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 24th September 2013, 11:01 AM   #361
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
And he was moving under his own power soon afterwards.

The rule of thumb on the difference between being roughed up and brutally assaulted is simple - if you move under your own power after the incident, you haven't been brutally assaulted.

JM is as guilty as they come, and might be the most successful teller of tales in the world - All you need do is read this thread for proof.
That's a lot of rubbish. It's scientifically and medically good to say that a person can be knocked unconscious for more than a few minutes and there are many such concussion cases all over the world. Nowadays scans tend to be used if any brain damage is suspected, but that tends to be a case of medical judgement.

Have you any personal experience of being hit on the head, say on a hockey pitch by a hockey stick?

You have just got to watch a few boxing matches on TV to see that a boxer can stagger about and then collapse unconscious. There are often no visible signs of what caused that boxer to collapse.

Dr. MacDonald was convicted by dishonesty and legal trickery and he is being kept in prison wrongly by legal trickery.
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 24th September 2013, 11:42 AM   #362
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,266
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a lot of rubbish. It's scientifically and medically good to say that a person can be knocked unconscious for more than a few minutes and there are many such concussion cases all over the world. Nowadays scans tend to be used if any brain damage is suspected, but that tends to be a case of medical judgement.

Have you any personal experience of being hit on the head, say on a hockey pitch by a hockey stick?

You have just got to watch a few boxing matches on TV to see that a boxer can stagger about and then collapse unconscious. There are often no visible signs of what caused that boxer to collapse.

Dr. MacDonald was convicted by dishonesty and legal trickery and he is being kept in prison wrongly by legal trickery.
First bolded: I'm absolutely the wrong person to ask that particular question. I've been hit with all manner of objects, and not on a playing field.

I've got a whole medical history of injury through various accidents and injuries sustained in service and on the PD.

What I posted was the absolute truth - if they don't have to peel you off the ground and load you in the ambulance, nobody was serious about hurting you - anything short of that is kid stuff, not a failed murder attempt.

Comparing violence committed in the scene of a mass murder to sports injuries doesn't quite get the point. As has been pointed out, if you've really got a group of nuts cutting up and beating to death everything in sight, except the one individual who could pose a threat to them, something doesn't fit, and that is that the survivor of the attack...wasn't.

JM is incarcerated beacuse he was convicted in a court of law, fight all you want to clear his name, sign up as a groupie, whatever floats your boat, but he's guilty in the murder of his family.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2013, 12:28 PM   #363
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Nuff Said

"The section of MacDonaldís Reply dealing with his unsourced hair claims addresses none of the Governmentís refutation, and contains not a single challenge or citation to the Governmentís Memorandum...MacDonald merely repeats his arguments from the Evidentiary Hearing...MacDonald ignores the reality of his demonstrated failure to meet his burden of proof, and the Governmentís refutation evidence in respect of his 2006 unsourced hairs claim..., and proceeds to argue, without citation to the record, as if there were no disputed factual issues."

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma..._sur-reply.pdf
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 12:23 AM   #364
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
I agree that the MacDonald case is difficult for an average family to understand and that it was quite right and proper that Dr. MacDonald was investigated in the initial investigation, as the Ramseys were investigated at first in that case, and Polanski investigated in the Manson case.

The point is that there must be credible evidence. You assume nothing in a murder investigation and you don't jump to conclusions and disregard leads and suspects, or information received.

Detective Beasley had many of the culprits down at the local police station in the initial investigation, but the Army CID were totally uninterested so he had to let them all go. That was bad police work.

For the doctors at the local military hospital to just assume Dr. MacDonald self-inflicted his injuries and then not to give him a skull-x-ray was not good medical work. They seemed to be more frightened of Ron Harrison saying in the hospital that he was going to bump off the culprits. I don't think they were brilliant doctors. If there had been brain damage special drugs need to be applied for the brain immediately.

I think the plan of the murderers was to murder Colette and the two little girls and to incapacitate Dr. MacDonald. They carefully planned that the Army CID and FBI would then jump to conclusions by accusing Dr. MacDonald and that would then deflect any suspicion away from themselves. That's what happened. If he died they would say it was a murder and suicide, which might even make the media ask some questions.

There was a recent murder case in my own area where an attractive young woman was murdered in her rented apartment. The landlord was arrested and the media went to town on his background information. It later then turned out that a fellow lodger, or boarder, did it and he was convicted and imprisoned. That landlord has since received many thousands in compensation from the police and national newspapers.

I don't think any hair evidence will get Dr. MacDonald out of prison. Murtagh can easily just substitute any hair in question from the FBI's large collection of hairs and doll fibers. I think that's what he did with the hair in Colette's left hand and the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers in the MacDonald case. Murtagh still needs to come up with a better explanation for the black wool fibers on the wooden club and around Colette's mouth than that she was once seen in a photo wearing a black dress!
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 25th September 2013, 01:49 AM   #365
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
You've Lost A Step

HENRI: What, no disjointed copy and paste rebuttals to the Government's sur-reply? No comparisons between the Government's talking points and the legal system in the U.K.? No commentary on the massive CID/FBI/DOJ conspiracy in the MacDonald case? You let me down, Henriboy.

Still waiting on that timeline.

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 25th September 2013, 04:17 AM   #366
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I agree that the MacDonald case is difficult for an average family to understand...
Nkt really. McGinniss laid it out clearly.

Quote:
I don't think any hair evidence will get Dr. MacDonald out of prison.
Nothing will get MacDonald out of prison. He's guilty. You are wasting your own life obsessing otherwise. He will rot there until he dies, and justice will have been served.

Boo hoo. Poor Jeffy.
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 25th September 2013, 04:49 AM   #367
Jungle Jim
Muse
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 903
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

I think the plan of the murderers was to murder Colette and the two little girls and to incapacitate Dr. MacDonald. They carefully planned that the Army CID and FBI would then jump to conclusions by accusing Dr. MacDonald and that would then deflect any suspicion away from themselves. That's what happened. If he died they would say it was a murder and suicide, which might even make the media ask some questions.
Why did these people "carefully" plan to set up Dr. MacDonald for the murder of his family? It is hard to imagine the circumstances under which a group of people would "carefully" plan one of the most heinous crimes imaginable to get back at someone. What did MacDonald do to this group of individuals that made them want to conspire and "carefully" plane their revenge?
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2013, 05:19 AM   #368
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Why did these people "carefully" plan to set up Dr. MacDonald for the murder of his family? It is hard to imagine the circumstances under which a group of people would "carefully" plan one of the most heinous crimes imaginable to get back at someone. What did MacDonald do to this group of individuals that made them want to conspire and "carefully" plane their revenge?
Mafia, according to Henri. MacDonald punched an alleged Mafia member in the face. Stoeckley, etc, were all Mafia hitmen. And, you know, Henri knows ALL about the Mafia code. He watched The Godfather AND he found "some stuff on the Internet". He's an expert.

The Mafia, when someone punches one of their (alleged) members in the face, will slaughter an innocent pregnant woman and her two little innocent girls just to get a point across. I guess the point is that a punch in the face is worth three innocent lives, but it's not really clear how that figures, even to a gangster. Then they will carefully set it up so that Dad will walk free for several years before being found guilty.

Ain't that right, Henri? I mean, it did recently occur to you, and we all know when something occurs to you, it becomes a cast in stone fact.

Tell us more about the Mafia code, Henri.
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 25th September 2013, 09:42 AM   #369
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,177
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Mafia, according to Henri. MacDonald punched an alleged Mafia member in the face. Stoeckley, etc, were all Mafia hitmen. And, you know, Henri knows ALL about the Mafia code. He watched The Godfather AND he found "some stuff on the Internet". He's an expert.

The Mafia, when someone punches one of their (alleged) members in the face, will slaughter an innocent pregnant woman and her two little innocent girls just to get a point across. I guess the point is that a punch in the face is worth three innocent lives, but it's not really clear how that figures, even to a gangster. Then they will carefully set it up so that Dad will walk free for several years before being found guilty.
And of course what the mafia really wants is high-profile cases that garner attention. They love that stuff, especially when it brings the police and federal agents around their other operations.
__________________
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 25th September 2013, 10:46 AM   #370
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
The Mafia have nothing to fear from the MacDonald case. Mazerolle was only interviewed by the FBI about ten years after the murder and his pal Rizzo has never been interviewed at all, as far as I know. Greg Mitchell was interviewed a couple of times when he said to Ivory in about 1972 that he might have been staying with his parents at the time of the MacDonald murders, and shortly before his death he said he had been interviewed by the SBI, which I think is the State Bureau of Investigation. I still think the man Dr. MacDonald punched in New York in connection to his drug addict brother should have been identified.

This idea that just because Dr. MacDonald was convicted in a court of law makes him guilty is a load of nonsense. Why are there appeals? Are they all frivolous and vexatious and of a trivial nature? I do not think any one who has seriously considered the matter can doubt that the verdict of a jury is very likely to be wrong. There have been striking instances in which juries have been proved to be wrong in cases of the most serious nature. It has been said that a third of all civil cases in the UK are decided wrongly.

In any case why would anybody want to appeal in a case of a trivial nature? Because they are fearfully aggrieved that's why.
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 25th September 2013, 11:42 AM   #371
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Research

HENRI: Not only do your posts butcher the documented record, but you can't even stay on point. Have you read any of the RECENT legal documents on this case? You seem to be stuck in a time warp which encompasses the first 10 years of this case, but SO much has happened since 1980. The links to several post-hearing documents are on this thread, so I would suggest that you get off the trolling bandwagon, and do some real case research.

Still waiting on that timeline.

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 25th September 2013, 05:06 PM   #372
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This idea that just because Dr. MacDonald was convicted in a court of law makes him guilty is a load of nonsense.
You're right. However, Jeff MacDonald is guilty because he slaughtered his wife and daughters. The real victims you always overlook. Anyone with a grain of sense understands 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 25th September 2013, 05:31 PM   #373
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Question Everything

The Government's presentation of the Britt matter is another example of how advocates for inmate's shell game tend to scrape the bottom of the credibility barrel. For example...

"Mary Britt also testified that Jimmy Britt told her he was at Fort Bragg with MacDonald during his time in the Army, which is clearly false."

Like Stoeckley, Gunderson, and Leonard, Britt can't even keep the little things straight. Widenhouse and Morris make excuses for Britt's tall tales by stating that he simply has a poor memory. Considering that both men are hypocrites (e.g., Jack Crawley wasn't cut the same slack), their arguments are meaningless to those with knowledge of the documented record, but many media members have fed Gordie's and Errol's special brand of nonsense to the general public. Hopefully, discussion boards and websites that focus on the facts of this case, have influenced the thought process of those who don't take everything at face value.

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 26th September 2013, 10:45 AM   #374
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
I have taken a quick look at Murtagh's recent reply on Christina's website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

It seems to be a long spiel about whether Helena Stoeckley was ever at Pickens County Jail, and Murtagh's witnesses couldn't possibly have been bribed to lie about it, and the Joe McGinniss version of Jimmy Britt in the Fatal Vision TV movie must be the pure unadulterated historical truth, and Helena's lawyer Jerry Leonard was an alcoholic and had a poor memory.

There is then a lengthy convoluted argument about hairs, and that the hair in Colette's left hand couldn't possibly be forensic fraud by the FBI lab. The black wool fibers were not mentioned.

What worries me is that Judge Fox will just rubber stamp all this without testing the evidence, or ordering the real culprits to be interviewed, or to testify in court.

There is an interesting quote about all this from Leonard in about 1980 which I found quite amusing:

"Note: Mr Leonard stated that he did not know if MacDonald was guilty or innocent, however he stated that he did feel that the prosecution did not prove their case. He stated that he thought MacDonald had been screwed."
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 26th September 2013, 12:00 PM   #375
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have taken a quick look at Murtagh's recent reply on Christina's website:
Then you didn't read it thoroughly, so your summation is easily dismissed by all. Nice try.

Jeff MacDonald slaughtered his wife and daughters, the real victims you couldn't care less about.

Next.
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 26th September 2013, 12:17 PM   #376
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

I think the plan of the murderers was to murder Colette and the two little girls and to incapacitate Dr. MacDonald. They carefully planned that the Army CID and FBI would then jump to conclusions by accusing Dr. MacDonald and that would then deflect any suspicion away from themselves. That's what happened. If he died they would say it was a murder and suicide, which might even make the media ask some questions.
This.is.hilarious.

Firstly, they would have had to have had medical knowledge of exactly where to stab JM to "incapacitate" him.

Then it requires a crystal ball to predict how the Army, CID and FBI would jump to said conclusions.

If the killers had been Stoeckley and Mitchell, they were entirely too drugged up and stupid to do such and thing and if it had been the mafia, they would have done a better job of framing JM.
Ampulla of Vater 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 27th September 2013, 02:16 AM   #377
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
I don't think it is hilarious. Some criminals are men of great ingenuity and weigh their chances very carefully. They know that the Army CID and FBI are totally inexperienced homicide detectives, and lousy detectives, and that there are some shady prosecutors like Murtagh who will lie through thick and thin to further their own careers.

The only people the Stoeckley gang had to fear were Detective Beasley, who could see right through them, or possibly Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry who could snitch on them. They calculated that those people would not be believed, and that was right judgement on their part. Many in LE have a low IQ and they lack comprehensive vision. It's like the NSA only seems to be bugging billionaires and whistleblowers and not dangerous Al Qaeda and Somali terrorists.

I still think that if Dr. MacDonald had died that even the Army CID and FBI might have listened to Detective Beasley, which is not what Mazerolle and Greg Mitchell and the rest of them wanted to happen.

It is the judges, and not the police, on whom the responsibility for accepting or rejecting the evidence rests, but benches as a rule do not realize this and merely "support the police". The disastrous result is that neither police nor judges feel any responsibility for a conviction.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th September 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 27th September 2013, 02:37 AM   #378
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
There is some background information to all this from the 1979 trial testimony of Detective Beasley. Helena showed him a blonde wig and floppy hat and talked about an ice pick:

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Mr. Beasley, have you examined that photograph, or whatever it is, before?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you have a chance to look at it?
A I saw one in the newspaper like this.
Q Have you had an opportunity to examine that particular item in the past few days?
A Yes, sir; back in the interview room with Ms. Stoeckley and Mr. Segal.
Q All right, now, Mr. Beasley, I will ask you if you will to describe what this object is that you have examined?
A It is a picture of one of the suspects.
Q Is it a drawing?
A Drawing of one of the suspects.
Q Mr. Beasley, does that drawing portray fairly any individual that you ever saw with Helena Stoeckley?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know the name of that individual?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was his name?
A His last name was Mazerolle
Q Mazerolle?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know his first name?
A Yes, sir; I've got it here.
Q Would it refresh your recollection if I asked you if his name was Allen?
A That's it; Allen P. Mazerolle.
Q Allen Mazerolle?
A Yes, sir.

MR. SMITH: No further questions, Your Honor.

MR. BLACKBURN: Just a moment, Your Honor.


R E C R O S S - E X A M I N A T I O N 11:12 a.m.

BY MR. BLACKBURN:
Q When was the last time you saw Mr. Mazerolle?
A I can look at my records and tell you.
Q Approximately?
A About 1970 -- '69 or '70. I arrested him with about $15,000 worth of LSD.
Q How many times did you see him in your career?
A In my career -- about half a dozen times.
Q Do you have a picture of him?
A No, sir; I don't have one with me. The records don't have them in Fayetteville. They are all misplaced. I don't know where they are. I tried to get one, but I could not find it.
Q The drawing that was exhibited to you by Mr. Smith -- do you know when it was made?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know who made it?
A No, sir; I don't.
Q Well, the time that you had Helena and the three friends in with you at the police station, did you take any pictures of them?
A No, sir; they were never arrested. They do not --
Q (Interposing) I don't want to cut you off. Are you through, or were you through?
A Yeah; I'm through. I was just going to explain why.
Q Yes; go ahead?
A We don't take pictures unless we arrest them.

MR. BLACKBURN: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any further?

MR. SMITH: No, sir.


E X A M I N A T I O N 11:13 a.m.

BY THE COURT:
Q Let me ask you, Mr. Beasley, about several matters that either I didn't hear your answers, or you were not asked. You say you didn't arrest these people? Where did you detain them?
A At Helena's house.
Q Just out there in the driveway?
A Yes, sir; I stayed right out there. We was right out there in the street.
Q You kept them there for about an hour?
A Yes, sir.
Q You called in to the police department and asked them to get somebody on the radio, to get these people to come out there?
A That is correct.
Q After an hour, nobody showed up?
A Nobody showed up.
Q So you let them go?
A That is correct.
Q I assume you did get their names, didn't you?
A Yes, sir; I've got their names in the folder that is missing, Your Honor. We can't locate it anyplace. We have located these records, but that folder is missing.
Q Did you ever turn that folder over to the investigators?
A Yes, sir; it was turned over -- well, turned over to our office. Now, it was 1971 before I got any further contact with the CID and this folder was never requested. Had it been, they could have had it easily.
Q You never volunteered to let them have it?
A No, sir.
Q I see. And do you know whether or not any of these people were ever interviewed by the CID?
A To my knowledge, not one of them. The only one was Helena.
Q I say, do you know whether or not?
A To my knowledge; no, sir, except Helena Stoeckley.
Q Can you recall the names of any of the people that were with her that night?
A There was one name that I can remember -- his name was Greg Mitchell. And the other two I cannot. That name sounds familiar because he was one of the boys that was sort of in charge of a group of the hippie-type people there, and we had a special lookout on him. He lived somewhere here in North Carolina, but we can't find any records on him anywhere in our office.
Q As a result of any investigation that you ever made, do you know whether or not anyone was ever arrested or charged with anything in connection with these crimes?
A Not with the crimes, Your Honor, but the black man -- I signed a warrant for him and he was arrested and released on a $2,000 bond, and we have not seen him since. He never showed up and the case was nol pros'd in Superior Court.
Q What was he charged with?
A Possession of drugs. He was one of the men that I was looking for the day we hit the trailer with the other people that were supposed to have been there. The other three was not there -- or he wasn't there when we raided the trailer.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 27th September 2013 at 02:41 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2013, 05:57 AM   #379
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
I'm not sure what these chunks of testimony are supposed to demonstrate, but they never seem to have anything to do with what is being discussed. They are not helping your case.
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 27th September 2013, 07:02 AM   #380
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
I'm not sure what these chunks of testimony are supposed to demonstrate, but they never seem to have anything to do with what is being discussed. They are not helping your case.
It's suppose to indicate that Detective Beasley kept the real culprits for about an hour, but the Army CID, whose jurisdiction it was, were totally uninterested in that information and they, or Murtagh, then went on to 'lose' the police records of those culprits from the police station. It's fishy.
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 27th September 2013, 02:44 PM   #381
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Conflation

HENRI: The fact is that ALL of your posts are a conflation of fact and fiction. Your ADHD and/or trolling mentality exacerbates your focus on a complex conspiracy involving the CID, FBI, and DOJ.

Still waiting on that murder timeline.

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 29th September 2013, 10:53 AM   #382
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
There is an interesting report from that recent defense reply on Christina's website from the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff, who always said he was fairly certain Dr. MacDonald didn't do it. Judge Dupree would not allow any psychiatric testimony at the 1979 trial because he said he didn't want a battle of the experts which sounds quite ludicrous to me.

Judge Dupree and Murtagh did arrange for a couple of what I think were CIA psychiatrists to interview Dr. MacDonald without a lawyer being there with him. I'm not sure if the jury were ever informed about that. The jury were given a pamphlet of the prosecution case which I don't think would happen in the UK. One of those prosecution psychiatrists was suffering from senile dementia at the time.

It's rather like saying if the President of Brazil said she thought she was being bugged by the American NSA then a psychiatrist would say she was schizophrenic.

This is part of what Dr. Sadoff wrote on that recent defense reply:

"I also testified that I had a forensic psychologist, Dr. James Mack, evaluate Captain MacDonald, including a battery of psychological tests. Dr Mack's opinion confirmed my own conclusion. Captain MacDonald did not exhibit any signs of prior or current psychopathology."
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 29th September 2013, 11:04 AM   #383
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
There are some old articles from the Los Angeles Times about JTF's hero Joe McGinniss, who according to JTF always writes the pure unadulterated historical truth and which JTF is always very credulous about:

"OPINION
Joe McGinniss and Janet Malcolm: Back at it again
June 6, 2010 | Charlotte Allen
Who's worse, Joe McGinniss or Janet Malcolm? The two journalists were famously at each other's throats after Malcolm wrote scathingly about McGinniss' book on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder trial of 1979. But they are also eerily similar in their penchant for overwriting, amateur psychoanalysis of their subjects, sneering condescension and questionable journalistic tactics. And now they've both come roaring back into the public eye. McGinniss' latest caper is renting the house next door to Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska."
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 29th September 2013, 11:15 AM   #384
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
Another old article from the Los Angeles Times:

"Milking a Murder?
October 09, 1988

After years of seeing coverage in books and newspapers and on TV, I still honestly have no idea if Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty ("A Murderer Airs His Appeal," by Peter H. Brown, Oct. 2).

But when Joe McGinniss, author of "Fatal Vision," the book about the MacDonald murder case, says, "It's terrible for entertainment shows to milk dollars when they are dealing with human life," it's got to be the greatest bit of hypocrisy since George Bush declared himself an environmentalist."
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 29th September 2013, 03:54 PM   #385
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There are some old articles from the Los Angeles Times about JTF's hero Joe McGinniss, who according to JTF always writes the pure unadulterated historical truth and which JTF is always very credulous about:

"OPINION
Joe McGinniss and Janet Malcolm: Back at it again
June 6, 2010 | Charlotte Allen
Who's worse, Joe McGinniss or Janet Malcolm? The two journalists were famously at each other's throats after Malcolm wrote scathingly about McGinniss' book on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder trial of 1979. But they are also eerily similar in their penchant for overwriting, amateur psychoanalysis of their subjects, sneering condescension and questionable journalistic tactics. And now they've both come roaring back into the public eye. McGinniss' latest caper is renting the house next door to Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska."
FOFL! Janet Malcolm!!?? That's pathetic.
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 29th September 2013, 08:27 PM   #386
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Keep Up With The Times

HENRI: Hey, you made the big leap and decided to include post-1982 case information in your rambling musings. Atta, boy! Janet Malcolm, eh? Is this the same Janet Malcolm who didn't attend the 1987 MacDonald VS McGinniss civil trial, yet commented on that trial as though she was present? Isn't this the same Janet Malcolm whose New Yorker articles were torn apart by the American Lawyer?

If you want to continue to ignore legal documentation in this case that has been filed in the past 10 years, be my guest, but please keep the Way Back Machine posts to a minimum. The impact of the Government's 54 page sur-reply is similar to McGinniss' FINAL VISION. McGinniss' masterpiece was FATAL VISION, but FINAL VISION is an amazing addendum to the greatest true crime book ever written. The Government's masterpiece is their 200 page response memo. Similar to FATAL VISION, it thoroughly exposes Jeffrey MacDonald as a liar, a coward, and a mass murderer.

The Government also exposed the claims leveled by MacDonald's advocates as being nothing more than smoke and mirrors. In the end, McGinniss' testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing assisted the Government in proving that for the past 43 years, inmate has lived in a fantasy world consisting of mythical hippie home invaders and Army conspiracies.

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 5th October 2013, 10:12 AM   #387
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
There is a poster on another MacDonald forum who now wants to understand the technicalities of the McCleskey law with regard to the MacDonald case. JTF has not replied to that poster so far. I suppose it's beyond his comprehension.

To put it in words of one syllable the McCleskey law was a monstrous and dangerous law introduced in the early 1990's, I think by the Supreme Court, to put a time limit on any new evidence a prisoner might appeal on.

It was used by Judge Dupree in an appeal in about 1991 to reject the new information acquired under the Freedom of Information Act by the defense about the mystery unidentified black wool fibers around Colette's mouth and on the murder weapon, and the blonde synthetic hair like fibers which were never disclosed to the judge or jury or defense at trial.

Judge Dupree unfairly put the blame on Dr. MacDonald and his lawyers for not presenting it to the court in time under this McCleskey law when it was Murtagh who had suppressed that information at the trial. Dupree then put forward the spurious argument at the appeal that this new information would not sway a jury. I don't think so somehow.

Judge Dupree was biased and Judge Fox is biased. The Article 32 military court was an excellent court, unlike the 1979 MacDonald trial. I think there was a secret agreement between Fox and Dupree, before Dupree died, to keep Dr. MacDonald in prison whatever new evidence was presented to the court.
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 5th October 2013, 01:59 PM   #388
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Failures

HENRI: Be careful, now. You're starting to creep into the 1990's. I haven't read the post on McClesky, but that case hindered Silverglate's ability to throw everything against the wall and hoping that something would stick. At 1992 oral arguments, Judge Russell was frustrated with the attempts by Silverglate and Dershowitz to make an end run around McClesky. Their attempts failed and MacDonald was denied relief.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th October 2013 at 02:00 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 7th October 2013, 02:07 PM   #389
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Just finished 'Final Vision', the latest McGinniss piece. Short, sweet, and to the point. I almost didn't read it following 'Wilderness', as I didn't think it was really necessary, but I'm glad I did. It just emphasizes the 'just the facts, Ma'am' style of McGinniss compared to Morris' rambling. While Morris seems to be urging his readers to guess and conjecture, McGinniss just lays down the facts, supports them as needed, and allows the reader to form his/her own opinion.
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 7th October 2013, 03:12 PM   #390
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,647
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
Just finished 'Final Vision', the latest McGinniss piece. Short, sweet, and to the point. I almost didn't read it following 'Wilderness', as I didn't think it was really necessary, but I'm glad I did. It just emphasizes the 'just the facts, Ma'am' style of McGinniss compared to Morris' rambling. While Morris seems to be urging his readers to guess and conjecture, McGinniss just lays down the facts, supports them as needed, and allows the reader to form his/her own opinion.
I just read Final Vision also. McGinniss really laid out the facts behind what Malcom claimed in Wilderness. Most of what Malcom wrote was wrong and he knew it when he wrote his book. MacDonald is where he belongs and he will die in prison. He's certainly been treated better than he treated Colette, Kimmy and Kristen.
__________________
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 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 7th October 2013, 06:42 PM   #391
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
I just read Final Vision also. McGinniss really laid out the facts behind what Malcom claimed in Wilderness. Most of what Malcom wrote was wrong and he knew it when he wrote his book. MacDonald is where he belongs and he will die in prison. He's certainly been treated better than he treated Colette, Kimmy and Kristen.
Errol Morris wrote Wilderness. Janet Malcolm was the New Yorker reporter.
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 7th October 2013, 07:06 PM   #392
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,647
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Errol Morris wrote Wilderness. Janet Malcolm was the New Yorker reporter.
DOH! Thanks, desertgal
__________________
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 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 8th October 2013, 12:22 PM   #393
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
I just read Final Vision also. McGinniss really laid out the facts behind what Malcom claimed in Wilderness. Most of what Malcom wrote was wrong and he knew it when he wrote his book. MacDonald is where he belongs and he will die in prison. He's certainly been treated better than he treated Colette, Kimmy and Kristen.
There is a bit about this matter of McGinniss and Malcolm in a Wikipedia article on the internet:

"There was a later book about the MacDonald case by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost called Fatal Justice that was a counterattack to Fatal Vision. Potter and Bost professed that MacDonald was innocent and that McGinniss's book was wildly inaccurate. They pointed to various parts of the book they claimed were untrue. For example, McGinnis proposed a theory that MacDonald killed his wife and children during a psychotic episode brought on by his use of diet pills. At the trial, McGinnis was forced to admit under oath that he had no hard evidence to support this theory and it may not have happened at all. Judge Ross split the money between Mildred Kassab and Dorothy MacDonald, the MacDonald lawyers, with Jeffrey MacDonald being allowed to keep the rest. Neither side filed an appeal. Judge Ross likened McGinniss's conduct to that of "a thief in the night," then he corrected himself, saying, "I guess a thief in the night wouldn't see you. He is more of a con man than he is a thief". In her book The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcolm used the McGinniss-MacDonald trial to explore the problematic relationship between journalists and their subjects.

The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy was published in 1993. The highly speculative volume was widely panned; The New York Times called it "half-baked" and "awful". "
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2013, 03:43 PM   #394
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
FV Epilogue

In his 1989 epilogue in FATAL VISION, McGinniss takes apart Malcolm piece by piece. He effectively argues that she was smitten by MacDonald and points out that she didn't attend a single day of the 1987 civil trial.

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 8th October 2013, 06:50 PM   #395
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
In the end it doesn't really matter if McGinniss was dishonest in his dealings with MacDonald, anyway. The facts speak for themselves, and they are compelling.
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 8th October 2013, 11:54 PM   #396
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Compelling

The facts were so compelling to a 1979 jury that they convicted MacDonald of 3 counts of murder in less than 7 hours. The prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. Once the AFIP's DNA tests produced 5 inculpatory results, the fat lady was singing in the jail cell of Jeffrey MacDonald.

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 9th October 2013, 07:05 AM   #397
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
Cool

Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
In the end it doesn't really matter if McGinniss was dishonest in his dealings with MacDonald, anyway. The facts speak for themselves, and they are compelling.
That simply isn't true. You must have supporting evidence before you convict anybody, not just a lot of theories without facts.

I agree with Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Jerry Leonard, who has been quoted as saying that the prosecution never proved their case. All this waffle from JTF about a thousand evidence items proving nothing, and sixty percent of the so called evidence never being presented to the court, and footprints and "pajama-like fibers" and bodies supposedly being carried in a sheet, and blood, and a contrived pajama folding experiment, and false suggestions that he is a psychopath, or that he was a womanizer, isn't real proof.

The reason so-called evidence was never presented to the court is because it was legally inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence. It was gossip and hearsay, which a lawyer would understand. I think the technical term is Incompetent.

In Blackburn's closing argument in 1979 he told the jury that the military police could not have contaminated the crime scene because they said they didn't. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. They admitted they contaminated the crime scene at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970.

Just because a North Carolina jury convicted Dr. MacDonald in seven hours doesn't make him guilty. The jury were conned by the con man and fraudster Blackburn, and the trickster lawyer Murtagh, who deliberately and illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence at the 1979 trial.

The only so-called evidence against Dr. MacDonald was that he was in the apartment when Colette and the two little girls were murdered. That is exactly what Judge Carnes said is the only evidence against the Ramseys in the JonBenet case.

This is the Army CID theory in a quote from Army CID agent Kearns. It's guesswork and speculation. If a jury believes all this then they probably think the moon is made of green cheese. It's cloud cuckoo land:

"Let's say Colette kills Kimmie in a rage over bedwetting. MacDonald attempts to intervene and the resulting struggle lead to Colette's initial injuries - MacDonald takes Kimmie to her bed intending to call for assistance. Colette regains consciousness, goes to Kris's room and still raging, kills Kris; MacDonald enters the room and strikes her with the wood trying to stop her stabbing Kris."

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th October 2013 at 07:27 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2013, 07:22 AM   #398
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,473
This is another example of the lack of overwhelming evidence in the MacDonald case. it comes from the affidavits section of Christina's MacDonald case website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

It's September 8,1989 Deposition of Mario J Ferrari by Denis Eisman:

Q "Do you remember what type of evidence the CID brought with them to the AFIP?

A I don't recall any specifics to any degree of certainty except it was given to Dr. Froede.
Whatever was presented was placed on a large conference table. Most of the items there were packaged or in boxes. They seemed to be in some degree of disorganization. There were sloppy markings, no recordings of a chain of custody, labeling was not the best, in my opinion, and legibility was very poor.

Q What is your recollection as to the meetings that were held and the results as to the opinion as to whether or not there was evidence that Dr. MacDonald had committed these murders?

A At all of these sessions that I had attended or was aware of, there appeared to be indications of non-conclusiveness. For a case of this magnitude there seemed to be inadequate or insufficient physical evidence. At different times, both Dr. Besant-Mathews and I remarked, is this all? There had to be more. We will need more in order to arrive at a positive conclusion.
At the exit meeting with all the members of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and the CID special agents present, Dr. Froede said that on the basis of the evidence, both physical and documentary that was presented for examination and evaluation, there was no conclusionary or positive evidence to indicate that the homicides were committed by Dr. MacDonald."
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2013, 07:25 AM   #399
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That simply isn't true. You must have supporting evidence before you convict anybody, not just a lot of theories without facts.
No, it simply isn't true TO YOU. Everyone is entitled to their own judgment of what they feel is the truth. It's too bad you will never understand that.

Quote:
Just because a North Carolina jury convicted Dr. MacDonald in seven hours doesn't make him guilty.
You're right. That he slaughtered his wife and daughters makes him guilty. That would be Colette Stevenson, and Kimberly, and Kristen. The real victims you always airily overlook in favor of slobbering fatuously over Jeffrey MacDonald.
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 14th October 2013, 05:19 PM   #400
lane99
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 684
Telling Initials

Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
And he was moving under his own power soon afterwards.

The rule of thumb on the difference between being roughed up and brutally assaulted is simple - if you move under your own power after the incident, you haven't been brutally assaulted.

JM is as guilty as they come, and might be the most successful teller of tales in the world - All you need do is read this thread for proof.
Dr. William Petit was moving under his own power soon afterwards. So you don't believe he was brutally assaulted, then? Fine. But sensible people will beg to differ with you.
.
.
__________________
Qte: I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.


Twitter: @Perugiamurderfi
lane99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 PM.
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.