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 22nd August 2013, 09:29 AM   #241
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,489
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
So why are they going thru all this effort to frame him? Seriously, assuming that he is being framed for his family's murder, why frame him? What is the motive? What did he do or what does he know that it makes more sense to murder his entire family and frame him than to just kill him and be done with him. Or are the real killers and the evil forces framing him unrelated? I want to understand the logic of this conspiracy theory.

Speaking generally, and not in relation to this case, the logic with virtually all miscarriages of justice is the investigators and prosecutors and the court system not wanting to lose face. Even more precisely, investigators are often extremely prone to confirmation bias and can convince themselves most sincerely that they've got the right person even when an objective view of the evidence wouldn't agree with them.

This last is particularly pernicious, since it's not a big step from that sort of certainty to sexing up the evidence a wee bit to make sure the bastard is convicted. Then once the conviction has been achieved, the entire system works against its being reversed.

It's not really a conspiracy as such, not usually.

In this case, though, the defence is about as convincing as "the dog ate my homework", so I don't think it's an example of that.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 09:46 AM   #242
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,731
Originally Posted by Apology View Post
Without even looking at the evidence very hard*, it's difficult to believe MacDonald's account. Just using logic and Occam's Razor, which is easier to believe: That there's a wide-ranging conspiracy involving hippies, military police, civilian police, and doctors, all acting in concert to frame MacDonald for murder for some yet unexplained reason, or that Dr. MacDonald felt that he'd be better off without his wife and children and decided to murder them? Which story is more common and more likely?

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

And adding to Freddie Kassab's anguish by telling him that he, MacDonald, and a few of his friends killed one of the perpetrators! It has been reported, by Collete's brother, that Mr. Kassab read through the reports and transcripts so many time, he had to get multiple copies.
__________________
"I never thought leopards would eat MY face", sobs the woman who voted for Leopards Eating People's Faces Party

Last edited by KatieG; 22nd August 2013 at 10:05 AM.
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 10:36 AM   #243
bynmdsue
Graduate Poster
 
bynmdsue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,892
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
There's logic in conspiracy theories?
They have an internal "logic" all of their own that doesn't make sense in the real world but works fine for the "exceptional" individuals who believe in them. Like how they always ask "who benefits?" and then point out someone who did benefit so obviously that person must be in on it.

So are we just to believe the cops are incredibly lazy and went with MacDonald to save themselves the pain of having to do any real work?
bynmdsue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 10:38 AM   #244
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
And adding to Freddie Kassab's anguish by telling him that he, MacDonald, and a few of his friends killed one of the perpetrators! It has been reported, by Collete's brother, that Mr. Kassab read through the reports and transcripts so many time, he had to get multiple copies.
I have read the Article 32 transcripts several times and all I can see is a load of rubbish from Army CID agent Shaw about how Colette was supposed to have murdered the two little girls, and how she was supposed to have hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush, and how bodies were supposed to have been carried in a sheet because the Army CID couldn't explain why there was blood at the murder scene.

My own opinion is that Colette's parents turned against Dr. MacDonald because they wanted him to stay with them and to be Colette's mother's doctor and for him to spend the rest of his life grieving for the victims. There was a female witness at the 1979 trial who wtnessed similar conversations with the Kassabs when she was in the company of Dr. MacDonald.

I agree it was not good public relations to appear on the Dick Cavett show. It was a light entertainment show involving mainly celebrity gossip and not profound enough.

Dr. MacDonald admits it was a mistake to try to sooth the hysterical Fred Kassab by telling him one of the murderers had been bumped off. Segal had warned Dr. MacDonald early on that Fred Kassab could be dangerous. I reckon that could be where McGinniss got his crazy amphetamine psychosis theory from, in order to make his MacDonald case Fatal Vision book more sensational and sell more copies.

There is some background to this from an old Larry King TV show:

MACDONALD: ... and Alfred Kassab set up my interview on Dick Cavett. Years later, when Freddy changed his tack on this case and had become his...

KING: Obsessed with you.

MACDONALD: ... obsessed, and obsessed with publicity and being in front of the case -- and, very important you understand this, he was wined and dined very carefully by the CID agents.

KING: Why did they want you?

MACDONALD: I don't know that they wanted me, at first. I think once the investigation started, it becomes a team effort. I don't have major conspiracies in my head. I think it's...

KING: You don't?

MACDONALD: ... very simple. No. I think a bad cop made bad decisions that morning. Then they put me through the Article 32. Then I accused them on the Dick Cavett show of committing perjury under oath, which they did do.

KING: Your mistake was telling your father-in-law that you had the killers taken care of, right, to get him off your back? Is that correct?

MACDONALD: I did say that to him. What I was trying to do was give Mildred and Freddy a little closure. They had...

KING: No, I understand.

MACDONALD: ... shut up their house. They had turned off the lights, literally. They had a life-sized doll dressed in clothes from the kids. And I was trying to give them -- I said, Freddy, look, some of the Green Berets I know and I found this guy. We took care of it. And it was a really bad decision. I shouldn't have said that. But that is not what changed Alfred, Kassab.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 11:00 AM   #245
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,489
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
So are we just to believe the cops are incredibly lazy and went with MacDonald to save themselves the pain of having to do any real work?

I think that attitude, as a general approach to criminal justice, is extremely naive and extremely dangerous. So the cops think this person did it? Fine, string the bastard up and throw away the key.

Sometimes cops are lazy, and go for the first person who crosses their path rather than take the trouble to investigate the case properly. Sometimes they become prematurely or irrationally convinced that a particular person is guilty and proceed to view every and all pieces of evidence through a lens that shows only the guilt of that person.

Deciding that someone is guilty simply because the cops believe he is guilty is short-sighted, and frankly unsceptical. History tells us that innocent people have been pursued by the police and convicted on numerous occasions.

That's why it's everyone's responsibility to look at the evidence for themselves before pontificating about a particular case, and in particular when disagreeing with someone who has looked closely at the evidence.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 11:12 AM   #246
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Speaking generally, and not in relation to this case, the logic with virtually all miscarriages of justice is the investigators and prosecutors and the court system not wanting to lose face. Even more precisely, investigators are often extremely prone to confirmation bias and can convince themselves most sincerely that they've got the right person even when an objective view of the evidence wouldn't agree with them.

This last is particularly pernicious, since it's not a big step from that sort of certainty to sexing up the evidence a wee bit to make sure the bastard is convicted. Then once the conviction has been achieved, the entire system works against its being reversed.


Rolfe.
I agree about this matter. Officialdom never admits a mistake. I think it's amazing complacency. People have definitely been hanged in error in the past in the UK. It's like nobody knows for sure who did that chemical attack in Syria, and so we have all got to go to war over it, and spend billions at the same time, and support Mugabe in Zimbabwe at the same time because he is good friends with North Korea.

This is an amusing quote from 1948 in the UK which indicates the official attitude:

"The risk, under the conditions as they exist in this country, of the capital penalty being executed on anyone who was not in fact guilty of the crime of which he has been convicted is so small, indeed so infinitesimal, that that consideration can be dismissed."

Sir John Anderson, a former Home Secretary, 14 April 1948
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 11:35 AM   #247
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,489
Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, Sion Jenkins, Paul Esslemont, Barry George, Stefan Kiszko, David Asbury - and I haven't even started on the IRA bombings trials.

All of these were convicted, and subsequently proved innocent. In some cases the "crimes" didn't even happen. Nobody can simply declare that a suspect or even a convicted person must be guilty merely on the say-so of the police or the criminal justice system. Arguments to that effect are frankly woo.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 02:35 PM   #248
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Case Closed

With the exception of MAYBE the JFK case, no murder in history has been investigated more thoroughly than the Jeffrey MacDonald case.

1) Original CID investigation

2) Article 32 hearing

3) CID reinvestigation

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/ht...stigation.html

4) Grand Jury hearings

5) 1979 Trial

6) 1980-1982 FBI investigation

7) 1984-1985 Appellate hearings

8) 1990 Appellate hearing

9) 1992 Appellate hearing

10) 1999 DNA protocol hearing

11) 2005 Parole hearing

12) 2006-2008 Inmate's 7th attempt at obtaining a new trial

13) 2012 Appellate hearing

14) 2013-Present Inmate's 8th attempt at obtaining a new trial

This case is open and shut. In 1979, MacDonald was convicted in less than 7 hours of 3 counts of murder. The conviction was based on a mass of forensic evidence which included blood, fibers, hairs, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence. In 2006, DNA testing by the AFIP produced 5 inculpatory test results which included a broken, bloody limb hair sourced to Jeffrey MacDonald which was found clutched in his dead wife's left hand. The nonsense produced by Henriboy does nothing to alter this mountain of inculpatory evidence.

Last edited by JTF; 22nd August 2013 at 02:39 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 22nd August 2013, 04:11 PM   #249
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,731
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I think that attitude, as a general approach to criminal justice, is extremely naive and extremely dangerous. So the cops think this person did it? Fine, string the bastard up and throw away the key.

Sometimes cops are lazy, and go for the first person who crosses their path rather than take the trouble to investigate the case properly. Sometimes they become prematurely or irrationally convinced that a particular person is guilty and proceed to view every and all pieces of evidence through a lens that shows only the guilt of that person.

Deciding that someone is guilty simply because the cops believe he is guilty is short-sighted, and frankly unsceptical. History tells us that innocent people have been pursued by the police and convicted on numerous occasions.

That's why it's everyone's responsibility to look at the evidence for themselves before pontificating about a particular case, and in particular when disagreeing with someone who has looked closely at the evidence.

Rolfe.
To whom are you referring?
__________________
"I never thought leopards would eat MY face", sobs the woman who voted for Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 04:16 PM   #250
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,489
I was speaking generally, but as regards this thread, work it out.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 04:24 PM   #251
KatieG
Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail
Posts: 3,731
Helpful...not
__________________
"I never thought leopards would eat MY face", sobs the woman who voted for Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 04:34 PM   #252
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,489
I was attempting to make the point that simply stating baldly that the police wouldn't go after someone who was innocent is completely unhelpful, as it is demonstrably the case that police have done precisely that in numerous cases in the past. Therefore, one can only counter arguments about actual guilt or innocence by debating the evidence.

The answer as to who has the better grasp of the evidence in this thread is left as an exercise for the reader.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 06:34 PM   #253
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Evidence Of Guilt

IMO, inmate would have been convicted on the blood and fiber evidence alone, but the evidence that sealed the deal was the blood stain analysis. Inmate claims that he took off his torn pajama top when he "found" his wife on the master bedroom floor. This resulted in MacDonald having to stick to a story where he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he subsequently "found" his two daughters in their beds.

Lab analysis by the CID and FBI determined that there were 10 locations on MacDonald's torn pajama top where his wife had bled on the garment before it was torn. In addition, there were 5 bloody fabric impressions found on bedding used to transport Colette MacDonald from her daughter's bedroom to the master bedroom. The bloody fabric impressions included two bloody impressions from Jeffrey MacDonald's right pajama cuff, one impression from his left cuff, one impression from Colette's right pajama cuff, and one impression from her left cuff.

Inmate denies ever touching the bedding in question, but broken head hairs from both Colette and Kimmie MacDonald, and seam threads from inmate's torn pajama top were found in that bedding. In addition to hairs and threads, both Kimmie's and Colette's blood was found in massive quantities on the bedding. These were direct bleeding stains and not the result of blood transfer. This demonstrated that both Kimmie and Colette were carried in that bedding.

Last edited by JTF; 22nd August 2013 at 06:38 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 23rd August 2013, 02:33 AM   #254
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
That's more bull from JTF. The blood stain analysis was conducted by the hair and fiber man Stombaugh of the FBI. He was not qualified to render an opinion about fabric impressions He was making it up. Janice Glisson of the Army CID disagreed with Stombaugh about the blood and the tear on the pajama top. She was a qualified blood expert. She said the blood was on the pajama top after it was torn and not before, which disproves the Stombaugh violent argument theory.

Dr MacDonald doesn't know for certain if he touched or brushed the bedding in question. That does not mean he was lying. It's extremely weak so-called evidence. It's fabricated evidence.

How does JTF know for certain that Kimmie's blood was found in massive quantities on the bedding? The Army CID reported that there were supposed to have been a few drops of Kimmie's blood on the bedding, but there was a strong fight about that at both the Article 32 and at the 1979 trial. In any case it doesn't prove that Dr. MacDonald was the murderer.

I agree with Rolfe. In the Ramsey case the police and FBI jumped to the conclusion the Ramseys did it right from the start with no real proof to back it up. In this recent chemical attack in Syria Israel could have been behind it. Their air force has intervened in that civil war before now, but they have never admitted it. In any case the Syrian government can't allow UN weapons inspectors in because they don't control the area.

A response by MacDonald defense lawyer Gordon Widenhouse in the MacDonald case has just been uploaded on to the the internet if anybody is interested. This can be found at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ewuploads.html

It's written in plain and clear English and it is mercifully short. I find the new information from Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard that she provided him with information and as good as confessed as interesting. That was never revealed at the 1979 trial, or at subsequent appeals, because of the lawyer-client confidential relationship, which no longer exists because of NSA bugging.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd August 2013 at 02:50 AM. Reason: wrong word
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 03:05 AM   #255
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
There was a wrong name in the Widenhouse response. It's an easy mistake to make and I might have made it myself in the past.

The man who made the wrong number phone call to the MacDonald murders apartment at the relevant time was Friar and not Frier. I think it's relevant information. Friar had no motive to lie and there was no money in it for him. Helena Stoeckley mentioned it happened in one of her confessions. MacDonald lawyer Wade Smith disegarded Friar as a witness at the 1979 trial probably because his information could not be proved and Friar's character was not one of the highest integrity.

Murtagh did a con job on Segal at the 1979 trial by telling Segal Frier's testimony had no forensic significance. Frier was the FBI lab technician who had discovered the mystery black fibers around the mouth of Colette and on the wooden club murder weapon. As a result the judge and jury were kept in the dark about the matter. The same thing happened when Murtagh deliberately left off the blood and pajama fibers found where Dr. MacDonald fell in a chart shown to the jury.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 23rd August 2013 at 03:12 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 03:08 AM   #256
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
This is part of what the forensic expert Dr. Thornton thought about Stombaugh of the FBI and his fabric impression analysis. From the 1979 MacDonald trial:

Q Now, I ask you to look at the area marked "E" on the pajama top, would you please identify that? That is an area which has been referred to by Mr. Stombaugh as a shoulder impression. Let me see if I can find you the section of his testimony.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I don't believe that is what Mr. Stombaugh said.

MR. SEGAL: I am going to read exactly what his words were, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Refer to page 4140 of the testimony. He was asked the question about Area "E."
"Area 'E' is the appearance of a bare left shoulder and the bottom of it has the appearance of a torn left cuff of a pajama top, the trailing out portion here."
Dealing first of all with the statement that Area "E" has the appearance of a bare left shoulder, do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
A I disagree.
Q What is the basis of your own opinion in this regard?
A I am unable to replicate an impression that has the appearance of "E" on that item by using a shoulder, neck, or clavicle region of a human being. I can replicate it to some extent by folding the fabric over an area of bloody cloth.
Q Let me go back over what you just told us. First of all, is it your opinion that it is not in any reasonable fashion a bare--it is not an impression made by a bare left shoulder as far as you can ascertain?
A That is correct. I don't think there is any credible possibility that it could be a bare left shoulder.

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will strike the word "credible." Don't consider that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you find evidence that it is inconsistent with that Area "E" having been made by a bare left shoulder?
A Yes.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 09:56 AM   #257
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Context

HENRIBOY: You need to put the time in to read the documented record before placing your fingers on the keyboard. I won't waste my time commenting on your history of bizarre postings and multiple name changes, but I won't let you distort the facts in this case.

Blood stain analysis was conducted by CID chemist Terry Laber and Chief of the FBI's Chemistry Division Paul Stombaugh. Laber concluded that 6 Type A blood stains found on the face or outer surface of inmate's pajama top pocket indicated that his wife bled on that pocket BEFORE it was torn from the garment.

Stombaugh concluded that 4 bisected Type A stains found on the left cuff, left sleeve, left shoulder, and left front seam indicated that inmate's wife bled on his pajama top BEFORE it was torn.

A prime example of your inability to place evidentiary items in their proper context is your posting trial testimony that has NOTHING to do with the bloody pajama cuff impressions found on the blue bedsheet. At trial, John Thornton actually agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions regarding 3 of the 5 bloody cuff impressions and for reasons still unknown, Thornton didn't analyze the other two bloody fabric impressions on the bedsheet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 23rd August 2013 at 10:00 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 10:34 AM   #258
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
Laber was very inexperienced at the time, like Craig Chamberlain. Laber was one of the prosecution experts in the controversial Darlie Routier case. I notice he has since changed his tune by putting an affidavit on the internet expressing grave doubts about the forensic evidence in that case.

Dr. Thornton was more qualified and experienced than any of them as a forensic expert. It looks as though Segal aso hired a blood expert, Dr. Morton, for the 1979 trial. All Thornton and Morton agreed with Stombaugh and Laber was that a pajama cuff might have brushed the sheet, but that doesn't make Dr. MacDonald a murderer. Bodies and fabrics were moved by the military police in the initial investigation.

The Laber testimony at the 1979 trial was a farce. He put up a diagram for the jury of where the blood was found and then half way through Judge Dupree started talking about parking arrangements for the journalists. For some reason Segal never cross-examined Laber and neither did Wade Smith, who I don't think understood the forensics of the case. The jury were then left with the impression that because there was blood Dr. MacDonald must be guilty. More about what Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's speculations :-

Q Dr. Thornton, I would like to ask you about the areas that you had sort of gotten into, "C" and "D," which were described by Mr. Stombaugh at page 4141 of his testimony. I am going to ask your opinion about those.
He stated at that time that, "Area 'C' conforms to a bloody handprint." He then said, "Area 'C' on the sheet...conforms to a bloody left hand--the two portions of it, here, here and here." He said, "As to Area 'D,' it conforms to a bloody right hand." Let me ask you, first of all, do you agree with his opinion and his conclusion?
A No, I think that is exceedingly unlikely
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 10:50 AM   #259
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...
In this recent chemical attack in Syria Israel could have been behind it.
....
And your evidence for this would be ....?

(Hey, maybe Syrian rebels or Israeli commandos killed the MacDonald kids. Nonexistent evidence just means somebody covered it all up, right?)
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 10:05 PM   #260
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Credibility

HENRIBOY: Terry Laber was not cross-examined by Bernie Segal, so what does that tell you about the validity of his analysis? If Segal had an expert to refute Laber's testimony, he would have presented that expert in a NY minute. In terms of your trial excerpt, you prove beyond all doubt that you either don't understand the Government's forensic case or you're simply trolling up a storm.

The trial excerpt is in reference to Stombaugh's conclusions regarding bloody handprints and a bare shoulder impression he found on the blue bedsheet. I repeat, that testimony has NOTHING to do with Stombaugh's testimony regarding his analysis of bloody pajama cuff impressions found on the blue bedsheet. Analysis, by the way, that Thornton agreed with, so your credibility arguments are nothing but hollow chatter.

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 24th August 2013, 05:54 AM   #261
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
I still think Stombaugh never proved that there were ever hand impressions on the sheet, or a bare shoulder impression, which was the main prosecution accusation against Dr. MacDonald in that he was supposed to have moved bodies in a sheet, and Colette was supposed to have murdered the two little girls, and hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush.

It's true that the forensic experts did agree that a pajama cuff impression might have brushed against the sheet, but that could easily have been caused by all sorts of contamination in the initial investigation. From the Article 32 transcripts the military police were not exactly twinkle toes when they arrived at the apartment, and they were not terribly careful not to touch things. Even Dr. MacDonald might have brushed against the sheet and not noticed it happened in all the chaos and panic of the situation. He was barely conscious at the time.

Murtagh told Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial that Stombaugh only said it could be which I don't regard as conclusive evidence.

How Stombaugh ever became Head of Chemistry at the FBI lab I will never know. He joined the FBI as an insurance salesman with no scientific qualifications to write home about. The Warren Commission on the Kennedy assassination once quite reasonably asked for a second opinion about Stombaugh's testimony in that case. When the FBI heard about that they became quite sniffy and refused any further cooperation if that happened.

I still think what is needed is for some private detectives to dig up some facts and gossip about the Stoeckley group. The American police and FBI don't seem interested in complete investigations of difficult murders. Dr. MacDonald did have some private detectives at first but they stopped work when Dr. MacDonald ran out of money, or else they went and died before they could take the next logical steps.
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 August 2013, 08:53 AM   #262
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
New York Four And Stoeckley Seven

The MacDonald camp's reliance on hearsay testimony is exemplified by their insistence that Stoeckley's ramblings prove that MacDonald's fairy tale has merit. The following link proves otherwise.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
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 August 2013, 01:50 PM   #263
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Trolls Ignore Documented Fact

HENRIBOY: It must get boring to copy and paste the SAME insanity you've been spewing since 2004. Your never-ending trolling on true crime discussion boards is yawn inducing and I've yet to see your conspiracy-minded talking points sway any MacDonald case fence-sitters.

I've always felt that this is simply a game to you and that you don't truly believe in MacDonald's innocence. The mass of inculpatory physical evidence and MacDonald's outrageous behaviors are the reasons why he has spent 32 of the past 34 years in prison.

Like most psychopaths, MacDonald is a terrible liar and a sore loser when confronted with concrete data. He fumes, he dodges, he ducks, but he cannot escape documented fact. The forensic evidence and his own words will haunt him until he is worm food.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 26th August 2013 at 01:53 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 26th August 2013, 04:18 PM   #264
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
<snip>As I have mentioned many times before I don't think their main priority was to murder Dr. MacDonald.


But you just said the Mafia set out to murder MacDonald because he punched Jay's Mafia drug dealer in the face.
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.
Are you a member of the Mafia? You seem to know their code. Is there a guidebook? Please show us a list of all of the families who have been murdered by Mafia hitmen because a Mafia member got punched in the face by a non Mafia member. Seriously. We'd like to see the evidence to back up your statements.

Quote:
The thing about the half-mad William Hague <senseless blabbering snipped>.
What the hell does any of that have to do with the MacDonald case? Dude, stick to the topic. Can't you handle 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 26th August 2013, 05:29 PM   #265
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,259
I may not know too much about the Mafia, but I am under the impression that should you do something that makes a Mafia member want you dead, then they will try to kill you by shooting you at close range.

I suspect Mafia Hitmen bring their own weapons, not pick them up at the house. They;d shoot the person they wanted dead and would leave. Not magically incapacitate the target, kill the rest of the family with random stuff and leave without checking the primary target.

Nor would they dress like hippies and chant silly central casting slogans.

This would be incredibly silly if there were not dead people involved.
__________________
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 26th August 2013, 06:33 PM   #266
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
I may not know too much about the Mafia, but I am under the impression that should you do something that makes a Mafia member want you dead, then they will try to kill you by shooting you at close range.

I suspect Mafia Hitmen bring their own weapons, not pick them up at the house. They;d shoot the person they wanted dead and would leave. Not magically incapacitate the target, kill the rest of the family with random stuff and leave without checking the primary target.

Nor would they dress like hippies and chant silly central casting slogans.

This would be incredibly silly if there were not dead people involved.
True, but it is a good example of Henri's "I think, therefore it is" lack of credibility.

Helena Stoeckley wasn't drug addled. That was just an act. She was really a Mafia hitman. (It's impossible to type that without snorting derisively, btw. I did try.)

Now, according to Henri, Jeffrey MacDonald WAS the primary target because he punched some Mafia guy in the face, but their main priority wasn't to murder him. Murder Colette and the children, yes, because Colette and the girls never did anything to anybody and for that they had to die. Jeffrey they just wanted to briefly incapacitate to gain access to drugs they didn't steal, and THEN somehow get the CID and all the other people involved to join in a mass conspiracy to wrongfully convict Jeffrey MacDonald. They had conferences in Madison Square Garden and sang "The Ballad of the Green Berets" in between court appearances.

No sense arguing, Henri has said it is so.

Last edited by desertgal; 26th August 2013 at 06:39 PM.
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 August 2013, 07:56 PM   #267
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,410
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
:...
Are you a member of the Mafia? You seem to know their code. Is there a guidebook?
...
Digression here. For a portrait of a real Mafia killer, catch "The Iceman." Those guys don't have a lot of rules.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/05/03...uklinski.html?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kuklinski

Last edited by Bob001; 26th August 2013 at 07:58 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2013, 05:28 AM   #268
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 44,237
Mod Warning Please stay on topic and desist from making personal attacks.
Posted By:Tricky
Tricky 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 August 2013, 02:45 PM   #269
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
That's All You've Got?

Defense Attorney Gordon Widenhouse had 44 days to deliver a reply to the Government's 200 page post-hearing response memo. His 37 pages of half-truths, assumptions, and distortions makes me question his work ethic and competence. For all of Gordie's bluster regarding the CLAIMS leveled by Stoeckley/Britt, he still hasn't met the "extraordinarily" high burden placed upon him by the 2255.

In addition, his 37 page reply didn't prove that MacDonald's constitutional rights were violated and he wasn't in the same stratosphere in regards to proving actual innocence. It took Gordie 44 days to produce 37 pages of what amounts to a synopsis of his original 130 page memo. LOL.

In addition, the Government produced two booklets worth of exhibits in their 200 page response memo, yet all Gordie can produce is a few updated affidavits and articles written by MacDonald advocates. LOL. I'm not cutting Gordie any slack because he knew that this would be his last legitimate shot at achieving relief for his client AND he knew that the Government would be given an opportunity to have the final word. The Government won't produce another 200 page reply memo, but their sur-reply will most likely dwarf Gordie's regurgitated list of soundbytes, hearsay testimony, and hype.

Ironically, the Government's sur-reply is due almost one year to the day of the end of the evidentiary hearing. Historically, Judge Fox has taken two years to decide on significant case issues. Examples include...

- 1997-1999 Decision on issues related to DNA testing

- 2006-2008 Decision on MacDonald's bid for a new trial

I would love for Judge Fox to make a decision before the New Year, but I believe that the earliest we can expect a decision would be late Spring of next year. If he decides by Christmas to deny MacDonald relief, the Defense will argue to the 4th Circuit Court that a quick decision demonstrates that Judge Fox is biased and they will demand that a new judge be assigned this case. The old "fresh set of eyes" argument. Judge Fox has bent over backwards for the Defense and he doesn't want to give the 4th Circuit Court ANY reason to prolong this legal circus.

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 August 2013, 12:08 AM   #270
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,756
I would love for Judge Fox to make a decision before the New Year, but I believe that the earliest we can expect a decision would be late Spring of next year. If he decides by Christmas to deny MacDonald relief, the Defense will argue to the 4th Circuit Court that a quick decision demonstrates that Judge Fox is biased and they will demand that a new judge be assigned this case. The old "fresh set of eyes" argument. Judge Fox has bent over backwards for the Defense and he doesn't want to give the 4th Circuit Court ANY reason to prolong this legal circus.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com[/quote]

Judge Fox intends to keep the innocent Dr. MacDonald in prison because he is biased and officialdom never admits a mistake.

For JTF to say that the juror Fred Thornhill thinks Dr. MacDonald is guilty doesn't make it a fact. There was at least one MacDonald trial juror who publicly said after the trial that she thought the jury was not fully informed about "that woman" by which she meant Helena Stoeckley. There were other jurors who have publicly expressed doubts about the MacDonald case. Their quotes are on the internet somewhere. There are affidavits that the now deceased foreman of the jury spoke to three different people before the trial saying he was going to convict Dr. MacDonald whatever happened in court.

This business of Lockerbie is on topic because there is a possibility that Murtagh prosecuted an innocent man then as he did in the MacDonald case. <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar:  SNIPed, breach of rule 11.

Last edited by Locknar; 29th August 2013 at 07:19 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2013, 07:28 AM   #271
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Administrator
 
Locknar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 25.8333 N, 77.9000 W
Posts: 23,057
Mod WarningDiscussion re forum moderation has been split out to Forum Management and can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=264500

Please stay on topic.

While discussion wrt Murtagh is on topic, discussion of Lockerbie is only tangentially so (as Murtagh prosecuted both cases). Beyond this tangential link, discussion re Lockerbie belongs in the appropriate Lockerbie threads that can be found in Conspiracy Theories.
Posted By:Locknar
__________________
He's back!
Locknar 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 August 2013, 03:21 PM   #272
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Lacking Merit

The Government's 200 page response memo is replete with MacDonald's attempts to mold inculpatory data into scenarios involving mythical hippie home invaders. In addition, there are numerous examples of MacDonald being unable to remove his foot from his mouth. Whether it was Victor Woerheide confronting him on whether he touched the blue bedsheet or James Blackburn asking him to explain the proliferation of pajama fibers in all three bedrooms, MacDonald was continually shrugging his shoulders about the reasons why the data linked him to the crime.

The resounding message of the Government memo is that MacDonald didn't come close to meeting the burden of proof at EVERY level. This includes the merits of his claims, gatekeeping issues, constitutional claims, his actual innocence, and yes, the "evidence as a whole." No matter how you interpret the 2255, the Defense failed miserably in constructing a case for a new trial. The Government didn't have to provide rebuttals to the Britt and DNA claims. It was up to the Defense to prove that these claims had merit, yet what occurred at the hearing and in post-hearing memos, was that Britt was PROVEN to be a liar and the DNA claims were pure hyperbole. No DNA experts were presented by the Defense, none of the unsourced hairs showed signs of forcible removal, and the only hairs that were bloody/broken linked Jeffrey MacDonald to these horrific murders.

There is no doubt that the Government's sur-reply will be just as thorough and, in a perfect world, be the last time that the Government has to debunk MacDonald's campfire stories. The 2011 decision by the 4th Circuit Court to remand the case back to Judge Fox was a slap in the face to justice. Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen deserved better. Hopefully, this nonsense will come to an end in 2014.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th August 2013 at 03:23 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 31st August 2013, 07:29 AM   #273
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,192
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I entirely disagree with you. I'm "highly confident" and it is "highly likely" that Murtagh manufactured the evidence in that case... <snipped>
You also think Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman, hired because Jeffrey MacDonald punched some supposedly Mafia guy in the face.

Yawn.
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 31st August 2013, 09:17 AM   #274
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 24,907
Mod Warning This thread is about the MacDonald case, not the Lockerbie case. Please discuss the Lockerbie case in the appropriate thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Posted By:jhunter1163
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 31st August 2013, 06:07 PM   #275
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
I'm nearly done with 'Fatal Vision'. At this point I see no reason to have any doubt about McDonald's guilt. However, I plan to read 'Final Vision' and 'A Wilderness of Error' as well, and we'll see then. I've been assigned four other books by my reading group now, though, so it may be a while...
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 1st September 2013, 10:51 AM   #276
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Tiktaalik View Post
I'm nearly done with 'Fatal Vision'. At this point I see no reason to have any doubt about McDonald's guilt. However, I plan to read 'Final Vision' and 'A Wilderness of Error' as well, and we'll see then. I've been assigned four other books by my reading group now, though, so it may be a while...
You need to stop wasing time on irrelevancies like sleep.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 1st September 2013, 11:50 AM   #277
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
You need to stop wasing time on irrelevancies like sleep.
More true than you know. I finished it last night before bed and then a) couldn't sleep, b) when I did sleep dreamed about it, and c) woke up thinking about it. There was a part that really disturbed me, to the point of nausea and eyes welling up. I can't get it out of my mind. Tonight I'll read about fluffy bunnies...
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 2nd September 2013, 12:26 PM   #278
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Book Comparisons

The following link compares the terrific FINAL VISION to the worthless propaganda tool WILDERNESS OF ERROR.

http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/wild...rol.php?page=1
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, 04:48 AM   #279
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The following link compares the terrific FINAL VISION to the worthless propaganda tool WILDERNESS OF ERROR.

http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/wild...rol.php?page=1
You'll find plenty from Henri McPhee there too.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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, 10:30 AM   #280
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
Facts VS Agenda

CATS: Yeah, Henriboy had to throw his .5 cents in, but I also posted in the comments section. My post (e.g., PhilC) is the first one listed in that section. Next to the Weingarten article on Brian Murtagh, this is the best article written on the case since Robert Sam Anson's 1998 article in Vanity Fair.

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
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 06:23 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.