Continuation Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

The essence of this case comes down to MacDonald's inability to provide salient rebuttals to the mass of inculpatory evidence collected at the crime scene. This included DNA, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric and non-fabric impression evidence. The reality of MacDonald's legal situation is that he never came close to meeting his "daunting burden."
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The real forensic experts at the AFIP lab never could find a mass of inculpatory evidence collected at the crime scene:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...p_ferrari.html

"BY MR. EISMAN:
Q Colonel Ferrari, were you present at the AFIP in 1971?
A I was present in active duty for training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology between the dates of 15 March of '71 to 2 April '71, inclusive.
Q During that tour of duty, did you perform any work with regard to this case?
A No. I don't remember, frankly, whether or not at that time I had any involvement. I believe they were still talking about it and there were comments made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation.
Again, the entire investigation seemed to be very poorly planned, very poorly presented to the Institute. The Institute could only work with what it had.
Q From your experience as a police officer, did you believe that the investigation had been done in a professional manner for a case of this import?
A Based on my professional experience of 25 years plus in various capacities in civilian law enforcement, I would have to say that the nature of the investigation, the method in which the investigation was conducted, the procedures that were followed left quite a bit to be desired.
Q Were there any pieces of forensic evidence that you reviewed with Dr. Mathews that in any way showed or could be argued that it linked Dr. MacDonald to these killings?
A No. I don't remember -- oh, I am certain there was no such physical evidence that was presented to us for examination.
Q And in the final exit meeting where Dr. Froede spoke in summarizing the findings of the AFIP, was there any statement made that there was certain evidence which links Dr. MacDonald to these killings or which showed that he was involved in these killings?
A No. On the contrary, Dr. Froede, if anything, helped all of us to believe on the basis of what was presented, there was no way they could implicate or connect Dr. MacDonald with the homicides that occurred at Fort Bragg. In fact, Dr. Froede was or appeared to be assured on the basis of what he really had at his disposal to reach a conclusion.
He would not commit himself, but he did say this, on the basis of what he had, there were no way that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology would return a report indicating that, any implication of Dr. MacDonald."

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is more about this matter of miscarriages of justice in that English Justice book by an anonymous police court solicitor published in 1932:

HM loves the hell out of "anonymous" but every known individual that has first hand knowledge of the evidence is "drunken," "crooked," "incompetent," etc.

Anyone else notice a trend?

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by BStrong

HM loves the hell out of "anonymous" but every known individual that has first hand knowledge of the evidence is "drunken," "crooked," "incompetent," etc.

Anyone else notice a trend?

I just think the MacDonald case needed a first-class trial judge. A cross-examiner, like a public speaker, must know when and how to stop. Segal should have been told that because I think he lost touch with the jury in the MacDonald case.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I just think the MacDonald case needed a first-class trial judge. A cross-examiner, like a public speaker, must know when and how to stop. Segal should have been told that because I think he lost touch with the jury in the MacDonald case.

Segal lost because your man-crush was guilty.

[JTF]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

I just think the MacDonald case needed a first-class trial judge. A cross-examiner, like a public speaker, must know when and how to stop. Segal should have been told that because I think he lost touch with the jury in the MacDonald case.

Inmate's case went before multiple trial and appellate court judges, yet he remains in prison. Inmate has employed 22 lawyers or "cross-examiners," yet he remains in prison. Inmate has had several high-profile advocates (e.g., Harvey Silverglate, Alan Dershowitz, Errol Morris), yet he remains in prison. It appears that inmate will die in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by Pacal

Well actually the fiber and blood evidence was not "hotly" disputed at trial although aspects were disputed. In fact very little was countered by the Defence apparently because they really could not dispute it and because they thought the jury would just be confused by it. Since then all attempts to counter this evidence have failed; usually spectacularly. In fact the only physical evidence to be challenged, very seriously, is the hole's in the Pajama top and that too fails. Basically MacDonald's defenders dismiss the vast majority of the physical evidence has essentially meaningless; just like Morris did in his book Wilderness of Errors.

The blood evidence and fiber evidence was hotly disputed at the Article 32 in 1970 but Murtagh and Dupree prevented that evidence from being quoted for the jury on the grounds that it was ten years old! Thornton has said publicly that his greatest regret about the MacDonald case was that he was never able to check and test the blood evidence. Segal's defense strategy seemed to be that it was never presented to the court by experienced expert examiners and serologists which is true but not understood by the jury. Like all that prosecution stuff about pajama fibers not being in the living room was not strictly true. The jury was wrong and the trial judge was in bed with the prosecution, but what can you do about it?

Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, said it was never proved against MacDonald and I agree with him. Leonard said MacDonald was screwed but what does it matter?

There is a reasonably fair and just website about all this:

https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1191...-being-debated

"And Oscar-winning documentarian Errol Morris thought, simply, that MacDonald got screwed—by McGinniss, certainly, but also by the media in general and also quite possibly by police, prosecutors and the overall justice system.

He told CNN at the time, "We've been sold a bill of goods about this case. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill."

[JTF]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The blood evidence and fiber evidence was hotly disputed at the Article 32 in 1970 but Murtagh and Dupree prevented that evidence from being quoted for the jury on the grounds that it was ten years old! Thornton has said publicly that his greatest regret about the MacDonald case was that he was never able to check and test the blood evidence. Segal's defense strategy seemed to be that it was never presented to the court by experienced expert examiners and serologists which is true but not understood by the jury. Like all that prosecution stuff about pajama fibers not being in the living room was not strictly true. The jury was wrong and the trial judge was in bed with the prosecution, but what can you do about it?

Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, said it was never proved against MacDonald and I agree with him. Leonard said MacDonald was screwed but what does it matter?

There is a reasonably fair and just website about all this:

https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1191...-being-debated

"And Oscar-winning documentarian Errol Morris thought, simply, that MacDonald got screwed—by McGinniss, certainly, but also by the media in general and also quite possibly by police, prosecutors and the overall justice system.

He told CNN at the time, "We've been sold a bill of goods about this case. It's as phony as a three-dollar bill."

Nope, the blood and fiber evidence was strong at the Article 32 hearing, grew stronger at the Grand Jury hearing, and reached a boiling point at the 1979 trial. Several jurors at the 1979 trial later commented that the blood and fiber evidence proved that inmate lied about fighting intruders in the living room and his subsequent movements inside 544 Castle Drive. Leonard was taken apart by John Bruce at the 2012 evidentiary hearing and his testimony proved to be absolutely worthless. Again, inmate failed to meet his "daunting burden," and this failure has resulted in MacDonald spending the rest of his miserable life in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

Nope, the blood and fiber evidence was strong at the Article 32 hearing, grew stronger at the Grand Jury hearing, and reached a boiling point at the 1979 trial. Several jurors at the 1979 trial later commented that the blood and fiber evidence proved that inmate lied about fighting intruders in the living room and his subsequent movements inside 544 Castle Drive. Leonard was taken apart by John Bruce at the 2012 evidentiary hearing and his testimony proved to be absolutely worthless. Again, inmate failed to meet his "daunting burden," and this failure has resulted in MacDonald spending the rest of his miserable life in prison.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

One juror reported after the trial that he convicted because there were no pajama fibers in the living room. He doesn't seem to appreciate that there were several fibers found by the living room where MacDonald fell unconscious. The investigators never used a vacuum to detect fibers which is normal and any 'reddish marks' in the living room were disregarded.

I believe Leonard was an honest witness though it sounds as though he has had alcohol problems and perhaps personal problems, and his legal career may not have been distinguished. From what Christina has said, who attended that 2012 evidentiary hearing, even Wade Smith got it wrong about where the surgical glove fragment was found and in which room the rocking horse was found.

There seemed to have been an interesting witness at that hearing who also thinks Helena was involved but I suppose she was disbelieved by Bruce and Murtagh and torn apart by them:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...as-corner.html

"Sara McMann testified that she and her husband had tried to help Helena and her baby son David. That Helena had lived with them for a while. That Helena had admitted to her that she was present during the attack on MacDonald and the murders of his family. It was her belief that Helena was telling the truth. Ms. McMann stated Helena asked her to take care of her baby if something should happen to her. That when Helena moved out of her home to an apartment when she died a short time later, that she found several empty vodka bottles. She was of the opinion that Helena had problems sleeping at night and would drink in order to sleep. Right in the middle of testifying she said in a sobbing sounding voice, I believe Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent. She also said that she and her husband raised Helena's son, that he is married and has a son of his own."

[Henri McPhee]

I don't believe Judge Fox was a first-class trial judge either. if you are going to put a man in prison for the rest of his life you should at least have the courtesy and dignity to concentrate on listening to the evidence. Judge Fox needed a good kick up the backside. I don't know if there is some kind of freemasonry with North Carolina judges which is why they all support each other when there is a lack of right judgement. There needs to be some independent judgement. It's want of judgement. From that Christina article in 2012:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...as-corner.html

"Mr. Widenhouse stated at the end that he believed the defense had proven their issues as to the Britt and DNA and that Dr. MacDonald should receive a new trial.

It is my opinion that the defense did not put on a strong case. Their whole issue has been they wanted the evidence as whole presented to the court. But where was that evidence as a whole? They only addressed the Britt issue and the DNA basically.

I can understand why Judge Fox might be confused, as he said I didn't try this case and I don't know what the evidence as whole is. He touched on the issue of reading the trial transcripts saying it would take him better than six months to do so and he considered that an impossibility."