Forgot to mention
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 August 2013, 02:20 AM   #215
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Hype And Circumstance

HENRIBOY: I realize that the endgame of your psychotic rants is to annoy those who adhere to documented fact, but it's important to remember that a pregnant woman and two small children were needlessly butchered by the same person who hasn't provided a single piece of exculpatory evidence.

Your focus on red herrings, half-truths, assumptions, and b.s. defines you as a troll and an advocate for a convicted child killer. I know that you don't care how others define you, but if you are going to post on this thread, please stick to the documented record when presenting your arguments.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 04:39 AM   #216
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,251
What a huge pile of Special Pleading.

I am going to assume the UK case you reference is Colin Ireland

Ireland took care to clean up the murder sites. He was very careful in his killings and chose victims who were willing to be tied up.

You know who I rather doubt would be so careful in their killings? Half a dozen drugged out hippies who needed to forcefully overcome a trained Green Beret and others in the house. Oh, and then left words on the mirror in blood, etc. Apples and Oranges as far as cases go. No wonder you didn't dare name the case.

As for the chanting. Yes hippies would chant. But the whole "Acid is Groovy, Kill the Pigs" is laughable.

The rest of your post is more Special Pleading and more conspiracy nonsense.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 August 2013, 04:50 AM   #217
coalesce
Illuminator
 
coalesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,589
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Helena Stoeckley provided a story and timeline as to exactly what happened and she named names. There were other witnesses who backed up her story. Unfortunately there were mistakes and lies in her story, and the genius detectives in the Army CID and FBI just disregarded her, as did Judge Dupree. It was stupidness if you get my meaning.
Saying that a story is fraught with mistakes and lies is not exactly a compelling reason to believe it. If she were telling the truth, why sully it with mistakes and lies? If you were a detective, why would you put any credence into a story fraught with mistakes and lies?

Michael
__________________
"I want the kids in bed by nine, the dog fed, the yard watered and the gate locked. And get a note to the milkman NO MORE CHEESE!"

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.
coalesce 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 August 2013, 07:22 AM   #218
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Fairy Tales And Red Herrings

Let's see, MacDonald's ridiculous story includes a band of hippies who partake in a home invasion and once they are inside the residence, they go looking for weapons which magically appear in two rooms at once. They also look for surgeon's gloves and one of the mythical home invaders decides to write the word PIG on the master bed headboard in Colette's blood.

They also slaughter a pregnant woman, a 5 year old child, and a 2 year old child, while leaving the focus of their home invasion alive and well. These drug-crazed hippies also leave a closet full of drugs and syringes alone. They also manage to avoid leaving any bloody shoe prints or bloody fingerprints at the crime scene.

Helena Stoeckley is the John Mark Karr of the MacDonald case. There is not a shred of evidence linking Stoeckley to the crime scene, she confessed and recanted several times over, and she testified under oath that she was not involved in these murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 07:31 AM   #219
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
I think anyone who accepts anything Helena Stoeckley ever said beyond her own damn name as the gospel truth isn't worth the time and effort to debate with. The woman's brain was fried by the time she was 19. What was it, as I recall? Mescaline, heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, LSD, pot, Seconal, any prescription drug she could get her hands on, and peyote. She was a barely walking, incoherent guide to the worst case scenario of recreational drug abuse gone awry.

But you keep on believin' there, Henri. You're a chip off the MacDonald block. (Oh, and hey, let's not forget how much Jeffy liked Eskatrol. Henri, the champion of drug abusers.)

Last edited by desertgal; 19th August 2013 at 07:34 AM.
desertgal 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 August 2013, 10:45 AM   #220
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
Originally Posted by coalesce View Post
Saying that a story is fraught with mistakes and lies is not exactly a compelling reason to believe it. If she were telling the truth, why sully it with mistakes and lies? If you were a detective, why would you put any credence into a story fraught with mistakes and lies?

Michael
The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part.

Great care has to be taken that the court whatever its nature, is not in any way personally interested in the matter before it. It is regarded by our law as of the greatest importance that the administration of justice should be above any possible suspicion of bias. As the Lord Chief Justice said in R v Hurst (1924), "Justice should not only be done, but be manifestly seen to be done". It has even been laid down by high authority that it is as important that justice should seem to be done as that it should be done.

The point about Helena Stoeckley was that she was Detective Beasley's most reliable informant. When she said drugs would be found there they were found there. The Nashville cop Gaddis testified at the MacDonald trial in 1979 that he would have had Helena indicted for what she had told him about the MacDonald murders. It's foolish to reject and ignore that kind of information.

I fully appreciate that Helena had been in a mental hospital and that she was a drug addict. Her confessions seldom told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For example, she never mentioned Greg Mitchell until her relationship with him broke up.

I think Helena was bumped off after she had spoken on TV that she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. Shortly before her death she had complained to Detective Beasley that there were strange men in dark glasses around her apartment. It's also a bit suspicious to me that Greg Mitchell died around the same time, although I admit that his health was not good.

There is also something a bit odd about the murder of MacDonald attorney Eisman in about 1991, I think in Philadelphia, when he became involved in a nasty drugs case as a defense lawyer. The authorities tried to make out it was a suicide, which I find difficult to believe. The case has never been solved.

I don't mean to just carp at the American justice system, or the American security services. The British Secret Service has always taken the political credit for information provided to them in the last war by German defectors in secret, or traitors if you like, often at an extremely high level. Not much publicity has been given to their failures, or their often ruthless sacrifice of agents to protect informants. They now seem mostly interested in the imprisonment of whistleblowers in order to keep the public ill-informed. They hate political embarrassment.

People have been hanged in error in the UK in the past, though I don't want to suggest that every case is a miscarriage of justice. I think there has been a want of judgement and lack of political foresight by these people in recent years. Why support Al-Qaeda in Syria? They must be half-mad.
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 August 2013, 11:44 AM   #221
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
This thread has inspired me to buy the book Fatal Vision
Tiktaalik 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 August 2013, 12:41 PM   #222
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,325
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
.....
I think Helena was bumped off after she had spoken on TV that she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg.
...
It's also a bit suspicious to me that Greg Mitchell died around the same time, although I admit that his health was not good.
...
There is also something a bit odd about the murder of MacDonald attorney Eisman in about 1991, I think in Philadelphia, when he became involved in a nasty drugs case as a defense lawyer.
So a vast conspiracy spanning decades is killing people to frame MacDonald, who was barely scratched by a gang of bloodthirsty, drug-crazed thugs who butchered a young mother and her two babies, and who, as a Green Beret officer, would have been by far the biggest -- if not only -- threat to them? And the authorities chose to frame an innocent Army doctor rather than lock up known criminals? That's your story? While you're at it, tell us who faked the moon landings.

Last edited by Bob001; 19th August 2013 at 12:48 PM.
Bob001 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 August 2013, 12:45 PM   #223
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,325
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
This thread has inspired me to buy read the book Fatal Vision
Support your local public library!
Bob001 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 August 2013, 11:09 PM   #224
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Kindle Book

In 2012, Joe McGinniss completed his final work on the MacDonald case. FINAL VISION is a terrific addendum to his masterpiece FATAL VISION. You can purchase FINAL VISION via Amazon Kindle books.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2013, 12:12 AM   #225
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,689
In regards to MacDonald's wound, I remember a 60 Mintues show shortly after the murders where they showed the location of his wound and how it might have happened. A doctor on the show said that he believed the wound was caused by a scalpel and that MacDonald knew exactly where to use the scalpel without injuring himself fatally. About 10 years ago, I contacted CBS to see if they still had that show available. The numnuts I spoke with told me that, after 40 years, they didn't have it. That show was the first I'd heard about this terrible murder and I was surprised MacDonald was the suspect.

I did a bunch of research in libraries and found a lot of articles that gradually led me to believe he was guilty as sin. The more I read, the more certain I was. Then along came the internet and all the info that became available. I read Fatal Vision and though Joe McGinniss nailed it. Nothing that's come along since has made me change my mind. Jeffery MacDonald murdered his pregnant wife and 2 small daughters in cold blood. He may have been fighting with Colette and struck her in anger but he had to think about and take the time to brutally murder Kristen and Kimberly.

MacDonald is right where he belongs and he will die in prison.
__________________
Trumps, Hiltons and Kardashians are proof there is no god and the universe hates decent people.

"I never thought leopards would eat MY face", sobs the woman who voted for Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
KatieG 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 August 2013, 06:10 AM   #226
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Support your local public library!
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In 2012, Joe McGinniss completed his final work on the MacDonald case. FINAL VISION is a terrific addendum to his masterpiece FATAL VISION. You can purchase FINAL VISION via Amazon Kindle books.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't have a public library - I live in the sticks.

But I do have both a Nook and a Kindle, and ebooks of both Fatal, the first, and Final, the final, Vision!
Tiktaalik 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 August 2013, 06:40 AM   #227
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Final Vision is an excellent addendum to a true crime masterpiece.

Henri can bleat all he wants. The fact remains that MacDonald's lawsuit against McGinniss, and I've said this before, but it bears repeating, boiled down to nothing more than MacDonald having a legal hissy fit because McGinniss wrote the truth.

MacDonald had the opportunity to rebut Fatal Vision point by point, through his lawyers, in a court of law. Ample opportunity since to prove McGinniss wrong. He refused to take the initial opportunity, and he hasn't proven his case since. Why not? Because you can't disprove the truth, and all the shadow boxing by Errol Morris and Jeff MacDonald and Henri won't change that.
desertgal 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 August 2013, 07:19 AM   #228
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
Joe McGinniss was employed and paid by Dr. MacDonald's defense lawyer Segal to write a pro-MacDonald book to protect MacDonald's interests in the court of public opinion. When that wrong verdict came in 1979 McGinniss betrayed Dr. Macdonald with his Fatal Vision book and TV movie. Dr. MacDonald then sued and in 1987 there was a court case in California which Dr. MacDonald won, although most of the damages seemed to go to Colette's emotional and heavy drinker stepfather Fred Kassab, for some reason or another.

I have not read the recent Errol Morris book. From what I have seen of the reviews it seems to be a more fair and just account of the MacDonald case. McGinniss had a premise that there was a MacDonald amphetamine psychosis which McGinniss testified in court in 1987 that he did not even believe himself. McGinniss then went on a luxury cruise around the world after that court case. McGinniss has come under criticism for some of his other books, like the book on Edward Kennedy and his Sarah Palin book.

Dr. MacDonald suffered life threatening injuries with a collapsed lung and internal bleeding. The doctors at the local military hospital who made light of all that at the trial have since said that they only said that because he was presumed to have been guilty. The eminent forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff always said that he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald did not do it.

My own theory is that the murderers deliberately left Dr. MacDonald alive in order to deflect suspicion away from themselves. Even the Army CID might have investigated the case more thoroughly if the whole family had died, though the CID and FBI would have probably put it down to a murder and suicide. It was hardly relentless investigating for Ivory to ask Greg Mitchell where he was on the night of the murders and then get the answer that he might have been staying with his parents! That should have been checked out.

I still think the Army CID and the CIA and NSA are a bunch of idiots. At first the Army CID tried to get Dr. MacDonald to confess at the April 1970 interview, which he never did. Dr. MacDonald had phoned the Army CID then about the possibility of the return of some of his private property, but once he arrived at the building he was confronted with a lengthy interview by a couple of Army CID agents with a light shining in his eye. It's true he was warned of his Miranda rights about not answering questions if he didn't want to and offered the services of a lawyer, which he declined because he is innocent. That was probably a bit naive.

Admissions and confessions, even when apparently legally admissible, ought to be looked on with much greater suspicion then they usually are. The main priority of anybody held at a police station is to get home as soon as possible and many people including intelligent and innocent people are willing to be coached into signing anything if they are told they can then go home. The lawyers at the police station are not much help. They are usually in league with the police.

There was the notorious case of the murdered little girl Riley Fox whose father signed a false confession. He was imprisoned for about a year until the police discovered the DNA of a completely different man on the murder victim, who has since been imprisoned. He received many thousands in compensation from the public purse which is a waste of money.

I appreciate there is no absolute certainty. There was a documentary on TV recently of a little boy from somewhere like Alabama being forced to confess in a police station to the murder of his little sister. That confession seemed to be the only evidence the police had in the case. It's just that it hardly seemed to be a careful and complete investigation. He might have been guilty for all I know.

Juries can be incompetent. There was a case in my own area of a thug being acquitted for murder a few years ago after a new year's eve bar room brawl. Then today the same man was convicted of murder in an exactly similar incident a few years later.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 20th August 2013 at 07:23 AM. Reason: spelling mistake
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 August 2013, 07:45 AM   #229
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,325
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
....
Dr. MacDonald suffered life threatening injuries with a collapsed lung and internal bleeding. The doctors at the local military hospital who made light of all that at the trial have since said that they only said that because he was presumed to have been guilty.
....
So the doctors -- MacDonald's professional brethren -- who treated him lied to frame him?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
....
Confessions, even when apparently legally admissible, ought to be looked on with much greater suspicion then they usually are. The main priority of anybody held at a police station is to get home as soon as possible and many people including intelligent and innocent people are willing to be coached into signing anything
....
This might explain any confessions that may have been made by drug-addled Helena Stoeckley. But MacDonald never confessed to anything, and his conviction doesn't depend on any confession.
Bob001 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 August 2013, 08:05 AM   #230
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
As far as I can recall Dr. MacDonald described his treatment at the local military hospital after the MacDonald murders as pretty ******. I think it was disgraceful treatment. One of the doctors there later apologised for failing to diagnose the collapsed lung. Dr MacDonald was a brilliant emergency doctor and he knew what he was talking about.

A junior doctor there, Dr. Neal, was called to the crime scene in the middle of the night to certificate that the victims were dead. At the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 and at the 1979 trial Dr. Neal was quite candid in saying that he moved bodies and fabrics as he accomplished that task. Army CID agent Ivory then categorically denied Neal's testimony in order to support the lunatic theory about bodies being carried in a sheet.

You must have a theory which fits the facts and not just make up facts to fit a theory.

This is as far as Dr. Macdonald got to confessing, from his Grand Jury testimony in 1974/5:

"Because I didn't spend the rest of my life, you know, praying on the graves you tell me I don't love my family. And that means I must have killed them. That's not true.
Oh, it's a lot of ****. I didn't kill Colette. And I didn't kill Kimmie, and I didn't kill Kristy, and I didn't move Colette, and I didn't move Kimmie, and I didn't move Kristy, and I gave them mouth to mouth breathing, and I loved them then, and I love them now. And Colette didn't kill them either. And you can shove all your *********** evidence right up your ass.
Q Dr. MacDonald, we have gone into certain matters because we have had to go into those matters.
A Sure.
Q You were examined by a psychiatrist, your own psychiatrist, your own psychologist, you were examined by the Army psychiatrist and psychologist, and you know when psychologists and psychiatrists probe into your personality and state of mind they inevitably focus on your sex life and how that affects your family life--
A I'd like to probe into some of the psychiatrists's sex life you know."
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 August 2013, 08:56 AM   #231
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Well, that's not indicative of much of anything, but it sure makes MacDonald sound like an arrogant *******.

ETA: oh, wow, it autocensors that word? Really? I've been using that word since I was about eight.
Tiktaalik 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 August 2013, 10:12 AM   #232
Apology
Reader's of the Boden Codex
 
Apology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,100
Without even looking at the evidence very hard*, it's difficult to believe MacDonald's account. Just using logic and Occam's Razor, which is easier to believe: That there's a wide-ranging conspiracy involving hippies, military police, civilian police, and doctors, all acting in concert to frame MacDonald for murder for some yet unexplained reason, or that Dr. MacDonald felt that he'd be better off without his wife and children and decided to murder them? Which story is more common and more likely?

I also object to Freddy Kassab being depicted as "hard-drinking" and "emotional". Who wouldn't be emotional after their daughter and granddaughters were brutally murdered? Perhaps if MacDonald had been more emotional during his trial more jurors would have believed him. I fail to see what Kassab's drinking has to do with anything, since MacDonald wasn't exactly a teetotaler himself. Kassab may not have been the most pleasant person in the world and I'm sure he had many, many flaws, but criticizing the man like this long after his death just seems derogatory and mean-spirited.

*I have, of course, read Fatal Vision and a few other independent accounts of the case and have come to my own conclusion that MacDonald did it. All the evidence points to MacDonald and away from the hippie theory, and nobody else stood to benefit from the deaths of MacDonald's wife and children. Cui bono? Only MacDonald.
__________________
"When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me." - Plato, Apology
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Apology 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 August 2013, 05:24 AM   #233
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
Final Vision

The following is an excerpt from Joe McGinniss' FINAL VISION.

Can anyone seriously argue that Jeffrey MacDonald has not been given his day in court? He's been given years. He's been given decades. And Fox intended to be sure that, by the time the hearing was over, no appellate court would ever again be able to suggest that MacDonald had not been given ample opportunity to avail himself of all of his constitutional rights. There may be no more graphic illustration of the hearing's essential insignificance than the fact that three of MacDonald's most high-profile lawyers- Barry Scheck, Alan Dershowitz, and Harvey Silverglate were nowhere to be found.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2013, 08:01 AM   #234
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
That's a silly remark by Joe McGinniss.

Dr. MacDonald and his lawyers have always only been able to do so much to prove his innocence and they have always been up against corrupt bias and forensic fraud and media frenzy. He has had many lawyers over the years. The trouble is lawyers expect to get paid for the severe strain of their legal work and Dr. MacDonald can no longer afford the legal fees or private detectives. Money talks.

None of the lawyers who have represented him in the past have ever changed their mind about the case that I know about. Harvey Silverglate is now retired and you can't expect him to continue to go through the worry and expense of attending Hearings and writing responses.

There was an army lawyer involved in the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 who was quoted in a newspaper last year as saying what happened to Dr. MacDonald was horrendous. I'm not the only person who thinks he didn't do it, or that the real culprits have gone free to kill again, or engage in white collar crime and bank fraud and drug dealing with impunity.
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 August 2013, 08:23 AM   #235
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 756
This Will End Poorly For Inmate

HENRIBOY: Silly, eh? Your lack of insight is palpable. In the past 43 years, inmate has had 21 lawyers represent him and he has received more chances at freedom than any murderer in history. Inmate was convicted in less than 7 hours of 3 counts of murder, yet he has received 8 chances at a new trial. Incredible. This most recent legal circus will produce the same result and inmate will die in prison. Justice prevails.
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 August 2013, 08:32 AM   #236
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,848
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a silly remark by Joe McGinniss.

Dr. MacDonald and his lawyers have always only been able to do so much to prove his innocence and they have always been up against corrupt bias and forensic fraud and media frenzy. He has had many lawyers over the years. The trouble is lawyers expect to get paid for the severe strain of their legal work and Dr. MacDonald can no longer afford the legal fees or private detectives. Money talks.

None of the lawyers who have represented him in the past have ever changed their mind about the case that I know about. Harvey Silverglate is now retired and you can't expect him to continue to go through the worry and expense of attending Hearings and writing responses.

There was an army lawyer involved in the Article 32 proceeding in 1970 who was quoted in a newspaper last year as saying what happened to Dr. MacDonald was horrendous. I'm not the only person who thinks he didn't do it, or that the real culprits have gone free to kill again, or engage in white collar crime and bank fraud and drug dealing with impunity.
Or perhaps to bit parts as evil aging hippies in the new remade Hawaii Five-O.

Seriously, the only place something like that chanting happened in reality was in the Manson murders. An article about that in Esquire was found in MacDonald's living room.

The only other place I've heard of chanting that dumb-sounding was the old Hawaii Five O, or maybe MAD magazine.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 07:44 AM   #237
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
The Esquire magazine with the report of the Manson murders is no more evidence of guilt than saying I was involved in the murder of Princess Diana because I have a magazine in which her death is reported. There were reports that several military policemen had leafed through the Esquire magazine as something to read at the MacDonald crime scene. It was hardly uncontaminated evidence.

From what I have read several of the Stoeckley group moved away from North Carolina to lie low. One or two went to California and others to Canada. Somebody once posted that Mazerolle is now prospering in charge of some kind of business in the north-east of America. I think the NSA should keep tabs on these people instead of them just bugging the highly confidential information on Wall Street.

The point about Mazerolle was that he is a hard cookie, as Detective Beasley described him. It looks as though Helena Stoeckley snitched on him before the MacDonald murders so that Beasley could arrest him for drug dealing. Mazerolle was supposed to have turned up in court for that on the day of the MacDonald murders because Beasley was scheduled to be a witness in the case. Mazerolle never did turn up in court. Instead he went on the run and was jailed in another state many months later for burglary. The Army CID and FBI showed no curiosity about this. It's true there is a piece of paper saying Mazerolle was supposed to be in jail, and that is Mazerolle's alibi, but Detective Beasley said he saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders, and Beasley said there was bribery and corruption about the issue of jail certificates. Mazerolle's pal Rizzo who was arrested at the same as Mazerolle time was definitely out on bail.

Bruce Fowler was in jail at one time where he was so called interviewed by the Army CID or FBI and asked for his name and address.

What I don't understand is that Judge Fox has been in charge of the MacDonald case for the past twenty years and he declared publicly last year that he is not familiar with the 1979 MacDonald trial.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 22nd August 2013 at 07:47 AM. Reason: grammatical
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 08:06 AM   #238
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,654
There was another funny business when Helena's bloody clothes and boots were handed in to Army CID agent Ivory by Mrs Garcia after the MacDonald murders and then promptly disregarded. Either Ivory is a stupid cop, or he is corrupt. This is what I have previously written about the matter:

"This business of Mrs Garcia and the bloody boots is a bit complicated.

It looks to me as though Helena Stoeckley must have given the clothes and boots she wore at the MacDonald murders to Cathy Perry/Williams. Cathy Perry started going nuts at that time, and she went to live with Mrs Garcia.

Mrs Garcia went through Cathy Perry's clothes and she became suspicious. She took the items, through a lawyer, to the Army CID agents Kearns and Ivory, who promptly returned them.

The point is that MacDonald defense lawyers should have been informed about all this, and not been kept in the dark about it all, even if there was no forensic significance involved. It's a pity in a way that Mrs Garcia never delivered the items to a MacDonald lawyer.

Murtagh and Juge Dupree at the 1985 MacDonald appeal categorically denied there was any blood on the boots, or that any clothes had been delivered. That's not what the FBI say, or some of the lawyers involved in the incident. It looks like more fraud over receipts in the MacDonald case, rather like the bail bonds in the Mazerolle case. This is some background information:

"Meanwhile on January 8th 1971 Jackie Don Wolverton returned to off post quarters to find two laundry bags filled with Perry's possessions, which according to Wolverton, apparently included some blood stained clothing and a bag of marijuana.

Accompanied by one EDDIE McDANIELS, Wolverton drove to Mrs Garcia's house and deposited the laundry bags, without the marijuana in them, on Mrs Garcia's porch.

At his point in the saga fate intervened and McDANIELS and Wolverton were stopped by the police, arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.

Consequently Nance, who represented EDDIE McDANIELS, recontacted the CID, and tried to involve them in his client's case. Ultimately, on February 2nd 1971, Mrs Garcia appeared at Kearns' office and demanded the return of the property previously furnished by Nance to Ivory.

A diligent search by the undersigned of the loose CID property receipt processed under FOIA disclosed only a copy of a DA-19-31 signed by Mrs Betty Garcia, acknowledging the return of the property from Agent Ivory on Feb 2nd 1971."

This is what MacDonald lawyer Bernie Segal had to say about those clothes and boots in an affidavit:

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

MacDonald's army lawyer Malley said in 1984:

"During the entire course of my representation I was never aware that any women's clothing or boots had been turned over to CID investigator William Ivory. In fact, I was never aware of the existence of this clothing and boots."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 08:32 AM   #239
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,892
So why are they going thru all this effort to frame him? Seriously, assuming that he is being framed for his family's murder, why frame him? What is the motive? What did he do or what does he know that it makes more sense to murder his entire family and frame him than to just kill him and be done with him. Or are the real killers and the evil forces framing him unrelated? I want to understand the logic of this conspiracy theory.
bynmdsue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 08:57 AM   #240
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
So why are they going thru all this effort to frame him? Seriously, assuming that he is being framed for his family's murder, why frame him? What is the motive? What did he do or what does he know that it makes more sense to murder his entire family and frame him than to just kill him and be done with him. Or are the real killers and the evil forces framing him unrelated? I want to understand the logic of this conspiracy theory.
There's logic in conspiracy theories?
desertgal 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 07:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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