ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "A Wilderness of Error" , "Fatal Vision" , errol morris , Jeffrey MacDonald , Joe MacGinniss , murder cases

Reply
Old 3rd May 2019, 02:25 AM   #1321
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Again, I challenge you to construct a detailed timeline of the murders, account for all of the inculpatory evidence that led to inmate's conviction, and back up your ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I have constructed a detailed timeline of the murders. The Stoeckley gang left for MacDonald's apartment at about 2am, and the time of the emergency phone call is scientific fact. There is no inculpatory evidence apart from manufactured evidence and perjury. I have backed up my ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation. I'm not the only person who thinks the evidence is quite ludicrously unsatisfactory, or that those North Carolina judges were biased. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://jeffreymacdonaldblog.wordpress.com/contact/

Quote:
January 18, 1985: Warren Coolidge, former US Attorney for the Eastern District of NC, who fought so hard to indict MacDonald, is disbarred after being caught embezzling funds from clients.

March 1, 1985: Judge DuPree rejects all defense motions for a new trial. He cites the 2 pajama fibers found on the club (murder weapon) as the most incriminating evidence offered at trial. (Later found to be black wool, through FOIA). The defense appeals.

June 10, 1985: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) files a friend of the court brief, contending that MacDonald is wrongly convicted.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd May 2019 at 02:29 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 3rd May 2019, 02:34 AM   #1322
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
That 'friend of the court brief' is at this website:

http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...985-05-31.html

Quote:
If this type of conduct: the appearance of, if not the reality of impropriety of a trial judge; the surreptitious interrogation of an accused by an investigative agent of the government during trial; ongoing intentional suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence; and the refusal of an apparently tainted trial judge to consider volumes of after-discovered evidence; is condoned by this Court, the rights of all of our citizens to a fair trial are in serious jeopardy.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 3rd May 2019 at 02:37 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 3rd May 2019, 07:28 AM   #1323
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Please Remain On MacFantasy Island

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have constructed a detailed timeline of the murders. The Stoeckley gang left for MacDonald's apartment at about 2am, and the time of the emergency phone call is scientific fact. There is no inculpatory evidence apart from manufactured evidence and perjury. I have backed up my ideas with evidence contradicting the consensus interpretation. I'm not the only person who thinks the evidence is quite ludicrously unsatisfactory, or that those North Carolina judges were biased. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://jeffreymacdonaldblog.wordpress.com/contact/
In your fantasy world, the construction of a complete sentence is akin to a detailed thought process, but the reality is that you didn't come close to answering my timeline challenge. You gave no specifics about the individuals in this mythical gang nor did you definitively link a single piece of trace evidence to a specific member of this mythical gang. You then quit while you're behind and pawn the ideas of others in order to slink away from the evidence that forever labeled your hero as a mass murderer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2019, 10:11 AM   #1324
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Your Logical Fallacy is: Begging the Question

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Detectives nowadays think the only evidence is DNA evidence. Just because the police or Army CID decide you are guilty and then manufacture evidence against you does not make it true.
Just because you make an assertion that the the police or Army CID decided MacDonald was guilty and then further assert they manufactured evidence against him doesn't make your assertion true either.

Now, I've seen the evidence against MacDonald. What I haven't seen is the *evidence* it was manufactured. When do you intend to provide that evidence establishing the truth of your assertion?

Is 'never' the right answer? You've been here over a year posting that MacDonald is innocent. What I haven't seen in all that time is any evidence indicating that is actually the case.

You are simply begging the question - asserting the truth of a claim before you have established the claim is in fact true. That's a logical fallacy and has no place in reasoned discourse.

I don't understand why you would have to commit a logical fallacy such as this - unless of course, you have no evidence of MacDonald being framed as you assert and must rely on logical fallacies such as begging the question to make it appear you have a point.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd May 2019 at 11:18 AM.
HSienzant 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 May 2019, 10:40 AM   #1325
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Your Logical Fallacy is: Begging the Question

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The biased judges just back each other up. None of them have any practical experience of being a criminal defense lawyer. There are proven cases where people have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned. There is a bit about this in that recent posting I made about the matter:
Sorry, there are unproven assertions above that you would need to provide the evidence for before we can proceed any further down this path you're trying to divert us onto.

You haven't established the judges are biased nor established none of the judges had a background at any time as a defense attorney. Please take the time to present the evidence at this point that establishes your claims are true.

We can wait.

Since you're being judged here by the quality of your argument, establishing your claims as true should be important to you. Paramount, in fact. Ignoring the requests for evidence or dismissing them with a hand-wave will not be sufficient and won't help your cause. In fact, it will hurt it.

Yes, there are cases where people are wrongfully convicted, but that doesn't help you here. We're not discussing those cases but this one involving Jeffrey MacDonald.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant 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 4th May 2019, 02:21 AM   #1326
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Just because you make an assertion that the the police or Army CID decided MacDonald was guilty and then further assert they manufactured evidence against him doesn't make your assertion true either.

Now, I've seen the evidence against MacDonald. What I haven't seen is the *evidence* it was manufactured. When do you intend to provide that evidence establishing the truth of your assertion?
Errol Morris is on record as saying that there was no convincing evidence against MacDonald. Those Army CID agents were very young and inexperienced and they were not full-blown CID officers. They were apt to jump to conclusions. MacDonald's story, and he is sticking to it, is partly explained in this legal document. Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous and others have said it was judicial corruption:

http://crimearchives.net/1979_macdon...136-doc057.pdf

Quote:
Stoeckley was held on a material witness warrant at trial on request of the defense. She ultimately testified that she did not remember the four hour period during which the murders occurred, despite her ability to recall events before and after those four hours. The trial judge then refused to permit MacDonald to call before the jury seven witnesses he had present who would testify to Stoeckley’s admissions to them of being present in the MacDonald home at the time of the murders with the killers. (JA 1051-1347).

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 4th May 2019 at 02:26 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 4th May 2019, 06:03 AM   #1327
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Cognitive Coward

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Errol Morris is on record as saying that there was no convincing evidence against MacDonald. Those Army CID agents were very young and inexperienced and they were not full-blown CID officers. They were apt to jump to conclusions. MacDonald's story, and he is sticking to it, is partly explained in this legal document. Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous and others have said it was judicial corruption:

http://crimearchives.net/1979_macdon...136-doc057.pdf
For the past 16 years, you've run from the documented record, refused to answer evidentiary challenges, and hid behind the debunked claims of inmate's professional advocates. True to form, you did not answer any of HSIENZANT's inquiries, and you made your usual unsubstantiated and outlandish claims. You then hid behind the opinions of an author who has seemingly been placed in the Witness Protection Program. Morris has been stone cold silent since the 4th Circuit Court put the final nail in inmate's legal coffin.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 4th May 2019 at 06:07 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 4th May 2019, 08:42 AM   #1328
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
For the past 16 years,
that is some seriously dedicated trolling for attention and quite a crime against an alleged innocent person.
Whip 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 4th May 2019, 09:46 AM   #1329
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
You then hid behind the opinions of an author who has seemingly been placed in the Witness Protection Program. Morris has been stone cold silent since the 4th Circuit Court put the final nail in inmate's legal coffin.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I don't know anything about Morris being in a Witness Protection Program. I hope he is not in danger like MacDonald's former lawyer Eisman, who supposedly had a 'suicide' after being shot dead in I think Philadelphia in about 1992. I still think that recent 4th Circuit judges ruling is very weak evidence, like their remark that MacDonald's type of blood was supposedly found under the kitchen sink. Where is the real proof and scientific certainty that it was MacDonald's blood, or that it may have got there from bungling contamination by the military police? In any case it's not conclusive evidence.

That February 2019 legal document which I mentioned above by MacDonald's present lawyers is fair and just and is right judgment in the MacDonald case. This is part of it:

Quote:
As explained in
his Opening Brief, the Government theory adopted by the panel relies
on highly illogical coincidences:

To accept the Government’s theory of guilt, one must accept that MacDonald created a story about a woman with a floppy hat being with intruders who killed his family, and that by coincidence such a woman did exist in the community on that very night, and that by coincidence that woman would then falsely confess repeatedly (both before, during, and after the 1979 trial) to being present during the murders with the murderers in a way that was entirely consistent with the story that MacDonald supposedly made up from whole cloth. In addition, one would have to accept that one of the men identified by Stoeckley as one of the killers in her many confessions, Greg Mitchell, would by coincidence himself falsely confess repeatedly to taking part in the killings, in a way that is entirely consistent with the story supposedly created by MacDonald. What are the chances of this occurring?

(Opening Brief at 35). The panel opinion does not address this point in
its analysis of the evidence as a whole.
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 4th May 2019, 10:24 AM   #1330
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Your Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Errol Morris is on record as saying that there was no convincing evidence against MacDonald.
I asked you to put forth the evidence confirming your opinion. Errol Morris' opinion is not evidence. Neither is yours. I'm at a loss to understand why your hesitance to put forth the evidence you say shows MacDonald was framed by biased members of the police, CID, and judiciary.

You must have something, don't you?


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Those Army CID agents were very young and inexperienced and they were not full-blown CID officers.
That is not evidence MacDonald was framed, even if true. You are simply making another assertion without presenting the evidence. This makes things worse for you, not better.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They were apt to jump to conclusions.
Asserted but not established. You are making things worse by the sentence. Try posting evidence, not assertions. You're going backward.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
MacDonald's story, and he is sticking to it, is partly explained in this legal document.

http://crimearchives.net/1979_macdon...136-doc057.pdf
His story is not evidence. They are more assertions, not by you, but by the defendant. Still gunning it in reverse.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and an assertion? Let me know. I could explain it to you if you need an explanation.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous and others have said it was judicial corruption:
Assertions are not evidence. Claiming he was 'erroneous' is an assertion unsupported by any evidence. Citing Mentioning anonymous 'others' opinion about 'judicial corruption' is not evidence either.

You are having a hard time producing any evidence thus far to support your claims of bias and that MacDonald was innocent.

When do you intend to start?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 4th May 2019 at 11:15 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 03:05 AM   #1331
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Sorry, there are unproven assertions above that you would need to provide the evidence for before we can proceed any further down this path you're trying to divert us onto.

You haven't established the judges are biased nor established none of the judges had a background at any time as a defense attorney. Please take the time to present the evidence at this point that establishes your claims are true.

We can wait.
Not everybody agrees with you. Segal thought the judges in the MacDonald case were in bed with the prosecution and he provided evidence of that and that's good enough for me. There is an interesting posting on that forum which I admit is a bit beyond me and I can't vouch for its veracity:

Quote:
Did you know there was another blood type at the crime scene. HB Blood Type. Now in forensics, HB can me mean Human Blood or HB Blood Type. HB Blood Type written in lab forensic work is just that. HB Blood Type. This is a rare type of blood. HB blood Type belongs to African American with Sickle Cell Anemia. I verified this with the forensic lab in N.C. Human Blood would be written as Human Blood and HB Blood Type would be written as HB Blood Type. So my only question which should be a question asked from everyone working this case. Who does the HB Blood Type belong to. Now where was this found? On the wood splinter mixed with A blood and AB blood underneath the body of Colette Macdonald. If you blink, you miss something important on this case.
https://www.facebook.com/FreeMacdonald/

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th May 2019 at 03:16 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 5th May 2019, 04:30 AM   #1332
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
I agree, and I haven’t seen any legitimate evidence put forward to support the wild stories posted by the killer’s supporters on this page.
GiSEQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 05:26 AM   #1333
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Not everybody agrees with you.
On what? That assertions standing alone are valueless? That there's no place for logical fallacies in reasoned discourse? That you haven't cited any evidence for your assertions? That citing someone's opinion is meaningless?

What?



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Segal thought the judges in the MacDonald case were in bed with the prosecution...
As I wrote above, "Errol Morris' opinion is not evidence. Neither is yours."

Do you imagine Bernie Segal gets a special exemption here? He doesn't. Bernie Segal's opinion is not evidence either.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...and he provided evidence of that and that's good enough for me.
Did he provide evidence or an argument? Have you seen this supposed evidence? Can you provide it here? What's preventing you from posting the evidence Segal supposedly provided and convincing us of its veracity? Why do you constantly make assertions unsupported by evidence? Why would you think yet another unsupported assertion by you would be convincing when the first dozen unsupported assertions I'm questioning here weren't convincing?



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting posting on that forum which I admit is a bit beyond me and I can't vouch for its veracity:
https://www.facebook.com/FreeMacdonald/
Then why cite it? Again, you're citing some anonymous internet poster's assertion (the veracity of which you admit you can't even vouch for) instead of posting the supposed evidence that can establish MacDonald's innocence. Why are you persisting in pushing those unsupported assertions instead of pushing the evidence?

At this point I think most lurkers can see if you had any evidence you would have posted it by now.

Where's the evidence MacDonald is innocent? Where's the evidence the courts, the police, and the Army CID were biased against him?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th May 2019 at 06:02 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 08:14 AM   #1334
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,648
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting posting on that forum which I admit is a bit beyond me and I can't vouch for its veracity:



https://www.facebook.com/FreeMacdonald/

There is no such blood type as "HB". "Hb" is the standard abbreviation for hemoglobin. Fail.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 08:22 AM   #1335
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
There is no such blood type as "HB". "Hb" is the standard abbreviation for hemoglobin. Fail.
As listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...breviations:_H

Also: I just googled "HB Blood Type" (as alleged in the link by Henri) and what comes up is references to Hemoglobin.

And this link shows four blood types only. Nothing about an HB blood type: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate...ource=redirect

I would think the Red Cross would know how many blood types there are.

Hank

PS: I am not surprised Henri didn't take the two minutes necessary to research this and determine the claim he posted was bunk. It appears he'd rather post untruths that purportedly establish someone other than MacDonald was involved in the murders than verify the truth of the claim before spreading falsehoods.
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th May 2019 at 08:35 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 09:31 AM   #1336
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Where's the evidence MacDonald is innocent? Where's the evidence the courts, the police, and the Army CID were biased against him?

Hank
Where is the evidence that the earth is not flat or that two and two equals four? It's what is known technically as scientific certainty. Segal is on record as saying Judge Dupree was in bed with the prosecution, if you look at his affidavits, and so was Judge Fox.

I remember seeing a discussion on America Today TV once when a Supreme Court Justice suggested that there was a lack of any criminal defense lawyers on the Supreme Court. As far as I'm concerned the same thing applies to the 4th Circuit judges, though I concede I have never made a detailed investigation into their background.

The Army CID were biased against MacDonald from the start. They disregarded leads and suspects. How can you seriously believe like they do that Colette murdered one of the little girls, or that you can identify a urine stain after ninety weeks, or that Mitchell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge at the time of the MacDonald murders? It was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.

The matter was discussed at this website:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/lies...t3355-s30.html

Quote:
Joan would you go to this guy for advice? You jumped to conclusions without looking at the case. You may or may not think he got a fair trial, but you conclude he is guilty, by what you saw, in the pictures of his dead wife and daughters. You believe a guy who is disbarred and disgraced, and has to post a disclaimer on his site for motivational speeches that he gives. The man you support is a felon and if you read up on the judge, Dupree, he was in bed with the prosecution and hated Jews and especially the lawyer from Philadelphia Bernard Segal. This IMO was a case where the defendant was guilty until proven innocent, just like the Duke lacrosse case, with one exception, the Duke gentleman had a friendly Attorney General, MacDonald did not. The MacDonald case was a disgrace to our justice system.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th May 2019 at 09:36 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 5th May 2019, 09:53 AM   #1337
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Where is the evidence that the earth is not flat or that two and two equals four? It's what is known technically as scientific certainty.
The two statements above are fact. The following statement is the opinion of Bernie Segal (opinion does not equal fact).



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Segal is on record as saying Judge Dupree was in bed with the prosecution, if you look at his affidavits, and so was Judge Fox.
I really don't care about what goes on in the privacy of anyone's bedroom.

Humor aside, Segal's opinion is meaningless. Post the evidence supporting Segal's opinion. Let us assess it.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I remember seeing a discussion on America today TV once when a Supreme Court Justice suggested that there was a lack of any criminal defense lawyers on the Supreme Court. As far as I'm concerned the same thing applies to the 4th Circuit judges, though I concede I have never made a detailed investigation into their background.
So you made an assertion, and now you're admitting you have no evidence for the claim. For that, I commend you. But it would be better if you didn't make the claim to start with.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Army CID were biased against MacDonald from the start.
FACT: Assertions are not evidence, Henri. I am looking for your evidence.

Reminder that you made that assertion above, I asked for your evidence that supports this. Repeating the same assertion does not qualify as satisfying my request.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
They disregarded leads and suspects.
FACT: Assertions are not evidence, Henri. I am looking for your evidence.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
How can you seriously believe like they do that Colette murdered one of the little girls,
FACT: Assertions are not evidence, Henri. I am looking for your evidence.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...or that you can identify a urine stain after ninety weeks,
FACT: Assertions are not evidence, Henri. I am looking for your evidence.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...or that Mitchell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge at the time of the MacDonald murders?
FACT: Assertions are not evidence, Henri. I am looking for your evidence.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
FACT: Assertions are not evidence, Henri.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter was discussed at this website:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/lies...t3355-s30.html
A list of assertions then a link to some anonymous poster's opinion at some forum is apparently your modus operandi. You do that so frequently, I think we can all see that coming.

None of the above is evidence.

Reminder that I am looking for your evidence, not your assertions and not the opinions of yourself nor other posters.

Do you have any evidence that supports your assertions?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th May 2019 at 09:59 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 10:01 AM   #1338
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
There is a fair website about the MacDonald case at:

http://whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thr...ds-last-chance

Quote:
C. Ronald Huff, a criminologist who has been studying wrongful convictions for 30 years, says, “I believe this will ultimately be regarded as one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the modern era.”

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th May 2019 at 10:04 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 5th May 2019, 10:10 AM   #1339
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a fair website about the MacDonald case at:

http://whatliesbeyond.boards.net/thr...ds-last-chance

Quote:
C. Ronald Huff, a criminologist who has been studying wrongful convictions for 30 years, says, “I believe this will ultimately be regarded as one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in the modern era.”
Quoting opinion again. Still no evidence.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 5th May 2019 at 10:22 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 10:16 AM   #1340
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
There is a detailed affidavit of the evidence presented by Segal in an affidavit in 1990 and the way he was cheated and deceived by Murtagh and Blackburn and Judge Dupree:

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

Quote:
I thus indicated that I would be interested in pursuing any witness on the government's witness list whom the government chose not to call.

38. On August 21, 1979, at a bench conference, Judge Dupree denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the government's failure to turn over Brady materials. However, Judge Dupree again admonished the government, stating:

But now, I'll say this: I have always taken the position that if the Government has anything that classifies as Brady material and they do not give it to you, they are certainly going to get reversal. I have instructed them to do it, but now I am not going into their files and in a case as big as this, I am not going to take three days off to see what they've got and whether or not you are entitled to it -- I'm not going to make that. That's their risk. If they've got stuff, they're going to do it. (emphasis added) (Attached hereto as Exhibit 28)

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th May 2019 at 10:19 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 5th May 2019, 10:26 AM   #1341
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a detailed affidavit of the evidence presented by Segal in an affidavit in 1990 and the way he was cheated and deceived by Murtagh and Blackburn and Judge Dupree:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...aff_segal.html
Ok, and?

Wasn't there a ruling involving this affidavit?

What was that ruling?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 03:07 PM   #1342
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
Sssshh, quiet everyone! What’s that noise I can hear?

Oh yes, it’s the killer rotting away in his cage 😀

The true story in the trial transcripts has never been overturned in nearly 50 years!
GiSEQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:02 AM   #1343
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Legal Butt Kicking

The ruling on Segal's affidavit mirrored subsequent rulings on the SAME evidentiary arguments.

1990 Judge Dupree denied inmate relief and a new trial.

1992 The 4th Circuit Court denied inmate relief and a new trial.

1998 The 4th Circuit Court denied inmate relief and a new trial.

In early 2000, DNA analysis entered into this case, but the events of 9/11 produced a delay that lasted more than 5 years. DNA test results on 29 hair and tissue samples resulted in a new series of legal motions and decisions.

2007 Judge Fox denied inmate relief and a new trial.

2010 The 4th Circuit Court remanded the case to Judge Fox.

2012 Inmate received an evidentiary hearing and Judge Fox allowed each side to produce both hearsay testimony and analysis of the physical evidence in this case.

2014 Judge Fox ruled that "MacDonald has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable fact finder would have found him guilty of the murder of his wife and two daughters. Alternatively, the court finds that MacDonald has failed to adequately establish the merits of any of his claims."

2018 The 4th Circuit ruled on whether Judge Fox erred in finding that MacDonald did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. By a vote of 3-0, the 4th Circuit concluded that "Our comprehensive review of the trial and postconviction evidence convinces us that MacDonald has not met the rigorous requirements of § 2255(h)(1). As we cautioned in our 2011 decision, § 2255(h)(1) was "designed to ensure that [it] could be satisfied only in the rare and extraordinary case." See MacDonald, 641 F.3d at 614-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though we have given MacDonald the opportunity to do so, he has not demonstrated that his is one of the rare and extraordinary cases justifying pursuit of a claim premised on newly discovered evidence by way of a successive § 2255 motion. Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 6th May 2019 at 12:07 AM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 03:04 AM   #1344
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Simply put, we cannot say that the new evidence underlying MacDonald's Britt and DNA claims, considered with all the other evidence, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders of his wife and daughters."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I disagree with those judges. The matter was discussed in another 'friend of the court' legal document in about 2011.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 6th May 2019 at 03:11 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 6th May 2019, 03:12 AM   #1345
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I disagree with those judges. The matter was discussed in another 'friend of the court' legal document in about 2011:

http:////file:///C:/Users/Chris/AppD...icus%20(1).pdf
You still don't get it. Nobody cares what your opinion is. Show us the evidence that MacDonald is innocent. The link you provide above is not that evidence.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 07:58 AM   #1346
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You still don't get it. Nobody cares what your opinion is. Show us the evidence that MacDonald is innocent. The link you provide above is not that evidence.

Hank
How can you prove your innocence except perhaps by providing an alibi, or proving the prosecution case against you is a blatant lie, or suggesting with good reason that somebody else did it, or getting an impartial judge and jury to try your case? All that has been done in the MacDonald case and still MacDonald is in prison. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. The matter was discussed in the Steve Thomas deposition in the JonBenet Ramsey case with Lin Wood in 2001:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001

Quote:
16 Q. Now, you understand, I trust, the
17 difference between probable cause to arrest
18 someone and sufficient evidence to justify a
19 criminal prosecution to prove guilt beyond a
20 reasonable doubt. Do you know the
21 difference?
22 A. You say you do. You're asking me
23 if I know the difference --
24 Q. I'm asking --
25 A. -- between probable cause and

[SNIP]
Mod WarningWhile it is recognized that the source material was trimmed, it was not trimmed enough. Please keep the length of quoted material to a paragraph or so.
Posted By:kmortis

Last edited by kmortis; 7th May 2019 at 08:46 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 6th May 2019, 10:14 AM   #1347
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Same old song and dance routine

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
How can you prove your innocence except perhaps by providing an alibi, or proving the prosecution case against you is a blatant lie, or suggesting with good reason that somebody else did it, or getting an impartial judge and jury to try your case?
It was your claim, I remind you, that there was bias against McDonald, that McDonald was innocent, and certain others actually committed the crime.

Your claim. Your burden of proof. I have asked you a good half-dozen times in separate posts, at a minimum, to post the evidence that allows you to conclude that. To date you have presented nothing. NOTHING.

Instead, as above where you again beg the question numerous times (asserting MacDonald had an alibi, asserting the case against him was a blatant lie, the judge and jury were not impartial but presenting no evidence of that), you make assertion after assertion, commit logic fallacy after logical fallacy, and treat us to a constant stream of opinions by internet posters.

I do agree MacDonald had a good reason to claim somebody else did it, so I won't list that as begging the question. His reason was readily apparent: He didn't want to be executed or spend the rest of his life behind bars for the murders he committed.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
All that has been done in the MacDonald case and still MacDonald is in prison.
So the whole world is against MacDonald? The Supreme Court, the appelate courts, the original trial judge, the subsequent judges, the original jury, the CID and the expert witnesses?

Is that seriously where you're going with this?

Fine. Simply present the evidence of all that.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.
It was. It's not our fault you've gone blind to the actual evidence and instead buy into conspiracy theory 'logic' and argumentation.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The matter was discussed in the Steve Thomas deposition in the JonBenet Ramsey case with Lin Wood in 2001:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...tember-21-2001
And there's the obligatory internet quote from Henri which is meaningless. Gibberish, one might say.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 6th May 2019 at 10:28 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2019, 03:24 AM   #1348
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It was your claim, I remind you, that there was bias against McDonald, that McDonald was innocent, and certain others actually committed the crime.

Your claim. Your burden of proof. I have asked you a good half-dozen times in separate posts, at a minimum, to post the evidence that allows you to conclude that. To date you have presented nothing. NOTHING.
This is some of the evidence MacDonald is innocent which the 4th Circuit judges just disregard:

https://jeffreymacdonaldblog.wordpress.com/blog/

Quote:
This page consists of evidence that we thought proved that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent and that there was miscarriage of justice.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 7th May 2019 at 03:25 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 7th May 2019, 04:59 AM   #1349
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
This is some of the evidence MacDonald is innocent which the 4th Circuit judges just disregard:

https://jeffreymacdonaldblog.wordpress.com/blog/

Quote:
This page consists of evidence that we thought proved that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent and that there was miscarriage of justice.
I tried to research some of those claims, but the link provided for the assertion in the first paragraph (five of six doctors) doesn't work, and the assertion in the second paragraph (Noguchi) has no link nor evidence cited.

I didn't bother to go any further. Ultimately, you're responsible for the claims you make and the assertions you link to. This just another big swing and a miss by you.

Still no evidence. Just more assertions.

Hank

PS: Check the 'About Us' link for the website ... It's a bunch of college kids writing for credit for veterinary school. You are citing college kids' opinions from their obviously cursory look at a book or two. Or worse - a website or two. Hilarious!

Quote:
Students of Advance English Writing at Medaille College

Allen V: I am a freshman at Medaille College. I am getting my AS and BS in Vet Tech with my Prerequisites for vet school.
Josh B: I am a sophomore at Medaille College. I am getting my AS and BS in Vet Tech as well as my Prerequisites for vet school.
Jennifer D: I am a freshman at Medaille College. I am studying business administration.
Christina R: I am a freshman at Medaille College. I am a liberal arts major but continuing at SUNY Cobleskill my sophomore year for Dairy Production and Management.
Brooke B: I am a freshman at Medaille College. I am a Vet Tech major.
Here's a link to one of the essays one of the students wrote.
https://jeffreymacdonaldblog.files.w...ens-essay1.pdf

It's full of obvious errors. For example, the essay was written in 2017 by a student named 'Allen' [no last name] and it states: "Forty-seven years ago, Jeffrey MacDonald was wrongfully convicted for the murder of his family."

Do the math. They are claiming MacDonald was convicted in 1970! Even you must know that's wrong.

This is the link you provided as support for your claims and to provide us with evidence.

I think it's clear you didn't *vet* this site before you linked to it.
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 7th May 2019 at 05:39 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2019, 09:39 AM   #1350
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I tried to research some of those claims, but the link provided for the assertion in the first paragraph (five of six doctors) doesn't work, and the assertion in the second paragraph (Noguchi) has no link nor evidence cited.

I didn't bother to go any further. Ultimately, you're responsible for the claims you make and the assertions you link to. This just another big swing and a miss by you.

Still no evidence. Just more assertions.

Hank
This is a quote from the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Sadoff in 2013 which the jury were ill-informed about and similarly with the 4th Circuit judges. A reasonable factfinder should be interested in this:

Quote:
“My opinion has always been that Dr. MacDonald did not have psychopathology that would have been consistent with the violent behavior that occurred on the night his family was killed,” wrote Dr. Robert Sadoff, a now-retired University of Pennsylvania forensic psychiatrist who first examined MacDonald in 1970, in a 2013 affidavit for his legal defense.
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 7th May 2019, 09:43 AM   #1351
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
This is another quote about Noguchi from a website which does not link to this forum probably because Murtagh wants to cover it up:

Quote:
Donna Koch got to know MacDonald after he was convicted: She was helping research the case for an appeal and was working closely with former Los Angeles Coroner Tom Noguchi, who reviewed the autopsy results and concluded there were multiple assailants, and at least one of them was left-handed. (MacDonald was right handed.)

She went to visit MacDonald in prison to discuss the results, based on Dr. Noguchi’s investigation.

“I remember I was so excited because results were consistent with what Jeff had been saying,” she says. “I was rattling off this and that and I looked at him and he was the color of white chalk. And he said, ‘To you this is evidence. To me, you’re talking about my little girl.’ He was trying not to cry. It was one of the most poignant things that had happened and I will never forget the look on his face and how stupid I felt.”
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 7th May 2019, 09:46 AM   #1352
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
This is Noguchi's opinion in 1986 and he believes there were multiple assailants:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...i_opinion.html
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 7th May 2019, 09:51 AM   #1353
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,840
More assertions, still no evidence.

It's pretty clear to me at least one of two things is true:

1. You have no evidence, or
2. You don't understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

They are not mutually exclusive, so the third possibility is both are true.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2019, 09:54 AM   #1354
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
More assertions, still no evidence.

It's pretty clear to me at least one of two things is true:

1. You have no evidence, or
2. You don't understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

They are not mutually exclusive, so the third possibility is both are true.

Hank
Why don't you listen to the experts?
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 7th May 2019, 01:35 PM   #1355
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,227
Experts

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Why don't you listen to the experts?
The decision to deny inmate relief and/or a new trial on 8 separate occasions was mainly the result of the following expert analysis.

PAUL STOMBAUGH: Retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976. Stombaugh testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. Stombaugh is best known for his blood stain analysis of MacDonald's pajama top, his fabric impression analysis of the blue bedsheet, and the creation of the Pajama Top Theory.

SHIRLEY GREEN: Physical Science Technician in the Microscopic Analysis Unit of the FBI laboratory during the 1979 trial. Green analyzed the puncture hole pattern in MacDonald's pajama top for over a week and was able to prove that the Pajama Top Theory was scientifically feasible.

DILLARD BROWNING: CID chemist and supervisor of the lab technicians at Fort Gordon.

JANICE GLISSON: CID chemist at Fort Gordon. Glisson performed a majority of the serological tests in this case and analyzed some of the hairs collected at the crime scene.

TERRY LABER: CID chemist who analyzed the blood stains found on MacDonald's pajama top pocket.

HILYARD MEDLIN: Fingerprint examiner at Fort Gordon. Medlin processed the crime scene for prints, he searched the living room for pajama fibers with a magnifying glass, and he matched one of the bloody footprints to an exemplar of Jeffrey MacDonald's left foot.

CRAIG CHAMBERLAIN: CID chemist who collected the blood evidence found at 544 Castle Drive.

MICHAEL MALONE: Senior Examiner of the FBI's Hair and Fiber Unit. Malone re-analyzed the hair and fiber evidence found at the crime scene in 1990.

ROBERT WEBB: FBI special agent and forensic chemist. In 1990, Webb analyzed the chemical composition of several unsourced fibers found at the crime scene.

THE ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY: Assigned to conduct DNA testing on 29 hair and tissue samples.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 7th May 2019 at 01:37 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2019, 04:17 PM   #1356
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I have constructed a detailed timeline fantasy

the time of the emergency phone call is scientific fact.

There is no inculpatory evidence apart from manufactured evidence and perjury
FIFY

1. Might want to brush up on the difference between scientific fact and a factual statement.

2. Except for the evidence that convicted your mancrush.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 02:59 AM   #1357
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The decision to deny inmate relief and/or a new trial on 8 separate occasions was mainly the result of the following expert analysis.
The problem with those people is that they were not real experts, or else they withheld exculpatory evidence. There needs to be a second opinion. An example of this can be found in the testimony of the New York police fingerprint expert, Osterburg, at the 1979 trial:

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

Quote:
THE WITNESS: In my opinion, a prime opportunity to develop fingerprints or evidence of intruders was missed by not processing that area of the wall.
This is an area where a struggle was -- is purported by Dr. MacDonald to have taken place. People could easily have reached over and touched that wall, leaving a palm print -- possible fingerprint; and I am just -- I just can't believe that it was not processed.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th May 2019 at 03:06 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 8th May 2019, 03:13 AM   #1358
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 27
The experts who testified at the trial were accepted by the court “as EXPERTS”.

You can’t smear them just because you say so. As you are doing this, please provide YOUR proof of what you say.

This is becoming extremely boring - there has been no change to the true story in nearly 50 years.
GiSEQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 09:30 AM   #1359
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,587
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
The experts who testified at the trial were accepted by the court “as EXPERTS”.

You can’t smear them just because you say so. As you are doing this, please provide YOUR proof of what you say.

This is becoming extremely boring - there has been no change to the true story in nearly 50 years.
Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads as stated by Murtagh at a bench conference. Stombaugh was an FBI lab hair and fiber man and he was never qualified to testify at MacDonald's trial about fabric impressions or bloodstains. He was one of the "purported experts" or "pseudo experts" as Segal described him during the trial. It was only because Stombaugh was in the FBI that he was able to sway the jury, who were never given the full facts to make a right judgment as to the facts.

Kassab was most severe in his criticism of the Army CID in the initial investigation when he still had his head screwed on and he had not met McGinniss yet:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...b_1970-12.html

Quote:
Alleged that the perjured testimony and suppression of evidence by the CID and the prosecution has brought disgrace to the Army.
(Unfounded)
Refutation: Captain Somers offered the professional opinion that no perjured testimony was made by CID agents during the Article 32 hearing.

He further stated that Shaw and Ivory were extremely competent investigators, their conduct at all times proper, and the US Army fortunate to have them assigned to the case.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 8th May 2019 at 09:32 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 8th May 2019, 02:00 PM   #1360
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post

Kassab was most severe in his criticism of the Army CID in the initial investigation when he still had his head screwed on and he had not met McGinniss yet:
Before his son-in-law lied to him about killing one of the imaginary drug crazed hippies?

You sure have peculiar tastes in your mancrushes.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.