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

[byn63]

JTF do you think this new series will show the facts or will it be another one of those "wrongfully convicted" revisionist history sort of shows? I would like SOMEONE to pay attention to the FACT that inmate's story is not just implausible but medically impossible. His entire story is bs, no way he was attacked and knocked out and then remembers all these alleged details. Also, I'd like to see an assessment of the injuries to Colette and the girls by a Criminal Profiler......have them look at the photos of Colette specifically and give an opinion....I'd bet money the profiler would say that the person who killed Colette was someone close to her and I bet the tucking in of Kimmie and the baby bottle to Kristy was the act of someone who was known and "cared" for the girls.

Do we know a time-line when the show is expected to air and what channel?

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

The producer then asked for a concrete example of this important issue, so my Exhibit A was the 1999 DNA protocol hearing. I pointed out that the defense could have asked for DNA exemplars from every viable intruder suspect, but they only asked for exemplars from Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell.

I expressed that there was only one salient explanation for this request. The defense had NO confidence in any of the remaining Stoeckley Seven being involved in this case. They made this decision knowing that they were contradicting their client's story of 4 intruders being in the living room and at least 1 additional intruder in Colette's AND Kimmie's room.

I ended the story by pointing out the stark contrast between the arguments presented at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The prosecution relied on the physical evidence collected at the crime scene whereas the defense focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

That's ridiculous. MacDonald wants to prove his innocence with the evidence as a whole, not the opinions as a whole, unlike the very bad judge Fox, or the Department of Justice who want to cover it all up. If there is any DNA of Mazerolle or Don Harris or Dwight Smith, or even Cathy Perry, using modern touch DNA, it would be very relevant and even powerful evidence. In 2015 Judge Fox again refused any further DNA testing. I don't know when exactly MacDonald defense lawyers just insisted on Stoeckley and Mitchell being DNA tested, as JTF says, but MacDonald himself would be interested in the real proof.

In any case, there have been murder cases in the past when no fingerprints or DNA has been found. It doesn't prove anything as such. There is a controversy at the moment in the UK where the prosecution and police have failed to disclose evidence to the defense in some rape cases, which has resulted in false imprisonment. There is supposed to be a law in America where the evidence is disclosed to the defense but it doesn't always seem to be applied in courts, and not in the MacDonald case.

There is some legal waffle about the matter, if anybody can make head or tail of it, at this website:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a-hearing.html

[desmirelle]

Inmate Macdonald would have a better chance of proving a not guilty status if he hadn't killed Colette, Kim, and Kris. It sucks when the only evidence points to you and you're the last man standing in a house full of dead bodies.

[JTF]

BYN: This individual did not provide me with any concrete information about the nature (e.g., podcast? television series?) or slant of this series. He simply wanted to compliment me for the way I presented this case on my website and to ask several questions about the case. I did describe my 2011 communications with Errol Morris and put forth the fact that Morris repeatedly lied to me about the focus of his book. I asked him when his series was available for public view and he admitted that he and his staff were only in the initial stages of the creative process.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[JTF]

The 4th Circuit Court provided inmate with a golden opportunity to present his version of the "evidence as a whole." At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox took this a step further by allowing inmate to present the kitchen sink which included 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony. Guess what? Inmate and his defense lawyers laid a big, fat egg.

No law enforcement investigators or forensic experts were called to testify. Not one. The defense could have called Michael Malone to the stand and challenged his methods and conclusions. They could have called Janice Glisson to the stand and pressed her on some of her contradictory conclusions. Guess what? Neither expert was called to the stand.

Despite the defense presenting a ball of nothing, inmate's advocates were bragging to media members outside the courtroom that 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony was indisputable proof of inmate's innocence. LOL. Once the government began to present their case, however, most of the media members covering the case quickly skipped town.

Despite their soft spot for inmate, the 4th Circuit Court concurred with Judge Fox's decision to deny inmate additional DNA testing. In the end, inmate's decision to leave Fowler/Mazzerolle/Smith/Perry/Harris off the 1999 DNA exemplar list, squashed any chance he had to obtain future DNA testing.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

My memory of the 2012 evidentiary hearing was that Glisson was originally intended to testify but she never did, perhaps because she is now too old. Malone has been discredited in other murder cases for false evidence but presumably the FBI made sure he never testified in the 2012 evidentiary hearing.

To my mind, the most interesting testimony was Helena Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, disclosing that Helena had confessed to him of her involvement along with others which had never been disclosed previously because of lawyer and client confidentiality. Murtagh then, of course tried to discredit Leonard with tales of alcoholism about him and other things. There was another very interesting couple of witnesses, not previously disclosed, who are convinced Mitchell confessed to them when he was alive, as well as to other people.

The whole thing descended into a request for further forensic investigation which now looks as though it is unlikely to happen. There was a detective from the Flying Squad at Scotland Yard during the 1940s called Ted Greeno who solved some difficult murders. They needed him on the MacDonald case.

There is a fair and just article about the 2012 evidentiary hearing at:

https://newrepublic.com/article/1091...c-murder-trial

Quote:

It quickly becomes apparent that the government has a great deal invested in upholding Jeffrey MacDonald's conviction. It's not only justifying the money already spent on it, but saving face. Over the course of the hearing the government was forced to admit a stunning lack of professionalism in the conduct of the original investigation and trial—in the laboratory, at the crime scene, and in the courtroom. At stake is the government's claims to basic competence. And that is why government lawyers are now reduced to falling back on the old bromide that a few bad apples from decades ago didn't spoil the barrel, i.e., their case.

[AnimalFriendly]

I've read Margo Howard's article in New Republic and it's biased garbage. Full of silly little digs regarding the personal appearance of judges, Colette's family, etc. And it contains several outright lies.

For example there's this: But in 1975 his formerly supportive father-in-law, with an assist from the writer Joe McGinniss (who was soon to publish a book arguing MacDonald's guilt) succeeded in getting MacDonald indicted in a civilian court.

An assist from?? McGinniss wasn't hired by MacDonald to write Fatal Vision until 1979. Even if the two had met by 1975 it's ridiculous to assume the former had any true bearing on the indictment. And Howard's definition of "soon" is seemingly 8 years.

Then there's this regarding McGinniss: It's impossible to ignore the fact that it was his book, Fatal Vision, that has served as the government's narrative for this case.

The government's narrative?? Really? As anyone with even cursory knowledge of this case knows, Fatal Vision wasn't published until 1983 & the original trial concluded in 1979.

Howard also states that MacDonald's "reputation" is in need of "serious reconsideration". No, it wasn't then and it isn't now. He's been in prison since 1982 as a convicted murderer and that rightly forms the basis of his reputation.

[JTF]

AF: Impressive destruction of Margo's worthless article. If memory serves, Joe McGinniss also responded to this article on his website.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

There was a close connection between Kassab and that drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinniss. Just because Kassab and McGinniss think you are guilty isn't evidence.

[byn63]

AF - welcome to the discussions. Most of the advocates for inmate try to bolster the arguments (that don't exist) for inmate's "innocence" by using cut and paste, revisionist history, innuendo, misrepresentation, and outright lies. The most recent example being the PEOPLE Magazine and ID Discovery Channel shows/articles. What a shame that the drek of those articles and the tv show is out there for uneducated people to see/read and possibly believe. BUT, I will continue to check the boards regularly and I will be prepared to write to the Parole Board when the time comes and I will be sure that the truth continues to be presented every time a macolite like henri posts the BS.

[JTF]

When you get down to the brass tacks, the only "new" physical evidence presented by the defense in the past 12 years are the 3 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene, and that evidence hasn't passed exculpatory muster. Why?

1) All 3 hairs had club roots which indicates they were naturally shed.

2) All 3 hairs had different DNA sequences which translates into 3 different sources.

3) None of the hairs matched the DNA profile of Helena Stoeckley and/or Greg Mitchell.

4) The unsourced hair found in Kristen's fingernail scrapings was not found at autopsy.

5) The only material found under Kristen's fingernails was a bloody pajama seam thread that was later sourced to inmate's torn pajama top.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[byn63]

forensically speaking unsourced = useless.....

the biggest "new" evidence is that the hair found "clutched" in Colette's hand along with a splinter from the murder club (and all of it bloody) was a 100% DNA match to inmate. Of course, most salient beings figured out E-9 belonged to inmate long before the DNA testing proved us correct. So, it does also prove that inmate CAN tell the truth as he (defense) stated all along that E-9 had to belong to the wielder of the murder club.

[JTF]

For those who haven't viewed it, the following discussion of the MacDonald VS. McGinniss civil case speaks to the ease in which a psychopath can manipulate a broken system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_tey3VKiUc

[Henri McPhee]

Don't you know anything about forensic fraud, or forensic fraud by the FBI? The hairs and fibers are not relevant, or are made up, except for Helena Stoeckley's blonde synthetic hair like wig fibers and other fibers with no known source. Stombaugh of the FBI was a fraud and Shirley Green not much better. There needs to be a thorough investigation by a good murder investigator, and leads and suspects should not be disregarded.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by JTF

For those who haven't viewed it, the following discussion of the MacDonald VS. McGinniss civil case speaks to the ease in which a psychopath can manipulate a broken system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_tey3VKiUc

Not everybody has a high opinion of Buckley,or McGinniss who was involved in cheating MacDonald for his bank account:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09...-f-buckley-jr/

Quote:

William F. Buckley, Jr. was the exception.

Though Buckley was wrong on nearly every important issue of his day—McCarthyism, civil rights, voting rights, segregation, AIDs, Apartheid, the Vietnam War, the Soviet threat to America—many conservatives and liberals look back fondly to those pre-Trumpian days when the suave Yale dandy ruled over conservatism with a mailed fist.
They shouldn’t. Buckley may have been gentlemanly, charming, erudite, urbane and a world class debater, but his ideas were vicious and cold-blooded. Beneath the St. Christopher medal and the Brooks Brothers suit lurked the soul of a sadist.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Don't you know anything about forensic fraud, or forensic fraud by the FBI?

IF forensic fraud existed in this case we would discuss it. HOWEVER, there was not any forensic fraud, nor any fraud on the part of the FBI. Even the defense doesn't argue such a nonsensical point of view.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The hairs and fibers are not relevant, or are made up,

How does one "make up" hairs and fibers? They don't. The fibers and hairs are valid forensic evidence and those that can/have been sourced are valuable forensic evidence. The unsourced hairs and fibers are useless forensically speaking.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

except for Helena Stoeckley's blonde synthetic hair like wig fibers

the blonde saran fibers are not in any way SOURCED to Helena Stoekley's wig or anyone else's wig. Several reasons for this BUT primarily it is because cosmetic wigs were not made of saran in the 1960's and early 1970's. Also, the FACT that some of the fibers were SOURCED to the FBI's Doll Wigs exemplars makes that even more impossible. Next, the hairs were not from the same initial source so that also eliminates a single wig (even if one had existed made of saran) as a viable source.

WE KNOW that in all these years they have never been able to find a single cosmetic wig made of saran. Saran was not used to make wigs because at that time they could not create a tow fiber which was essential for creating cosmetic wigs. Lots and Lots of DOLL WIGS (and yes that is what they are called whether they are removable, single strand, double strand, growing, etc) had saran fibers. I think one of the most famous was the Toni Doll....she was created as a marketing tool for Toni Home Perms. My sister and I each had one and they came with different hair colors too.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and other fibers with no known source.

unsourced equals forensically useless. inmate himself made SURE that fibers would remain unsourced by getting rid of the family possessions at the first opportunity. it doesn't clear him...in fact, it shows consciousness of guilt.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Stombaugh of the FBI was a fraud and Shirley Green not much better.

Stombaugh was a certified expert and no fraud at all. You don't know anything about Shirley Green and her qualifications and it is not YOU who decides who is expert and who is not. The presiding Jurist makes those determinations and then the JURY decides how much weight to give to the facts and evidence they provide. your opinion is also useless.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There needs to be a thorough investigation by a good murder investigator, and leads and suspects should not be disregarded.

No leads were disregarded and neither were any suspects left uninvestigated. There was a very thorough investigation AND a reinvestigation by many GREAT and COMPETENT investigators. Inmate had his presumption of innocence and he had 10 years of freedom he didn't deserve. HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED.

Obviously you are unaware of how the system works......there was a Grand Jury indictment. There was a trial. Trial lasted about 7 weeks, at which over 1,100 pieces of evidence were presented via 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) to a jury of his peers. inmate was convicted in just over 6 hours. The prosecution used only about 60% of the available evidence at trial. Since that time, DNA testing was approved and done and the evidence AGAINST inmate is even stronger NOW. Most damning of all is the "mystery hair" that even the DEFENSE admitted would be from the murderer came back a 100% DNA match to inmate. FACT FACT FACT.

What needs to happen is the 4th Circuit Court needs to affirm Judge Fox's last decision and inmate needs to perish from this earth.

[ScottPletcher]

Inmate's guilt is clear just from basic common sense.

Is it remotely reasonable to believe that any killers would use over-kill on 2- and 5-year-old girls yet leave almost unharmed their father, a young, strong man who was, at most, only temporarily "unconscious"? What if he wakes up a bit sooner? Won't he at least beat the living bejesus out of them, indeed even kill them if at all possible for what they've done / are in the process of doing?

Defenders like to point to the Manson murders as "similar". Not at all really. It just seem remotely similar because inmate also (rather ham-handedly) wrote the word "pig" at the scene. Outside of that, nothing else matches.

That's because those actual intruders killed those who fought back (as inmate alleged he did) first. And they ultimately made sure they left no one alive -- or even remotely alive. And a true "killing cult", which inmate's desperate defenders have claimed at times, would have done the same.

On top of all that, does anyone believe the passive and lethargic Stoeckley master-minded and organized some vigilante attack on inmate? That's preposterous. It's more likely space aliens did it -- oh, damn, sorry I brought that up, now there's another 5 years of appeals on the way!

[JTF]

MacDonald advocates have always wanted it both ways. Prior to the 2012 evidentiary hearing, they were screaming for the court system to hear their positions on alleged exculpatory physical evidence. In essence, they had 30 years to prepare for a hearing that would present the same old chestnuts in addition to the DNA test results.

Judge Fox granted the defense a forum to present this evidence, and for whatever reason, they didn't have a single forensics expert present this alleged exculpatory evidence at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. This was in direct contrast to the government's presentation which relied heavily on the inculpatory physical evidence collected at the crime scene.

The defense and inmate's remaining advocates quickly did a 180 and argued that the 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony was more relevant than the physical evidence collected at the crime scene. Thirty years to present a smoking gun(s) and that's what you come up with? Please.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

Most damning of all is the "mystery hair" that even the DEFENSE admitted would be from the murderer came back a 100% DNA match to inmate. FACT FACT FACT.

What needs to happen is the 4th Circuit Court needs to affirm Judge Fox's last decision and inmate needs to perish from this earth.

Without questioning the integrity of the FBI, or its hair and fiber department, or suggesting Murtagh was wrong and mistaken in the Lockerbie case, there were doubts about that mystery hair in Colette's hand from the start. It should never have taken until 2006 to have it supposedly DNA tested. There was no real chain of custody, or video taping to prevent FBI lab tampering, as was previously agreed and ruled on by Judge Fox. Any fool can substitute a MacDonald hair and destroy the original hair, and just assume that very bad judges and the public and media who don't understand what is going on, will support you. MacDonald has been cheated.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Without questioning the integrity of the FBI, or its hair and fiber department,

There is no EVIDENCE to suggest that the FBI hair and fiber department was wrong, evil, lying, or any other term you'd like to suggest. Even the DEFENSE doesn't argue your nonsensical point of view. Move on! Either PROVE your claims with ACTUAL EVIDENCE (not I think, or I believe, or even some mysterious "I saw it on the internet but cannot find it now" position). PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

or suggesting Murtagh was wrong and mistaken in the Lockerbie case,

Inmate slaugtered his family in 1970 what possible connection could the Lockerbie Bombing (2003) have to this case? NONE! Once again you are throwing in nonsensical irrelevancies! KNOCK IT OFF!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

there were doubts about that mystery hair in Colette's hand from the start.

No henri there were not "doubts" about the mystery hair. Yes, the mystery hair was unidentified pre-DNA testing. The mystery hair was the distal or tip portion of a limb hair. Only head and pubic hairs have enough distinguishing characteristics to be microscopically compared. Thus, the term "mystery hair". The DEFENSE said that the "mystery hair found clutched in Colette's hand along with a bloody splinter from the murder weapon would prove to come from the wielder of the club" (in other words the murderer). It proves that even they can tell the truth.....DNA is a 100% match to inmate. No ifs, no ands, no buts, the murderer Jeffrey Robert MacDonald. PERIOD

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It should never have taken until 2006 to have it supposedly DNA tested.

You have been told numerous times in your various incarnations that the DNA testing was done at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The testing was started late 1999 or early 2000. First the lab had to determine which exhibits could be separated and those that could not be safely split. Then the testing was delayed at least one time because inmate filed a motion because "one of the microscopists at AFIP had done a paper about inmate while in school" which STOPPED all work on the case.

Then an evil, vicious, malicious, horrific event happened here in the USA. On 9/11 terrorists perpetrated wholesale slaughter on American Citizens who were going about their normal every day routine. AFIP was one of the labs that helped identify remains so all independent non-critical testing was put on hold. IF you cannot understand how much more important the identification of remains (some of which was microscopic) of the victims of that horrific event than that is just too damned bad for you. You have no idea what that day was like here...especially for people in NYC or Washington DC......driving past a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon for months was like picking at a scab and having the wound bleed all over again. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT DENIGRATING THE VICTIMS OF 9/11 WHO DIED. inmate is where he belongs. he is convicted. the evidence clearly shows this and that is FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There was no real chain of custody,

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/d...7-dna-form.pdf

this says otherwise.....

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

or video taping to prevent FBI lab tampering, as was previously agreed and ruled on by Judge Fox.

Prove it! Even the defense doesn't say that the Government failed to meet any of the requirements of the DNA testing rulings of Judge Fox. Just because you've never seen it does not mean it was not filmed/photographed/narrated as ordered.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Any fool can substitute a MacDonald hair and destroy the original hair,...

No, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone to swap out a hair in the manner you suggest. Specifically, HOW EXACTLY ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THE PROSECUTION GOT HOLD OF A DISTAL PORTION OF ONE OF INMATE'S LIMB HAIRS? It would have to be the same size and shape and color as described AND it would have to be covered in Colette's dried blood. So, HOW EXACTLY WOULD THE PROSECUTION GET COLETTE'S BLOOD 29 YEARS AFTER SHE WAS MURDERED?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

and just assume that very bad judges and the public and media who don't understand what is going on, will support you. inmate has been cheated.

Only an idiot would believe that prosecutors who are hated by a specific inmate would be able to get near enough to that inmate to grab a limb hair AND NOT BE NOTICED by the inmate or his lawyers. Anyone with more than one functional brain cell KNOWS that didn't happen and it would be a very poor judge to believe such a cockamaimy piece of fantasy. Anyone who can think above the grade school level would realize it would also be impossible to get Colette's blood on the "swapped hair" of this weird assertion since there is no blood left other than on exhibits that cannot be damaged.

inmate is lucky that the Death Penalty was not an option at the time he committed the murders so he couldn't be given such a sentence when he was finally prosecuted for his vicious slaughter of his pregnant wife Colette, his fiver year old daughter Kimmie, his 2 year old daughter Kristy, and his SON that never got to breathe or live. Sadly LWOP was not an option either.....

it is long past time for the 4th Circuit to AFFIRM Judge Fox and slam the door on inmate's ridiculous machinations.

[Ygraine]

Henri appears to believe that if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough, people will start to believe it to be the truth. He's proven that himself as he continues to repeat the same lies often and loudly - as if HE truly believes them.
Henri: you have been challenged to provide the facts of your assertions. You haven't. Ever.
You simply "Lather, rinse, repeat", then use ad hominem attacks against whoever dares to contradict you with facts, even people who are deceased and cannot defend themselves. How pathetic. When someone ends up verbally attacking the person they are debating, it generally shows that they know they have no factual basis to stand upon, and then will try to deflect with personal insults. We will continue to be here to refute with the proven facts of the case.

[Henri McPhee]

Prosecutors must be whiter than white. There is a bit about FBI corruption in which Stombaugh and Malone and Shirley Green were involved in the MacDonald case, at this website. The MacDonald defense were never allowed access to the hairs and fibers by the stupid cops which JTF seems to think is so conclusive:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/...nt-people.html

Quote:

The Washington Post reports:

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far …

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Prosecutors must be whiter than white.

Actually prosecutors can be Asian, Hispanic, African, Caucasian -- really any color or racial heritage is allowed. They can also be women or men.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

There is a bit about FBI corruption in which Stombaugh and Malone and Shirley Green were involved in the MacDonald case,

There is no proof of any FBI corruption by the FBI in inmates case. YOU do not get to decide whether someone is qualified. YOU do not get to chose what is or is not true. Even the defense does not try to argue the inane, irrelevant, irregular, infantile, ignorant, and ill-considered positions that you expound. IF there was any validity to these arguments the time to PROVE IT has long since passed unargued by inmate's defense team.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The defense were never allowed access to the hairs and fibers by the stupid cops which JTF seems to think is so conclusive:

the cops were not stupid. the defense was offered access to the evidence before trial but the incredibly stupid Bernie Segal decided to fight for the evidence to be shipped across the country to be examined WHICH WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN ANY MURDER CASE. The STUPID Bernie Segal didn't bother to get his "experts" to the evidence until very close to trial. So the FAULT is on the STUPID Bernie Segal. Still, it doesn't matter because the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions on most of the evidence.

JTF is correct the analysis of the hairs and fibers is not only damning but very damn conclusive!

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

[b]
the cops were not stupid. the defense was offered access to the evidence before trial but the incredibly stupid Bernie Segal decided to fight for the evidence to be shipped across the country to be examined WHICH WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN ANY MURDER CASE. The STUPID Bernie Segal didn't bother to get his "experts" to the evidence until very close to trial. So the FAULT is on the STUPID Bernie Segal. Still, it doesn't matter because the defense experts agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions on most of the evidence.

JTF is correct the analysis of the hairs and fibers is not only damning but very damn conclusive!

It's true that Dr. Thornton wanted to test the hairs and fibers, and the rest of the forensic evidence including the blood evidence, in his lab in California but that was refused by Judge Dupree. Segal never expected the case to come to trial. That was the fault of the Supreme Court. When a date was set for the trial Dr. Thornton was unprepared. He was able to test the pajama top. The forensic evidence was stored in a jail cell and Murtagh and Judge Dupree allowed Thornton to look around which contained a whole lot of evidence with illegible markings.

When the AFIP lab were shown the forensic evidence later on they could find nothing there which implicated MacDonald. MacDonald lawyer Eisman, now deceased, reported on that fact, which is on the internet somewhere.

Dr. Thornton was never informed about the blonde synthetic hair like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig, which is crucial evidence. Glisson from the Army CID lab had a bit to say about that in an affidavit:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...j-glisson.html

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

It's true that Dr. Thornton wanted to test the hairs and fibers, and the rest of the forensic evidence including the blood evidence, in his lab in California but that was refused by Judge Dupree.

And Thorton should have known better BUT it was still Bernie Segal who tried to get the evidence shipped across the country. HE KNEW it would never get approved, it was just one of his many machinations.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Segal never expected the case to come to trial.

well too bad for Bernie....as a lawyer in a criminal action, once the indictment was done, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY PREPARING for the trial. He could have been working on several fronts (like many GOOD lawyers do) but ignoring the evidence is Bernie's wrong doing.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

That was the fault of the Supreme Court.

the US Supreme Court was not at fault in any way in this case. The FAULT in this case was inmate's....IF he had not brutally slaughtered Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and his unborn son he would not have gotten indicted.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

When a date was set for the trial Dr. Thornton was unprepared.

again, the fact that Dr. Thorton was unprepared, in the main, was the FAULT of the defense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

He was able to test the pajama top.

pffft pfffft if you can call his ridiculous ham on a sled a "test". Still, that didn't matter because in the end Dr. Thorton agreed with large portions of Paul Stombaugh's testimony which strengthened the government's case.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The forensic evidence was stored in a jail cell and Murtagh and Judge Dupree allowed Thornton to look around which contained a whole lot of evidence with illegible markings.

The evidence numbers do not have to make sense to the defense. every agency marks their evidence differently. Thorton had access to ALL the evidence, which could have been reviewed by him. The defense took their own sweet time coming to see what the government had. That they were unprepared was the DEFENSE's fault. plain simple FACT.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

When the AFIP lab were shown the forensic evidence later on they could find nothing there which implicated inmate.

That is not exactly true. HOWEVER, let us clear up one thing first - the AFIP was not looking to inculpate or exculpate inmate. The one AND only thing the AFIP did was prepare and test the DNA of the evidence and compare the results with the various exemplars.

SECOND, the AFIP DID FIND INCULPATORY EVIDENCE. You KNOW that the DNA results for the mystery hair are a 100% match to inmate. EVEN THE DEFENSE admitted that the wielder of the murder club was the person who deposited that hair. 100% DNA match to inmate = 100% further proof of his guilt.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

MacDonald lawyer Eisman, now deceased, reported on that fact, which is on the internet somewhere.

That would have to be one damned amazing trick since Dennis Eisman has been dead since 1991 and inmate didn't even file for DNA testing until 1997.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Dr. Thornton was never informed about the blonde synthetic hair like fibers from Helena Stoeckley's wig, which is crucial evidence.

first, the government is not required to "pinpoint" each evidentiary item. the saran fibers were listed among the evidence. second, the saran fibers were not from Helena's wig. 2 of them were matched to exemplars from the FBI doll wig collection and I believe another was matched to one of Colette's falls. third, it is long past time you should stop claiming the fibers were from Helena's wig or anyone else's since saran fibers were not used to make cosmetic wigs in 1960-1970 timeframe. PERIOD no wig existed that could have shed saran fibers. fourth, the saran fibers were not from a single source. PERIOD.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

[b]

That would have to be one damned amazing trick since Dennis Eisman has been dead since 1991 and inmate didn't even file for DNA testing until 1997.

The matter of the lack of hair and fiber evidence against MacDonald was discussed between Macdonald lawyer, Eisman, and Ferrari of the AFIP lab:

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

Quote:

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."

[JTF]

The list of Henriboy's erroneous claims has now reached epic proportions. Dr. Thornton did NOT put in a request to analyze the hair and fiber evidence prior to the 1979 trial. He told Bernie Segal that he trusted the conclusions drawn by the FBI in regards to the hair and fiber evidence in this case.

http;//www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

That's patently untrue. The matter is discussed in more detail at this website:

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

Quote:

14. When asked specifically Dr. Thornton's opinion as to foreign fiber evidence as being in the MacDonald residence and as to what conclusion he would draw, Dr. Thornton replied he thought this was somewhat of an unfair question, but stated that there may have been trace evidence to indicate the presence of additional people in the MacDonald residence on the night of the murders. In his opinion, evidence of trace material would not necessarily mean that "alleged intruders" were responsible for the MacDonald family murders; however, Dr. Thornton noted he recently learned that wig hair had been found at the crime scene, and believes this information would be forensically significant to the possible presence of intruders in the MacDonald residence on the night of the murders.

His "quarrel" as a citizen and scientist is that he did not have proper access to "bench notes" of CID examiners prior to the trial. These items certainly would have been an issue on his part and any available significance [sic] evidence concerning hairs and/or fibers should have been made available to him during the trial. He did not remember reviewing the lab notes of FBI Examiner Paul Stombaugh prior to the trial or possibly receiving these notes under "Brady material."

Dr. Thornton recalled that long before the trial he asked Segal to obtain "bench notes" of all physical examinations, but this request was denied by the court. Dr. Thornton advised he was aware numerous fibers of unknown origin were located at the MacDonald crime scene and the significance of these fibers were unknown to him. He readily conceded that all residences have unknown sources of hairs and/or fibers, but stated the MacDonald case was a separate issue.

15. In retrospect, Dr. Thornton related he had access to the Marshal's cell to examine any materials he desired, but in his opinion he was not given sufficient time or opportunity under the circumstances to examine the evidence as he would have desired.

[JTF]

HENRIBOY: For the past 15 years, your rebuttal attempts ignore context and, for the most part, don't address the issue(s) at hand. Thornton's comments to Butch Madden were put forth several years after the trial and his reflections about hair/fiber evidence were in relation to what he WOULD have done if he had knowledge about specific unsourced fibers.

The question is whether Thornton made an official pre-trial request to analyze the hair and fiber evidence in this case. Hate to break it to ya, but Thornton made no such request. Thornton processed with Bernie Segal that due to the mass of evidence in this case, he would need to prioritize certain evidentiary items for analysis.

He decided to focus on the bedding evidence and inmate's pajama top. Thornton also processed with Segal that he had confidence in the FBI's analysis of hair and fiber evidence in this case. It wasn't until several years AFTER the trial that Thornton began to question portions of that analysis. It's important to note that, unlike Paul Stombaugh, Thornton's main expertise was NOT in hair/fiber analysis.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

There is no doubt that Dr, Thornton was blocked by Judge Dupree and Judge Fox and Murtagh from conducting a thorough forensic examination prior to the trial, and after the trial. It's true that he had to concentrate on the pajama top and the bedding, as JTF says, but it was certainly not the evidence as a whole. It was a lot of trust me I'm in the FBI stuff:

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

[JTF]

HENRIBOY: For the past 15 years, you've relied on hyperbolic nonsense when backed into a corner by the documented record. Judge Fox didn't become the Judge of Record in this case until 16 years after the trial and Murtagh provided Thornton with "unfettered access" to the physical evidence PRIOR to the 1979 trial. The issue of the "evidence as a whole," was not broached by the defense until 2009. Your lone reason for mixing and matching timelines is that you have no salient rebuttals to the issues that led to your hero being incarcerated for 37 of the past 39 years.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

[Henri McPhee]

It's a matter of fact that the very bad judge, Judge Fox, fought tooth and nail to prevent any DNA testing of the forensic evidence in about 1996. He eventually had to be forced to order it by the 4th Circuit judges. Much of the crucial hair and fiber evidence had to be obtained by the defense by Freedom of Information requests after the trial, which Murtagh then tried to block instead of giving unfettered access.

There was some sort of Supreme Court ruling in about 2006 which insisted on 'the evidence as a whole' in these murder cases, which the defense then used to force an evidentiary hearing in about 2012. To my mind that then just descended into a legal wrangle about Jimmy Britt, instead of highlighting Helena Stoeckley's lawyer, Leonard, saying MacDonald had been screwed, which had never been previously disclosed.

There is some legal waffle about all this at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...991-06-26.html

Quote:

THE COURT: Were the typed notes of the investigators not made available to defense counsel prior to trial?

MR. SILVERGLATE: There were two sets of typed notes, Your Honor. The typed reports of Janice Glisson; that is to say the typed reports relating to the hair and fiber analysis were made available. However, they pointedly exclude any reference to the blond synthetic wig hairs, no reference.

THE COURT: I understand that this came up later in material which you have discovered well within the last year, let's say, or so, showing that there were handwritten bench notes which contain more than the typed notes; is that correct?

MR. SILVERGLATE: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

MR. SILVERGLATE: And some of it was discovered back in '84; some of it was discovered last year. And the bottom line is that those bench notes that were discovered include references to blond synthetic wig hairs, fibers made to look like hair which were found in a clear handled hair brush in the MacDonald residence and was not matched to any item in the house. There was no wig in the house that matched those hairs. They are twenty-two inches long and those were pointedly omitted from the report by the forensic examiners. So looking at the report you would never guess that they were there.
Interestingly, Your Honor, the Government claims, which I'll get to in a moment, the Government claims that it doesn't matter that these bench notes were not turned over because the defense forensic expert, Doctor Thornton, was able to, if he wanted to, examine all of these physical exhibits and he could have found --

THE COURT: It's not disputed that the evidence itself was made available to defense counsel?

MR. SILVERGLATE: It's not exactly disputed, Your Honor. We don't know if it was there or not because Thornton didn't examine microscopically everything in the jail cell. The Government claims it must have been there; we don't know. It's one of those things that we feel is probably impossible to resolve but I don't think that it matters. Our claim does not rest on whether these were made available to Thornton for the following reason, Your Honor…………….

[Henri McPhee]

There have been some good and astute and professional homicide detectives in the past who would have been useful in the MacDonald case, and JonBenet Ramsey case, and even the Madeleine McCann case. It seems that Clive Driscoll fell foul of political corruption in the UK and he was then forced to retire after solving several difficult murders:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/609563...olitan-police/

Quote:

What famous cases has he worked on?
Operation Care: a controversial probe into a Lambeth paedophile ring, which he believes included one of Tony Blair's ministers.
Operation Fishpool: the Met's investigation into who killed Stephen Lawrence, 18.
Operation Yewpool: investigation into the honour killing of Surjit Athwal, 26.
The capture of Hampstead Heath robber Nicholas Stewart, a case which changed the Met's relationship with the LGBT community.

[desmirelle]

It would also help federal inmate macdonald's case if:

He hadn't done it.

The story he told fit the evidence of the scene.

He hadn't lived in army housing built in the 1960s. (From experience: they might as well have housed you all in the same quarters, you heard everything and strange voices at 0200 hours would wake up the neighbors.)

[byn63]

MR. SILVERGLATE: It's not exactly disputed, Your Honor. We don't know if it was there or not......

Funny how henri stopped his copy and paste BEFORE Silverglate admitted that they did not KNOW if the information had actually been provided to the defense or not......


Later that same day:

THE COURT: All right, I'll hear from the Government. Mr. DePue?

MR. DEPUE: Good morning, Your Honor. Please the court, I'm delighted to be here participating once again in the MacDonald case.

THE COURT: All right, sir.

MR. DEPUE: Permit me first to address the probity of the so-called newly discovered evidence before going on to discuss the McCleskey issue and procedural matter of default. In this context, Your Honor, I think it's vitally important to understand what precisely is the quantum of evidence that's necessary to obtain an exception to the bar of McCleskey under the court's decision. To that end I'm going to quote from the McCleskey decision itself.

Federal courts retain the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in a further narrow class of cases despite the petitioner's failure to show cause for procedural default. These are extraordinary issues when a constitutional violation probably has caused a conviction of one innocent of the crime. We have described this class of cases as implicating a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

It's our submission that nothing that has been presented here today in the context of this newly discovered evidence in any way, shape or form changes things from the way they were when this trial occurred back in 1979.
Let me first address the physical evidence itself. That evidence focuses on laboratory bench notes which allegedly reflected the discovery of unmatched synthetic fibers and wool fibers at the crime scene. At the outset, I think it's important to understand two things. First, the significance of the phrase unmatched. It does not mean that forensic examination were conducted on this physical evidence back in 1975 using items known to have been in the MacDonald household and resulting in a determination then and there that the material did not originate in the household.
In the context of these reports, unmatched simply means that no effort whatsoever was made to match this physical evidence because at that time it was not viewed by anyone as having any forensic significance whatsoever. So it does not mean, as the petitioner would suggest, that examinations were made and it was determined that nothing in the household comported with these particular items.
Secondly, these laboratory bench notes appear in petitioner's papers. To have developed a life of themselves that they themselves are in some way exculpatory but at their very best they are nothing more than flags or sign posts that would possibly invite one's attention to the actual physical evidence itself and to perhaps require further consideration of that evidence. And I would submit Your Honor that when you follow that trail and you look to the physical evidence it is totally, absolutely worthless.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by byn63

MR. SILVERGLATE: It's not exactly disputed, Your Honor. We don't know if it was there or not......

Funny how henri stopped his copy and paste BEFORE Silverglate admitted that they did not KNOW if the information had actually been provided to the defense or not......

The point is Stombaugh never disclosed the FBI lab notes about the hairs and fibers to Dr. Thornton until the middle of the trial, when it was too late, just in order to theoretically comply with the law, which meant that Thornton was never fully informed about the hairs and fibers, or fibers with no known source, and certainly not the crucial blond synthetic hair like Stoeckley wig fibers which were never mentioned in the typed reports of Glisson or Stombaugh. It was never disclosure of the exculpatory evidence.

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by desmirelle

It would also help federal inmate macdonald's case if:

He hadn't done it.

The story he told fit the evidence of the scene.

He hadn't lived in army housing built in the 1960s. (From experience: they might as well have housed you all in the same quarters, you heard everything and strange voices at 0200 hours would wake up the neighbors.)

There were witnesses like Jan Snyder who were threatened with violence by having a rifle pointed at her apartment. She later vanished and never testified again. The matter was discussed at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...-jchester.html

Quote:

A My wife, I think, was already there or was coming home and I arrived and met her and Mrs. Snyder was talking to my wife.
Q Did you have occasion to hear what Mrs. Snyder had to say at the time? At lunch or at any time?
A Yes.
Q What subject was she speaking about?
A About Captain MacDonald's family -- and --
Q Did she make any indication that she had seen anything that appeared to her to have some possible connection with that episode?
A Yes, she did.
Q Would you tell the investigating officer what Mrs. Snyder said in your presence?
A She said that there was a disturbance in her house, her children were yelling and she had occasion to be up at 3 or 3:30 in the morning and heard a commotion outside, in front of the house, and went to look out the window and saw some people. She was kind of vague -- a woman and some of men get into an automobile and the automobile drove away.
Q Do you recall any of the details of that -- did she indicate whether she had seen anything about the appearance of clothing, physical characteristics of any of the people that she saw in front of her house?
A She said that the woman had long hair. She didn't say what color it was, she merely said it was long and she wasn't specific as to the men.
Q Were you there for the entire conversation on the subject of what Mrs. Snyder had to say?
A No.
Q Did you have occasion to repeat to anyone else what Mrs. Snyder had said to you?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you repeat that information?
A Yes, an FBI agent who came to the house about ten days or two weeks after that.
Q Did you ever have occasion to give that information to any CID investigator or PMI?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you know who you gave it to?
A I don't know the individual's name. I can describe him. I don't know his name. It was 3 weeks after the incident occurred.
Q In other words, do I understand that about ten days or two weeks after the incident occurred, you spoke to the FBI agents?
A Right.
Q And then approximately a week or ten days later --
A That is correct.
Q You spoke to another person whom you believed to be a CID agent or PMI?
A I went to the CID officer at the Provost Marshal's office on Fort Bragg.
Q What were the circumstances of your going to that office?
A They called me up and asked me to come in and give them a statement.
Q At that time, did you speak to the investigator?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you give him the information about what Mrs. Snyder had been stating to you and to your wife?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you have occasion to learn whether Mrs. Snyder told any other person the same description of what she said she saw on the morning of February 17th?
A Yes.
Q Do you know who it was that had reported hearing these same statements from Mrs. Snyder?
A No one reported it. I was present when she told other people, the same story she had told my wife and I.
Q And who were the other persons that you recall?
A Several people in the neighborhood. The McGowans, for one, that lived next to them, at 310 Castle Drive, she told them. I was present when that happened. The people that lived on the other side of me, the Roysen's (phonetic) at this time, she told them, and the people that lived down the street from them, whose name I forget. I think it was Richardson.
Q Was what you heard her telling these other people consistent with what she told you and your wife?
A Yes, sir, it was the same or substantially the same.
Q Did you have occasion to be in contact with Mrs. Snyder on Saturday, February 21st?
A Yes, I did.

[desmirelle]

Where's the rifle threatening the poor, defenseless apartment? It must have been terrified, no where to hide.....

You've got hearsay, no testimony from Snyder and the FBI interrogating witnesses before the CID. No wonder this was never heard from again. Your Jan Snyder isn't the one being interviewed here, Henri. It was (from the q&a), the husband of a friend/acquaintance of Jan Snyder.

You didn't even post what you claimed: Pathetic, even by your (extremely) low standards for pro-federal inmate macdonald drivel.

Oh, on the same level of your post: the Article 32 hearing was the military equivalent of a grand jury. It decided not to proceed with prosecution. And here's the kicker for all you supporters: Had Segal saved that great Art32 defense for a general court martial, this entire discussion would be how about how Mac got away with slaughtering his pregnant wife and two young daughters.

[byn63]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

The point is Stombaugh never disclosed the FBI lab notes about the hairs and fibers to Dr. Thornton until the middle of the trial,

You really don't READ the posts do you? Besides the fact that Silverglate was unable to definitively state that the notes had not been handed over to the defense pre-trail, Stombaugh was in no way responsible for handing over ANYTHING. LAWYERS handle the discovery. In the same testimony you clipped your comments from it was pointed out that the notes HAD IN FACT been part of the discovery material.

ALSO it is NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION TO POINT OUT INFORMATION THAT THEY MIGHT LIKE TO USE TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE POSITION. SEGAL WASTED MONTHS on a ridiculous (and was never going to happen) attempt to get the evidence shipped to California rather than sending his experts to NC to study the evidence. THAT IS SEGAL'S FAULT. Period.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

just in order to theoretically comply with the law,

the law was complied with IN FACT not just in theory.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

which meant that Thornton was never fully informed about the hairs and fibers,

Thorton was the DEFENSE EXPERT it was the DEFENSE who was responsible for having him review the evidence. Bernie Segal didn't bother to pay attention to a great deal of the evidence. TOO BAD SO SAD but it is not the fault of the prosecution. It is also not an actionable item, the prosecution has absolutely no responsibility to try the case in a light that would be beneficial to the defense.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

or fibers with no known source,

UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

not the crucial blond synthetic hair like wig fibers

Once again you prove that you lack reading comprehension. THERE IS NO WAY THAT HELENA'S WIG SHED THOSE SARAN FIBERS. COSMETIC WIGS WERE NOT MADE OF SARAN IN THE 1960s-1970s BECAUSE SARAN COULD NOT BE MADE INTO A TOW FIBER WHICH WAS NECESSARY TO CREATE A COSMETIC WIG. ALSO, SINCE THE FIBERS HAD MULTIPLE SOURCES NO ONE WIG COULD HAVE SHED THEM ALL. PERIOD

AND, ONCE AGAIN, SINCE TWO OF THE FIBERS MATCHED DOLL WIG EXEMPLARS IN THE FBI COLLECTION THAT FURTHER SOLIDIFIES THAT THE SARAN FIBERS WERE JUST ANOTHER DEFENSE RED HERRING. EVEN THE DEFENSE NO LONGER TRIES TO USE THIS ARGUMENT.

[JTF]

The irony of Henriboy's mixing and matching of timelines is that even if the defense had cast their eyes on all of Stombaugh's notes, the content of the notes wouldn't have helped their case one bit. For example, Stombaugh analyzed the saran fibers found in Colette's hairbrush and he concluded that the most likely source was a doll. Yup, his conclusions in 1974, mirrored the conclusions put forth by Michael Malone in 1990.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com