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 3rd September 2013, 11:23 AM   #281
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
That article is a load of rubbish. It's not profound enough.

McGinniss is desperate to defend his fabricated evidence in the MacDonald case because money talks. If he is ever proved wrong it makes him look like an idiot. It's not good for his image.

All the prosecution can come up with now is a lot of manufactured evidence about pajama fibers and pajama pockets. They don't want the real culprits to be arrested.

Why didn't the FBI use a real blood expert in the MacDonald case instead of a former insurance salesman and con artist like Stombaugh. They must think that American juries can be easily fooled. Malone and his theory without facts about fibers coming from dolls has been described as a "total liar" by a lawyer in another murder case, and that was proved. I don't think discipline in the FBI is quite what it should be. Malone remains unpunished, of course.

This is a sensible reference from a former defense response to all that pajama pocket nonsense which is supposed to be real proof of MacDonald guilt:

"A conclusion equally plausible with the government’s theory is that Jeff
MacDonald, upon finding his wife’s bloody body in the master bedroom, and while removing the bath
mat and trying to move Colette as he testified happened, at some point began trying to frantically unbind
the pajama top that was wrapped around his wrists. As he was attempting to do this the pajama pocket
could easily have been torn away from the top, but only after it had already come in contact with both
Colette’s blood which was all around her body, and blood of Kimberley’s blood type which was on the
bath mat covering Colette. This explanation is consistent with the evidence. It is no more or less likely
than the government’s speculation about it. Hence, the torn pajama pocket evidence is neutral. Contrary
to the myth perpetrated by the government over the years, it is not probative of Jeff MacDonald’s guilt."
Henri McPhee 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 3rd September 2013, 01:00 PM   #282
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Pajama Top Pocket

The significance of Terry Laber's trial testimony was evident in the FACT that no rebuttal witnesses were called by the Defense. The explanation provided in Henri's post ignores several key FACTS.

1) The area on the pajama top where the pocket was originally located was soaked in Colette's Type A blood.

2) The pocket was found at Colette's feet on top of an upturned corner portion of an area rug. The corner portion of the rug had no blood on it.

3) The pocket, on the other hand, had Colette's blood on it in 6 locations. The stains were on the face of the double-layered fabric and no stains were found on the opposite side of the pocket. This indicated that Colette's blood stained the pocket BEFORE it was torn from jacket.

4) During the 4/6/70 interview with CID investigators, MacDonald claims that his pajama top was torn in the living room, but neither the pocket nor a single fiber from his pajama top was found in the living room.

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 3rd September 2013, 06:55 PM   #283
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That article is a load of rubbish. It's not profound enough.

McGinniss is desperate to defend his fabricated evidence in the MacDonald case because money talks. If he is ever proved wrong it makes him look like an idiot. It's not good for his image.

All the prosecution can come up with now is a lot of manufactured evidence about pajama fibers and pajama pockets. They don't want the real culprits to be arrested.

Why didn't the FBI use a real blood expert in the MacDonald case instead of a former insurance salesman and con artist like Stombaugh. They must think that American juries can be easily fooled. Malone and his theory without facts about fibers coming from dolls has been described as a "total liar" by a lawyer in another murder case, and that was proved. I don't think discipline in the FBI is quite what it should be. Malone remains unpunished, of course.

This is a sensible reference from a former defense response to all that pajama pocket nonsense which is supposed to be real proof of MacDonald guilt:

"A conclusion equally plausible with the government’s theory is that Jeff
MacDonald, upon finding his wife’s bloody body in the master bedroom, and while removing the bath
mat and trying to move Colette as he testified happened, at some point began trying to frantically unbind
the pajama top that was wrapped around his wrists. As he was attempting to do this the pajama pocket
could easily have been torn away from the top, but only after it had already come in contact with both
Colette’s blood which was all around her body, and blood of Kimberley’s blood type which was on the
bath mat covering Colette. This explanation is consistent with the evidence. It is no more or less likely
than the government’s speculation about it. Hence, the torn pajama pocket evidence is neutral. Contrary
to the myth perpetrated by the government over the years, it is not probative of Jeff MacDonald’s guilt."
Don't you also believe that Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman hired to kill Colette and the girls because Jeff MacDonald punched an alleged Mafia member in the mouth? I remember you mentioning that...

So much for the credibility of your opinions.
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 3rd September 2013, 08:53 PM   #284
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Stombaugh

Paul Stombaugh had a decorated career in the FBI which spanned 25 years. Stombaugh testified in over 300 cases, he analyzed hair and fiber evidence in the JFK case, and he frequently lectured on hair and fiber analysis at Quantico. Stombaugh was brilliant at the 1979 trial and many trial observers felt that his testimony was the main reason why MacDonald was convicted on three counts of murder.

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 3rd September 2013, 11:50 PM   #285
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
4) During the 4/6/70 interview with CID investigators, MacDonald claims that his pajama top was torn in the living room, but neither the pocket nor a single fiber from his pajama top was found in the living room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Dr. MacDonald never did say that the pajama top was torn in the living room so why is it so suspicious, and such a great surprise, that no pajama fibers were found there? Anybody who is not a simpleton would be able to see that. JTF has got it wrong again.

As far as I can remember Dr. MacDonald never said that he walked through four people to get to the bedroom either as Shaw was quoted saying at the Article 32. It sounds like a dodgy dossier to me.

The matter was discussed at the article 32 in 1970 with Army CID agent Shaw. He was the goon who thought Colette murdered the two little girls:

A No, because he states it was ripped in the living room. He started down the hallway and he wound up unconscious on the hall floor. There are no fibers in the living room--we found none--let's put it that way, and we searched very diligently for fibers in the living room or the couch and in the kitchen and dining room we found none. We did find one group of fibers, or threads, I am not sure which, at the entrance to the hallway, floor to the living room. We found a great many fibers all over the bedroom floor. I was asked before where most of them were found, but in fact they were found through the traveled area of this bedroom floor.
Q Captain MacDonald never said it got ripped; he said it somehow got entangled over his arm in the living room in the struggle and he staggered into the hallway and became unconscious, is that your recollection also of his story?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then he regained consciousness and went into the bedroom and then took off the top or freed his hands?
A He said to me in the only personal statement I heard him make, that he has no recollection of it going over his head because he has no recollection of the top being pulled over the head, but he did say at one point that the pajama jacket was wrapped somehow around his wrist and that someone was punching him and he was trying to fend off the punches with the top in his hands and when he regained consciousness, he went through these four people and wound up on the floor of the hallway and regained consciousness, he stood up and walked to his wife's body, pulled the pajama jacket off his hand and placed it on her body in an attempt to keep her warm and treat her for shock. So that is what I heard him say.
Q But he never said the jacket was ripped?
A I don't believe he used that term. I would have to read the transcript of his statement again.
Q If fibers were found in the hallway near the living room, isn't it possible this got there from his falling down there and lying there with his hands entwined in the jacket for a period of time--we don't know how long--before he got up to go in the bedroom? Couldn't they have gotten there that way?
A If that happened, yes, they could have.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd September 2013 at 11:53 PM.
Henri McPhee 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 4th September 2013, 09:13 AM   #286
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Keeping Stories Not So Straight

The documented record demonstrates that Jeffrey MacDonald was all over the map in regards to what occurred on 2/17/70. His pajama top was ripped in the living room, it was ripped in the master bedroom as he was removing it from his wrists, he was attacked by two black males and one white male, he was attacked by two white males and one black male, he didn't go into the kitchen, he went into the kitchen and may have washed his hands in the kitchen sink, and the list goes on and on.

The list is so prodigious that part of the Government's post-hearing exhibits list includes two booklets worth of MacDonald's contradictions. MacDonald's story changed as his knowledge of the Government's case increased. These changes, however, couldn't explain why his wife's blood was found on his torn pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn or why fibers from his torn pajama top were found under bodies, bedcovers, pillows, and his daughter's fingernail or why bloody fabric impressions matching the pajama cuffs of Jeffrey AND Colette MacDonald were found on a piece of bedding used to transport Colette AND Kimmie back to their bedrooms or........

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 4th September 2013 at 09:16 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 6th September 2013, 07:11 AM   #287
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
Dr. MacDonald never changed his story. It's true that at times he was not terribly sure whether Helena Stoeckley's boots were beige or light colored but that could be explained by the fact that it all happened so quickly. Forgive my ignorance, but I have never seen an exact reference where Dr. MacDonald said he was attacked by two black males, though in the circumstances that was entirely possible. There were other black males besides Dwight Smith who were named as suspects by Ted Gunderson and by Detective Beasley in their reports of the MacDonald case.

It was never proved that there was blood on the pajama top before it was torn in order to imply a violent argument. The supposed blood evidence on the pajama top was never presented to the court from the prosecution lawyers by a qualified blood expert. Pajama fibers are pajama fibers, and they prove nothing. There are grave doubts that there were any pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon which the fraudster lawyer Blackburn was so keen to sway the jury with in his closing argument at the MacDonald trial.

The mystery black fibers, never identified, on the wooden club murder weapon and around Colette's mouth have been disregarded just because Judge Dupree in his wisdom said in an appeal they would not sway a jury

There isn't a particle of evidence that Kimmie and Colette were transported to their bedrooms, apart from a few blood spots collected by very inexperienced Army lab technicians. Dr. Thornton always said that he wanted to check the blood evidence himself, but he was never allowed to by Judge Dupree. Dr. Thornton had been told by the FBI that mistakes had been made in blood typing by the Army CID lab in the past. That could have happened in the MacDonald case.

There was an interesting miscarriage of justice case in the UK a couple of days ago which reminded me of the MacDonald case. The boyfriend of a murdered teenage girl was put in prison for six years in about 2001 after the police honestly thought they were right. After a campaign by the BBC TV Rough Justice show, now discontinued, he was released on appeal. Then in 2010 there was a DNA hit from a DNA computer of previously unidentified DNA found on the murder weapon which belonged to somebody called Ahmed who had recently been convicted of a sexual assault. Ahmed has now been convicted and imprisoned for that murder.

As the lawyer Jaggers in the Charles Dickens Great Expectations novel said " Take nothing on looks, take everything on the evidence. There is no better rule."
Henri McPhee 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 6th September 2013, 09:46 AM   #288
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Put Up Or Shut Up

HENRI: You certainly have the right to ignore the mass of data demonstrating MacDonald's guilt, but this is a forum that focuses on critical thought. For the past decade, you've posted the SAME dubious claims on several other forums, but as of late, this forum has been the lone venue for your disjointed arguments.

I would advocate that you go back to posting on other MacDonald case forums. As I have in the past, I will be happy to respond to each and every one of your convoluted, conspiracy-minded posts. IMO, your bizarre advocacy pieces are better suited for forums whose entire focus is the MacDonald case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2013, 01:34 PM   #289
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Henri also thinks Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. He pretty much abolished any semblance of credibility with that one post. I doubt anyone is even bothering to read his posts anymore.
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 8th September 2013, 12:22 PM   #290
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Henri also thinks Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. He pretty much abolished any semblance of credibility with that one post. I doubt anyone is even bothering to read his posts anymore.
I have never said that Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. I have said that she was a snitch and a very reliable snitch at that. When she provided information about drugs the police were always very interested. There were rumors that Helena was used as a snitch also by the Army CID, and by the FBI.

I do have my doubts about Allen Patrick Mazerolle and his pal Rizzo who both came from the New York area. I would be interested to know if their names are on any FBI computer. The rest of the Stoeckley group were accomplices who might not have known about any Mafia connection. The point is that I think Helena had knowledge in relation to the MacDonald murders crime.

I never used to believe in conspiracy theories,, like the MacDonald case, or Lockerbie, but it amazes me that the American public can be so gullible about 9/11. Ask yourself who made many millions from the 9/11 disaster, or from the banking crisis. Was it the American taxpayer or single mothers? I suppose it's like Neville Chamberlain once said, the public and the House of Commons only understand straight lines.

JTF always seems so proud that Army CID agent Bill Ivory was introduced into the Hall of Fame. I have always said he should be in the Hall of Infamy.

This is what I have previously written about Bill Ivory. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic:

This is how thoroughly Bill Ivory investigated Helena Stoeckley with regard to the MacDonald murders:

Q How about her manner of demeanor? Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q Candid and open. Is that right?
A Right.
Q And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory. I don't underestimate that for a moment. What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A I could not--I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A I've never tried it. I do not know.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you issue any further instructions to the MPs in and about and around this building about not opening or shutting or closing any door?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

I don't think Bill Ivory was a good and astute detective:

Q And of course you have no way of telling, as you have already pointed out, as to whether any of those bodies of Kristen and Kimberly--their blood--came in contact with each other while on the stretcher?
A To my knowledge, they did not, sir.
Q How do you have any knowledge on the subject, sir?
A To my knowledge, they did not.
Q What is your knowledge on the subject?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th September 2013 at 12:26 PM.
Henri McPhee is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2013, 08:54 PM   #291
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Defense Reply Memo Is Garbage

After re-reading Gordie's 37 page butt wiper, it is clear that he wants to get out of Dodge. When you claim that MacDonald never said the intruders were hippies or that Britt's documented lies are merely "inconsistencies," you're waving the white flag. This reminds me of Dershowitz telling reporters that the Defense will "never give up" and then skipping town after the conclusion of 1992 oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court. Dershowitz knew that he and Silverglate got their asses kicked by Murtagh/Depue at oral arguments, so he wasn't going to wait around for the news that the 4th Circuit denied MacDonald relief. Two years later, Dershowitz went on to bigger and better things by representing another psychopath (e.g., O.J. Simpson) in a high profile murder case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 14th September 2013 at 08:55 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 15th September 2013, 10:47 AM   #292
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
I do have my doubts about Murtagh and very little confidence in him. It is quite reasonable to suggest that Murtagh coached, and even paid witnesses, to lie about their involvement in the Jimmy Britt business as Murtagh did with false MacDonald case testimony with regard to the ice pick, and also paying witnesses to lie in the Lockerbie case.

I also believe Murtagh was willing to use forensic fraud in his will to win in court.

For people to suggest on other forums that they believe Fred Kassab and his lunatic theory without facts that MacDonald may have molested his daughters is absolutely outrageous. There wasn't an iota of medical, autopsy, or any other evidence to back up that opinion, which was never an expert opinion.

Dershowitz was up against biased and possibly corrupt and malicious judges in the MacDonald case. I believe America may now have corrupt government, and corrupt bankers, which is probably why al-Qaeda and the Mexican drug cartels have been described as CIA assets There are some funny goings on in the Pakistan military and intelligence service and its relationship with the CIA with regard to drugs as well. It's the rule of lawyers and not the rule of law in America, and this applies to the MacDonald case. American corrupt politicians, but not journalists, are above the law.

A criminal defense attorney often has to represent guilty people. It's not a crime. At least Dershowitz wasn't prosecuting an innocent man or woman as Murtagh did in the MacDonald case, or as also happened in the Darlie Routier case. The reason OJ got away with it was more to do with the incompetence of juries rather than cunning and trickery by defense lawyers.

Of course Dr. MacDonald will never give up if he is innocent. I'm beginning to believe these conspiracy theories like the assassination of President Kennedy and 9/11 and the MacDonald case. I think it's the manipulation of American public opinion so that trillions are spent and wasted on Middle East wars and bank bailouts. Who is being cheated?
Henri McPhee is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2013, 05:26 PM   #293
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I think it's the manipulation of American public opinion so that trillions are spent and wasted on Middle East wars and bank bailouts. Who is being cheated?
What does that have to do with the MacDonald case?
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 15th September 2013, 08:51 PM   #294
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Kassab's Theory

I assumed that the first time that the general public was made aware of Freddy Kassab's theory that inmate was molesting Kimmie was when Bob Stevenson allowed Christina to post Freddy's thoughts on her website.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

Despite owning the book for two decades, I only recently ran across the following excerpt from Janet Malcolm's THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER. The following is a dialogue between Malcolm and Dr. Michael Stone.

I asked him, "Isn't it possible that bad things were done to MacDonald in his early years? That his childhood wasn't all that idyllic, and that he repressed what happened?"

"Yes."

"If you knew that to be so, would you feel more benign toward him?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because he's a liar. Because he's not man enough to say, "I committed those murders because I was under the influence of amphetamines. I didn't know what I was doing. Colette was taking a course in psychology, she was going to wear the pants in the family. This was threatening to me; I felt left out. I was beginning to fondle the older girl too much, and she caught me'- this is Colette's stepfather's theory; he told me about it during the trial -'so in a moment of frenzied feeling that ruined my whole life, I just killed the whole lot of them.' If he could say all that, I'd still want him put away for the rest of his life, but at least I'd have some respect for the fact that he could be honest about what happened. No way. He can't do that. He's not built to do that."

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 16th September 2013, 10:31 AM   #295
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
All that was wild speculation from Fred Kassab and it was never legally admissible in court. You must speak only as to facts in a courtroom and not to opinions, except expert opinions. I think the legal term for it is incompetent, or pure speculation. It was never mentioned at the Article 32, or at the Grand Jury, or at the 1979 MacDonald trial, or at any subsequent appeals.

The Fred Kassab and Joe McGinniss amphetamine psychosis theory was disproved at a Court case in California in 1987.

The first time I heard of all that child molesting nonsense was at the time of the Parole Hearing in about 2005 when Colette's brother Bob Stevenson appeared on radio and repeated what Fred Kassab had said about the matter. I think that was criminal libel by Bob Stevenson and Dr. MacDonald should have taken legal action if he had the money. Stevenson had no real proof at all.

A prosecutor must be whiter than white and not manufacture evidence, or prosecute innocent people, or be a shady lawyer like Murtagh.

The MacDonald lawyers have attempted in the past to use prosecution misconduct as a ground for appeal. I think they had a good case like the way the black wool fibers and blonde synthetic hair-like fibers were covered up by the prosecution. I suppose you can't use poor police work as a ground for appeal.

Judge Dupree distinctly said at the 1979 trial that if the prosecution disregarded the Brady law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence then he would order a retrial. There was a long list of exculpatory evidence that was never disclosed to the judge or jury by the prosecution which was subsequently disregarded by Judge Dupree on appeal. I suppose Murtagh thought the Brady law didn't apply to him.

The trouble is once an innocent person is wrongly convicted it is not an easy task to get out of prison. It's just the same in the UK. The lazy and incompetent police are not much help.

In desperation Dr. MacDonald once tried to accuse Segal of incompetence as a ground for appeal to which Judge Dupree replied that he thought Segal was an astute lawyer. I must admit I would not like to have Segal as a lawyer if my life was on the line. His closing argument at the 1979 trial was an example of how not to do it. It was far too academic and long and rambling for an average North Carolina jury. He should have cut, cut, cut.

Segal did it to the best of his ability, but as he once remarked he was up against the most extraordinary inventions of the prosecution in the MacDonald case.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th September 2013 at 10:37 AM. Reason: spelling
Henri McPhee 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 16th September 2013, 12:08 PM   #296
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
I'm currently reading 'A Wilderness of Error', having finished 'Fatal Vision'. I'm puzzled. I thought AWoE was going to be a rebuttal or refutation of Fatal Vision, but so far it is not. It is rambling, disjointed, and the facts that are presented seem to support the case against MacDonald! Perhaps there's more specific rebuttal later on, I'm less than halfway through, but so far I don't see the point of this book. I'm also disappointed, as I was expecting a detailed, thorough examination of the blood and other evidence.
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 16th September 2013, 04:47 PM   #297
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
WOE Is A Worthless Research Tool

TIKTAALIK: I hear ya. When I spoke to Morris in 2011, he told me that the book was going to focus on why this case continues to fascinate the general public, but now I know he was conning me. Not only is WOE short on fact and long on supposition/theory, it doesn't put a dent in the massive case presented by the prosecution at the 1979 trial.

The only part of the prosecution's case that WOE covers is a long-winded and unimpressive rebuttal to the Pajama Top Theory. Morris doesn't seem to understand that you cannot create a pattern. It either exists or it doesn't. Morris was silent when I pointed out to him that in 1974, FBI forensic technician Shirley Green was able to find a matching stab wound/puncture hole pattern using THREE separate techniques. In addition, Green was able to replicate the pattern 5 years later using the SAME three techniques.

WOE is an attempt at an end run around the evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. Its reliance on the claims of a serial fabricator (e.g., Helena Stoeckley) points to Morris' laziness and lack of critical thinking skills. There is no evidence linking Stoeckley to the crime scene (e.g., no DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no fingerprints) and Morris ignores the FACT that she recanted half of her dubious confessions.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 16th September 2013 at 04:52 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 17th September 2013, 06:00 AM   #298
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
The odd thing about it so far to me is that after presenting what could be evidence that might provide some doubt, the book immediately presents evidence that refutes that and incriminates MacDonald. I appreciate that it's not completely one-sided, but it's not doing him any favors. Some examples off the top of my head are the revelation that the woman supposedly standing by the side of the road that morning did not meet MacDonald's description (she was wearing a black raincoat and had short hair); that MacDonald denied the female intruder had white boots and said they were brown, whereas Stoeckley's were definitely white; that Stoeckley was wearing a purple velour suit with a purple silk vest when supposedly seen; that a single investigator managed to get the coffee table to fall on its side one time when it was blocked by the rocking chair, but that no one ever managed to get the magazines to fall into such a position that the table could have landed on them; and there's more. I'm 3/4 into it now and the blood evidence has not been dealt with at all. Since this is what seems most convincing to me, I'm a bit concerned that the book's not going to cover it.
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 17th September 2013, 10:59 AM   #299
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
Colonel Rock managed to get the coffee table to land in the same position which Ivory had previously said was impossible. We don't know Helena's boots were definitely white. Mazerolle was wearing velveteen clothes which are similar to mystery black fibers. The blood evidence was presented by very inexperienced, or hair and fiber men. It was not an expert opinion.

I agree that the woman seen wandering down the road when the military police were responding to the emergency call is not conclusive evidence. It's just that it was a bit odd at about 4am in the morning. It was a useful piece of of information for the defense lawyers at the time of the Article 32 proceeding in 1970. There is a witness statement on the internet somewhere from a woman that the killer gang were later seen in a car at a restaurant early in the morning and blood was noticed in the bathroom there. That witness was never called to the 1979 trial.

Shirley Green's and Stombaugh's pajama folding theory without facts was never scientifically correct and it was disproved by Dr. Thornton. Judge Dupree made the tetchy remark to Murtagh at the trial that he would never believe it could be folded in three different ways himself, but his own opinion would never be conveyed to the jury.

This is part of what Dr Thornton said about the pajama folding experiment at the 1979 trial:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can we say in lay person's terms that she did it differently than the way he described the holes?
A Yes.
Q All right. Hereafter, let's use my terms and then see if that will work better. What, if anything else, did you base your opinion on?
A Hole 36 was originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh as inside-out or an exit hole. In Ms. Green's reconstruction, it is designated as outside-in or an entrance hole. Again, just with respect to that one particular discrepancy, I think that it negates the validity of this reconstruction.


More from Dr Thornton with regard to Ms Green:

Q I asked you whether you had read testimony of Shirley Green in regard to the reconstruction experiment that she said she did in terms of putting 48 probes into holes in the--rather, taking 48 holes in the pajama top and making them fit into 21 holes.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you at that time the question of whether you had an opinion as to whether or not she did in fact do what she said she did, and you said you had an opinion in that regard.
A Yes.
Q And what was that opinion?
A I consider her reconstruction to be impossible. I consider it to be conceptually unsound and contrived.

Q Is it possible, based upon your knowledge, information, and training, for Ms. Green, using the information that she had, to have made the reconstruction of the pajama top as she did? Is it possible for her to have done that and done it correctly--moving the 48 holes into 21?
A No.

I think Judge Dupree was quite sharp with Murtagh about that ludicrous pajama folding experiment, which I find a bit surprising for a judge who was so pro-prosecution biased in the MacDonald case.

The trouble is that North Carolina jury were too stupid, and too violently prejudiced against Dr MacDonald, to see through that Army CID and FBI pajama folding con trick.

This is part of what Judge Dupree said about the pajama folding matter. The Court in this is Judge Dupree:

THE COURT: If he told me that you could arrange 48 places and arrange those same 48 so they would still go into those 21 holes other than the way that they say they arranged them in this case, I wouldn't believe it. But, now, thankfully, I don't have to make that decision, nor will that opinion ever be expressed to this jury.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if there is another way to reconstruct it--and if it was tough enough to do it one way--I think this is merely the conservative nature of the laboratory examiner. It is like the hair could have come--the same thing with respect to the threads.

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

MR. MURTAGH: That is right, sir.

THE COURT: Now, you have been up here so long I forgot what you came for.

MR. SEGAL: A break, Your Honor. I said "purported expert." I am sorry for that. I really did not intend any derogatory inference by that. But my point was responding to the Government's objection that it is speculation

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 17th September 2013 at 11:03 AM.
Henri McPhee 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 17th September 2013, 12:46 PM   #300
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
WOE Is A Mess

TIKTAALIK: Unfortunately, Morris does not cover the blood, pajama fiber, or bloody fabric impression evidence in any detail. Since the book's publication, his standard line has been that none of the evidence is worth anything due to the mistakes made by the CID in the original investigation. This is another example of Morris' perpetual laziness and ignorance of basic forensic analysis.

The mistakes made by the CID in no way altered the fact that fibers from MacDonald's torn pajama top were found under bodies, bedcovers, pillows, under Kristen's fingernail, and adhering to the club. Morris doesn't seem to understand the significance of Colette's blood being found on her husband's pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE the garment was torn. He also doesn't find it odd that none of MacDonald's blood was found in the living room where he claims he was stabbed by hippie intruders.

Morris also has no rebuttal to the fact that 5 bloody cuff impressions from the pajamas of BOTH Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald were found on a bedsheet used to transport Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. To this day, MacDonald claims he never touched the bedsheet and he acknowledged to CID investigators that it would be unlikely that drug-crazed home invaders would take the time to transport both Kimmie and Colette back to their respective bedrooms.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th September 2013 at 12:52 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 17th September 2013, 05:11 PM   #301
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have never said that Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. <snip>
You certainly implied it. You didn't pointedly exempt Stoeckley in the below quoted, did you? Perhaps I missed it.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The thought occurred to me that one reason for the horrible MacDonald murders could have been when Dr. MacDonald went to New York before the murders to help out his drug addicted brother, Jay, who was in a bad way at the time. According to Dr. MacDonald's own testimony Dr. MacDonald punched Jay's drug dealer in the face at that time.

The thing is under the Mafia code if anybody assaults a a Mafia man that means death to him and his family.
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 18th September 2013, 10:02 AM   #302
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
I disagree with JTF.

Any good judge would say it was an unsafe verdict on that ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. There are very real concerns that the real culprits were never properly investigated.

There is no evidence that any fibers came to be there at the time of the murders, except for the unidentified black fibers around Colette's mouth, so why are pajama fibers so suspicious?

This theory that there was blood on the pajama top before it was torn was a Stombaugh theory. He was a former insurance salesman and hair and fiber man. Janice Glisson at the Army CID lab, who was a blood expert, was in disagreement with Stombaugh about that, but she was told to keep her mouth shut.

There is no evidence at all that that any bodies were transported by Dr. MacDonald.

With regard to no blood being found on the living room floor you need to use a bit of common sense about the matter. Dr. MacDonald's bleeding was mainly internal bleeding. I don't know if you have ever had a nasty accident in the house but rarely does it lead to rivers of blood on the floor unless you have cut a jugular vein. It has been said that Princess Diana had no blood on her at all though she was suffering from fatal injuries after her accident.

An example of the manufactured evidence in the MacDonald case was when the thick- headed Kearns ordered a re-investigation of the case after the Article 32 in 1970. He was convinced that Dr. MacDonald was lying when he said he had carried Kristen to her bedroom and that it was Kimmie who wet the bed. He then ordered the urine stain on the bed to be tested again after ninety weeks, and he then declared it was Kimmie's urine stain! That can't possibly be scientifically correct. Urine stains are difficult to test anyway, and they are virtually impossible to test accurately after four weeks.
Henri McPhee 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 18th September 2013, 11:36 AM   #303
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,164
I've followed this case for years through casual reading of miscellaneous articles.

My view, up to the point that I read through this thread and a few of the links, was that there was a reasonable chance that MacDonald was innocent.

It appears that I have been wrong.

The most compelling evidence for me was:

1. The murder weapons all seemed to have come from the MacDonald house. How strong is the evidence that this is the case?

2. The lack of evidence for a desperate struggle by MacDonald for his life. I would expect that a fight between a healthy 26 year old male and intruders not armed with a gun would be extremely violent and there would be significant evidence of that kind of fight both within the room and in the nature of injuries to MacDonald. If the intruders some how managed to gain control of MacDonald is it plausible that they would have only lightly wounded him, the most dangerous individual in the house from their perspective? If it is plausible it is certainly at the extreme limits of what might be judged plausible.

3. The complete lack of evidence for the intruders that MacDonald claimed were involved. Not only was no physical evidence of their existence found, they have managed to go completely undetected for all the time after the trial. If we are to believe MacDonald a group of hippy killers engaged in a conspiracy involving a massacre ,left no detectable evidence of themselves at the crime scene, never committed a crime as a group for which they are arrested and managed to maintain the secrets of their conspiracy over long periods of time. This seems an unlikely enough scenario that I wouldn't be surprised if it had never happened one time in the history of the world.

Still right now my level of certainty about MacDonald's guilt falls somewhat below my view that OJ Simpson was guilty of murder and that Amanda Knox was not guilty of murder. Perhaps mostly because I just don't know enough about the case to form as strong opinion about it as I have done for the other cases I mentioned.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2013, 01:30 PM   #304
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Case Closed

DAVEFOC: Apart from the fact that MacDonald's story doesn't come close to passing the sniff test, the following are facts that have never been in dispute.

MacDonald claims that he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his wife and his two daughters in their respective bedrooms, but fibers from that garment were found in these locations.

- 24 fibers were found under his wife's body

- 22 fibers were found on top of the master bed

- 6 fibers were found on the master bed pillow which was directly underneath the word PIG written on the headboard in Colette's blood

- 19 fibers were found under Kimmie's bedcovers

- 1 fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow and 1 fiber measuring 20.5 inches was found on top of that same pillow

- 2 fibers were found under Kristen's bedcovers

- 1 fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail

- No fibers from MacDonald's torn pajama top were found in the living room where MacDonald claimed he was attacked by three armed drug-crazed home invaders

MacDonald also has no explanation for the FACT that his torn pajama top was stained with his wife's blood in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn and that 5 bloody cuff impressions sourced to the pajamas of Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald, were found on a bedsheet used to transport both Kimmie and Colette back to their respective bedrooms.

In terms of DNA testing in this case, there are 5 inculpatory DNA test results which includes a limb hair sourced to MacDonald that was found clutched in his wife's left hand. That hair links MacDonald to the murder club because a splinter from that club was also found in Colette's left hand.

This case is open and shut. ALL of the SOURCED evidence points to MacDonald as the perp. This includes DNA, blood, fiber, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence. There is also no SOURCED evidence linking any intruder suspect to the crime scene. This includes DNA, hairs, fibers, and fingerprints.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 18th September 2013 at 01:34 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 18th September 2013, 01:30 PM   #305
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 24,930
Quote:
The thing is under the Mafia code if anybody assaults a a Mafia man that means death to him and his family.
I think someone's been watching too many movies.
jhunter1163 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 September 2013, 01:33 AM   #306
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,164
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
DAVEFOC: Apart from the fact that MacDonald's story doesn't come close to passing the sniff test, the following are facts that have never been in dispute.

[A lot of information about where fibers from MacDonald's pajamas were found in the house.]
...
I noticed all the information in the thread about the location of fibers from the pajamas. I didn't quite follow why this was a big deal. He lived in the house, wasn't it expected that one would find fibers from his pajamas throughout the house? Still it seems like his pajamas were doing a lot of fiber shedding. Was there something unusual about his pajamas that caused fibers to be shed from them at an unusually high rate?

It did strike me as strange that they didn't find any of his pajama fibers in the living room where he was supposedly attacked. Wasn't he also sleeping on the living room couch? Why didn't his pajamas that had been shedding fibers all over the place shed some fibers where he supposedly slept?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc 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 September 2013, 02:42 AM   #307
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I noticed all the information in the thread about the location of fibers from the pajamas. I didn't quite follow why this was a big deal. He lived in the house, wasn't it expected that one would find fibers from his pajamas throughout the house? Still it seems like his pajamas were doing a lot of fiber shedding. Was there something unusual about his pajamas that caused fibers to be shed from them at an unusually high rate?
It was a big deal because they found not just fibers, but amounts of fibers, where they weren't supposed to be, i.e. under Colette's body, if MacDonald's story was true. MacDonald claimed the fibers clung to his arms and conveniently fell off in those locations-he must've looked something like Sully from Monsters, Inc-but that explanation doesn't really hold up, especially considering...
Quote:
It did strike me as strange that they didn't find any of his pajama fibers in the living room where he was supposedly attacked. Wasn't he also sleeping on the living room couch? Why didn't his pajamas that had been shedding fibers all over the place shed some fibers where he supposedly slept?
Exactly. So they found fibers where they shouldn't have been, and vice versa. That's why the fibers were a big deal.

The problem MacDonald ran into was that he gave his story before he knew how the physical evidence stacked up, so he couldn't change it to fit. And it never added up.
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 September 2013, 02:44 AM   #308
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
I think someone's been watching too many movies.
Leave the gun. Take the cannolis.
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 September 2013, 07:48 AM   #309
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
There is no evidence that the Geneva knife or Hickory knife was ever in the MacDonald apartment. There is also no evidence that an ice pick, which was used as a murder weapon, was ever in the MacDonald apartment either.

What seems to have happened is that the MacDonald family may have had an ice pick at one time but it seemed to have got lost somehow when they moved to North Carolina. Dr. MacDonald's colleague Ron Harrison testified that he went to look for an ice pick when he was at a MacDonald family gathering once but he was unable to find one. In the initial investigation Colette's mother and the babysitter Kalin said there was no ice pick there, but they later testified in court that there was one after being coached and bribed by Murtagh.

There is evidence that Dr. MacDonald put up a strong fight. I don't know if you are capable of defeating some ex-military hard cookies armed with a wooden club weapon and knives and attacking you when you are asleep on a couch, but it is a difficult task even for a Green Beret. Dr. MacDonald isn't Batman or Superman.

You are assuming there would be lots of forensics of intruders. If they were wearing surgical gloves it's unlikely to find their fingerprints there and most of the DNA evidence has now been destroyed or tampered with by the FBI. DNA evidence did not exist then. There were fibers there that have never been identified as MacDonald fibers. What evidence of intruders do you expect to find. Their passports and identity cards lying about on the floor?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th September 2013 at 08:39 AM. Reason: grammatical
Henri McPhee 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 19th September 2013, 07:57 AM   #310
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
I think someone's been watching too many movies.
I don't claim to have inside knowledge of the Mafia. It made me laugh to read that Hoover of the FBI thought the Mafia did not exist. I don't think he knew what was going on and he didn't want to know what was going on.

My information about the Mafia code comes from a TV documentary of an FBI agent doing undercover work who had joined the Mafia. He seemed to think the Mafia was involved in drugs which they categorically deny. Not all FBI agents are idiots. That was a dangerous job and many Mafia people were identified.

From internet information a Mafia soldier has to have murdered somebody and he doesn't necessarily have to be of Italian descent. It's just that from what that FBI man said on TV it is not wise to assault a Mafia man.
Henri McPhee 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 19th September 2013, 08:12 AM   #311
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
My information about the Mafia code comes from a TV documentary of an FBI agent doing undercover work who had joined the Mafia. He seemed to think the Mafia was involved in drugs which they categorically deny. Not all FBI agents are idiots. That was a dangerous job and many Mafia people were identified.
This would be the gentleman in question, I presume.

Quote:
From internet information a Mafia soldier has to have murdered somebody and he doesn't necessarily have to be of Italian descent.
Yes, a mafia member has to be of Italian descent, though he doesn't have to be fully Italian. Plus, the requirement isn't just to murder somebody, but to carry out a contract killing - personally-motivated murders don't count.

And at the time of the MacDonald murders, actually carrying out the contract killing wasn't strictly required - it counted if you were, for example, the getaway driver during the contract killing and didn't kill anyone yourself.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha 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 September 2013, 08:22 AM   #312
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
This is an opinion from the internet about the MacDonald case murder weapons with which I agree. It reminds me all so much of British TV journalists who say it is blindingly obvious who carried out that chemical attack in Syria when it is not obvious at all. There is deception and lies and terrorism in war which journalists don't seem to understand or investigate or report:

"The renowned forensic investigator Thomas Noguchi investigated the case and concluded that there were numerous assailants and numerous weapons used in the slayings. In fact one of the assailants was left-handed (Captain MacDonald is right-handed). So before all you haters of Captain MacDonald go shooting your mouths off based on your select isolated views of the "evidence" you should look at all the "facts" of this case!!!! This is another of the cases where the prosecution was so convinced in their minds that he was guilty that they did whatever they had to, even if it was illegal to get their guilty verdict! Several of those involved with the prosecutors case have since become convicted criminals and/or discredited!"
Henri McPhee 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 19th September 2013, 08:35 AM   #313
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
This is how truthful the baby sitter Kalin was. Colette's mother was also very keen to say there was an ice pick at the 1979 trial when she had never provided that information before then when asked:

This was part of the cross examination of Kalin-Cochran at the 1979 trial by Wade Smith :-

Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, let me ask you to refresh your recollection and state whether or not it isn't true that in February of 1970 you were interviewed by the CID and told them that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick anywhere in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q Do you remember that?
A No; I had no recollection of any of the weapons--not just the ice pick.
Q You had no recollection at all on February 19, 1970, of ever seeing an ice pick in the Mac-Donald house?
A Right.
Q And then you were interviewed--weren't you--by the FBI and told them a few days after this event occurred that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick in the house; do you remember that?
A No.
Q But you do remember telling the CID that you had never seen an ice pick?
A I believe they came over to our house.
Q Do you remember now talking with them?
A Yes.
Q You remember?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember telling any of the lawyers for Dr. MacDonald, for example, a Mr. Malley, that you had never seen an ice pick at their house?
A I don't remember.
Q But you do recall that you had said on a number of occasions that you never saw an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, do you remember testifying before the grand jury here in Raleigh--do you remember your testimony?
A Yeah.
Q Mrs. Cochran, I ask you to listen to my reading of a part of the typed transcript of your testimony before the grand jury and ask you if it refreshes your recollection with respect to anything about the ice pick.
On page 23 of the transcript of the grand jury, I will read you the question and then read you your answer, Mrs. Cochran, and ask you if you recall it. The questioner asked you this question.
"Question: Now, how about the ice pick? Do you recognize it? Answer: No."
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you stated further that you thought the MacDonalds had an ice pick; is that true?
A Yes.
Q You were shown the ice pick on that occasion and you said that you did not remember ever seeing that ice pick; didn't you?
A Right.
Q Now, it was only later--it was later, after lunch, that you remembered seeing an ice pick; would that be correct?
A It was in the afternoon..........

Q Now, during that four-year period, had anybody ever talked with you about it?
A No.
Q Is there any reason that you can think of why your recollection would be better four years after the event than it was a day or two after the event?
Henri McPhee 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 19th September 2013, 09:47 AM   #314
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is an opinion from the internet about the MacDonald case murder weapons with which I agree.!
Oh, well, an unsourced opinion from the Internet...it must be true.

Course, what Henri fails to mention is that Noguchi was paid for that opinion, or that MacDonald's then lawyer and Noguchi contended that the prosecution's case revolved around the theory that MacDonald beat his family to death, and then stabbed them after they were dead...which was wholly inaccurate.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-..._1_green-beret

It's kind of like figuring Colette MacDonald was killed by Mafia hitmen on the basis of watching The Godfather.

Tell us, Henri, was Noguchi so good at his job that he remained LA County ME until he chose to step down? Just curious.
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 September 2013, 11:00 AM   #315
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,910
I don't know why you have to question the integrity of Noguchi. From what I can deduce he was one of the most famous forensic pathologists in California and he was involved in several high-profile cases there.

This matter of pajama fibers is a bit of a bore. It's important because Blackburn in his closing speech at the 1979 trial proudly proclaimed that there was supposed to be one or two pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon which he then told the jury was supposed to be conclusive evidence and blatantly obvious.

This so-called pajama fiber evidence started with Browning of the Army CID lab and was then continued by Stombaugh at the FBI. It ignores the fact that pajama fibers could have come from the pajama bottoms which were then lost in the hospital. For some reason Dr. MacDonald wore old pajama which shed fibers easily. I don't know about you but none of my pajamas seem to shed fibers. Dr. MacDonald said he carried Kristen into her bedroom after she had wet the bed. Kristen could have been kicking and screaming and scratching Dr. MacDonald's pajama top at the time. I don't know why no pajama fibers were found on the couch but that was not normally where Dr. MacDonald used to sleep.

The prosecution always maintained that there were pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon. There are grave doubts about that. Frier of the FBI found black wool fibers on the wooden club which was never disclosed to the judge or jury or defense lawyers at the 1979 trial. There have been posters in the past who have had big arguments about that matter with JTF but they seem to have vanished now, or given up.

There is an affidavit from Murphy of the MacDonald defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate law firm about all that fiber stuff obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope this is not too highly technical or beyond the comprehension of posters on this forum. The matter was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with textile expert Professor Wolfgang:

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--

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 19th September 2013 at 11:05 AM.
Henri McPhee 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 19th September 2013, 11:17 AM   #316
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I don't know why you have to question the integrity of Noguchi. From what I can deduce he was one of the most famous forensic pathologists in California and he was involved in several high-profile cases there.
So? Noguchi works in Los Angeles. It was inevitable he would become involved in high profile cases, by virtue of being on the staff of the LA County ME. That combined with his penchant for self promotion are what made him famous, not his skill, which is probably equivalent to many of his reputable colleagues.

"Famous" doesn't make him correct 100% of the time...especially when he was being paid to render a conclusion favorable to the person paying him. "Fame" also doesn't have anything to do with "integrity", Henri. Hate to burst your bubble, but...

And it's worth noting that Noguchi was stripped of the title of LA County ME, a decision upheld by the Calif. Supreme Court.

Quote:
This matter of pajama fibers is a bit of a bore.
Only to Henri, because he can't really explain the truth about them away. Any conclusive evidence that supports MacDonald's guilt is boring to Henri. Yawn.

Quote:
It's important because Blackburn in his closing speech at the 1979 trial proudly proclaimed that there was supposed to be one or two pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon which he then told the jury was supposed to be conclusive evidence and blatantly obvious.
Actually, it's important because they found not just fibers, but amounts of fibers, where they weren't supposed to be, i.e. under Colette's body, if MacDonald's story was true. MacDonald claimed the fibers clung to his arms and conveniently fell off in those locations-he must've looked something like Sully from Monsters, Inc-but that explanation doesn't really hold up, especially considering...

Quote:
It did strike me as strange that they didn't find any of his pajama fibers in the living room where he was supposedly attacked. Wasn't he also sleeping on the living room couch? Why didn't his pajamas that had been shedding fibers all over the place shed some fibers where he supposedly slept?
Exactly. So they found fibers where they shouldn't have been, and vice versa. That's why the fibers were a big deal.

The problem MacDonald ran into was that he gave his story before he knew how the physical evidence stacked up, so he couldn't change it to fit. And it never added up.

Last edited by desertgal; 19th September 2013 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Added something
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 September 2013, 01:24 PM   #317
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
Pajama Fibers

MacDonald's pajama top had a 72 inch tear which began at the yoke of the garment and extended down the left front seam AND down the left sleeve to the cuff portion. MacDonald claims the mythical home invaders pulled the top over his head and acknowledged that it was likely that the top was torn during that struggle. No fibers from his pajama top were found in the living room.

MacDonald also claims that he awoke on the hallway floor and went into the master bedroom where he "found" Colette laying face-up on the shag carpet. He claims he removed the pajama top from his wrists, but does not remember where he initially set it down. He later admitted to placing the pajama top over his wife's chest in order to treat her for shock.

MacDonald then states that he wasn't wearing his pajama top when he found his two children in their beds. Analysis by the FBI determined that MacDonald's pajama top was grabbed at the collar portion or yoke and pulled downward as MacDonald spun to his right. A majority of the shed pajama fibers would have fallen in the location where the garment was originally torn.

A majority of the pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom and there were several other pieces of evidence that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kimmie/Colette were assaulted by an individual wearing MacDonald's torn pajama top.

Seventy-Nine pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom, 19 were found in Kimmie's room, and 3 fibers were found in Kristen's room with one of those fibers discovered at autopsy under Kristen's fingernail. In a piece of bedding used to transport Colette to the master bedroom, a bloody head hair sourced to Colette was found entwined with a bloody fiber sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top. This entwining demonstrated direct contact between Colette and an individual wearing MacDonald's torn pajama top.

MacDonald claims he never got on the master bed, Kimmie's bed, or Kristen's bed, yet there were numerous pajama fibers found on all 3 beds. There was also a pajama fiber found behind the master bed headboard where the word PIG was written in Colette's blood. The word was written by a right-handed individual and MacDonald is right-handed. The individual who wrote the word was wearing gloves and a bloody finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in the bedding used to transport Colette and Kimmie back to their rooms. The finger section was similar in chemical composition to a box of surgeon's gloves found under the kitchen sink. Five drops of MacDonald's blood were found on the kitchen floor near the sink.

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 September 2013, 01:29 PM   #318
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
If I recall correctly, many of those pajama fibers were found UNDER Collette, as well. This is part of the evidence that I found compelling, carefully detailed in Fatal Vision, but so far unexplained in Wilderness of Error.
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 September 2013, 02:26 PM   #319
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 815
MacDonald Is A Serial Liar

Not only were 24 fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top found UNDER Colette's body, one of those inculpatory fibers was found directly under her head. As Colette's body was being removed from the residence, CID investigators William Ivory and Robert Shaw, noticed that this bloody fiber was sticking up from the shag carpet in pigtail fashion. This indicated that Colette had been set down on the shag carpet AFTER the fibers had been shed in the master bedroom.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 19th September 2013 at 02:27 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 September 2013, 07:21 PM   #320
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
With regard to no blood being found on the living room floor you need to use a bit of common sense about the matter. Dr. MacDonald's bleeding was mainly internal bleeding. I don't know if you have ever had a nasty accident in the house but rarely does it lead to rivers of blood on the floor unless you have cut a jugular vein. It has been said that Princess Diana had no blood on her at all though she was suffering from fatal injuries after her accident.
Said by whom, Henri? Why do you consistently cite popular theories without sources?

a) Diana did have blood on her, according to eyewitness testimony in the Paget Report, from gashes on her forehead and forearm; and b) her fatal injury was a torn aorta caused by displacement of her heart as the car revolved around her. It was a wholly internal injury. They call it that because the injury is contained within the body. It would not have caused external bleeding. She was not externally sliced between the ribs by a scalpel. The injuries she had that WERE similar to Jeffrey MacDonald's DID cause some external bleeding because, like Jeffrey MacDonald's, they were external injuries. You'll need to use some common sense. Jeffrey MacDonald's injury may have caused internal bleeding, but it was also an external injury. Therefore, it would have involved external bleeding. See how that works?

You'll need to come up with a better comparison.
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 04:01 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.