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 15th May 2019, 06:50 AM   #1401
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,205
Going Off The Rails

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Murtagh made some silly remark at the 1979 trial, which I now can't find, that the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 were inadmissible at trial because the calm and thorough presentation of the facts then was ten years old! The only difference between then and the trial was Stombaugh's manufactured and fabricated hair and fiber testimony and fabric impressions and the conceptually unsound pajama folding experiment There is an unseemly wrangle between Judge Dupree and Segal about the matter at this website:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html...ald_trial.html
You have a history of going off the rails when boxed into a corner by the documented record. Your post speaks to that history. The facts presented at the Article 32 hearings didn't include trace evidence that had yet to be analyzed by the Fort Gordon CID lab, the FBI's 1971 analysis of specific evidentiary items, and the FBI's 1974 re-analysis of ALL of the evidence collected in this case. In terms of your latest attempt to smear Stombaugh, it is important to note that at the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal did not dispute the contention that Stombaugh was an expert in hair and fiber analysis. I challenge you to find a single moment during the trial where Segal accused Stombaugh of manufacturing or fabricating results pertaining to his hair and fiber analysis in this case. Your comments in another post regarding DNA testing and fingerprint comparisons are further examples of your cognitive instability.

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 15th May 2019, 09:33 AM   #1402
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
In terms of your latest attempt to smear Stombaugh, it is important to note that at the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal did not dispute the contention that Stombaugh was an expert in hair and fiber analysis. I challenge you to find a single moment during the trial where Segal accused Stombaugh of manufacturing or fabricating results pertaining to his hair and fiber analysis in this case.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Segal was skeptical about the Stombaugh hair and fiber evidence except that much of that evidence was illegally withheld from him until after the trial, like the black wool fibers with no known source around Colette's mouth, and on the wooden murder club murder weapon. It would have been difficult for Segal to challenge Stombaugh as a so-called FBI hair and fiber expert, but he did his best in court. The FBI hair and fiber department now has a very bad reputation and that's a fact. Segal had a few comments about the matter in his long and turgid and rambling closing speech which went in one ear and out the other as far as the jury were concerned:

Quote:
By the way, were there any fibers found in or about here (indicating)? Mr. Shaw -- Mr. Shaw, the CID investigator, said that he found near the south edge of the hallway step here three fibers. He doesn't recall whether he collected them or not. The Government says, "Oh, that is not the living room. Ignore that." All right, we ignore that. His correct testimony, I believe, shows that Shaw saw fibers there.

By the way, where was Dr. MacDonald lying after the struggle? Where did he say? On the steps across here (indicating). Is that consistent with where the fibers were found? I think so. I think you have a right to conclude the same thing. Perhaps there are other fibers. What could have happened to them that is equally consistent with the Government's theory?
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 15th May 2019 at 09:35 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 15th May 2019, 10:12 AM   #1403
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
As you full well know, Bernie Segal consulted with bloodstain expert Judith Bunker, and she processed with Segal that considering she agreed with the bloodstain analysis of BOTH Stombaugh and Laber, she would not be a good witness for the defense.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Judith Bunker is just another purported exert and pseudo expert which seems to plague the MacDonald case, while Judge Dupree and Judge Fox made sure that real experts never presented their evidence to a MacDonald case court. This is what I have previously posted about Judith Bunker on this forum and it does not inspire confidence as to her right judgment as to the facts. It reminds me of the fake handwriting experts in the JonBenet Ramsey case who presented fake news about the ransom note:

Quote:
There is a bit about Judith Bunker on the internet. I don't know why JTF keeps quoting her:

Quote:
"For example, testimony reveals that Investigator Dupius testified as to blood spatter. Interestingly, Investigator Dupius was exclusively trained by the now discredited Judith Bunker. Ms. Bunker was revealed to have converted herself into an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis from a brief four hour workshop conducted by Mr. Herbert MacDonnell in Birmingham, Alabama. With only this minimal experience Ms. Bunker launched a career instructing law enforcement upon the complex science of blood-stain pattern analysis. Investigator Dupius testified that he observed a reddish stain on Mr. Johnston's right sock and that the stain projected. This claim was raised and rejected as to Ms. Bunker's lack of credentials in Johnston v. State, 708 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1998)."
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 15th May 2019, 12:58 PM   #1404
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,205
Cognitive Spiral

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Segal was skeptical about the Stombaugh hair and fiber evidence except that much of that evidence was illegally withheld from him until after the trial, like the black wool fibers with no known source around Colette's mouth, and on the wooden murder club murder weapon. It would have been difficult for Segal to challenge Stombaugh as a so-called FBI hair and fiber expert, but he did his best in court. The FBI hair and fiber department now has a very bad reputation and that's a fact. Segal had a few comments about the matter in his long and turgid and rambling closing speech which went in one ear and out the other as far as the jury were concerned:



http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...l-closing.html
Your cognitive spiral continues as evidenced by your claims that are at odds with the documented record. Segal was skeptical about Stombaugh's analysis of the fabric/non-fabric impressions and the Pajama Top Theory, not his analysis of the hairs and fibers collected at the crime scene.

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 15th May 2019, 01:20 PM   #1405
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,205
Case Closed

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judith Bunker is just another purported exert and pseudo expert which seems to plague the MacDonald case, while Judge Dupree and Judge Fox made sure that real experts never presented their evidence to a MacDonald case court. This is what I have previously posted about Judith Bunker on this forum and it does not inspire confidence as to her right judgment as to the facts. It reminds me of the fake handwriting experts in the JonBenet Ramsey case who presented fake news about the ransom note:
I guess you just can't help yourself. Segal sought out Bunker, she agreed with the bloodstain analysis of the prosecution's experts, and he decided not to pursue the opinions of other bloodstain experts. Case closed. In terms of your bizarre claim that Judge Fox "made sure that real experts never presented their evidence to a MacDonald case court," well, you're wrong again. As I pointed out in several recent posts, Judge Fox allowed the defense to call forensic(s) experts to the stand at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. To the dismay of inmate's advocates, the defense didn't call a single forensics expert to appear at the hearing. This was in stark contrast to Brian Murtagh's presentation of the evidence in this case and guess who he relied upon when presenting his evidentiary arguments? Yup, you guessed it, a few dozen experts from multiple forensic disciplines.

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 15th May 2019, 01:23 PM   #1406
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,996
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Judith Bunker is just another purported exert and pseudo expert
Is that something like an "amateur lawyer?"
__________________
"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 15th May 2019, 02:32 PM   #1407
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 25
Segal, like any defence lawyer, hates actual evidence.

After the trial, even JMcD fired him and called him a bum
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 15th May 2019, 06:39 PM   #1408
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is an interesting article on the internet about judicial corruption, which applies to the MacDonald case and Judges Dupree and Fox and the 4th Circuit judges. Any criminal defense lawyer is just beating against the wind with judges like that in a courtroom:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12...-is-invisible/

Quote:
The next stage of judicial corruption is false statement of the facts. The judge simply states a false set of “facts” which would lead any other court to the desired conclusion, and the resulting judgment not only looks plausible but cannot be appealed. The corrupt side submits the judgment you will be allowed to see, which is rubberstamped without effort or risk of appeal. Any case not favored by the judiciary requires a jury trial and an intense battle over evidence, but the judge simply refuses to admit evidence which contradicts his prejudice. If enough facts are deleted, the case is given his “summary judgment” without trial. If tried, the outcome is determined by the false picture of fact.
So doesn't apply to MacDonald at all. Again, you can't seem to keep away from quoting nonsense off the internet.

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 15th May 2019, 06:50 PM   #1409
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were a few real [defense] experts at the trial in 1979, including the fingerprint expert Osterburg ...
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is no absolute certainty that fingerprint and DNA evidence is accurate.
You could tell us which of your above statements is true, for starters.

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 16th May 2019, 02:15 AM   #1410
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You could tell us which of your above statements is true, for starters.

Hank
Personally, I think fingerprint or DNA evidence can be real proof of guilt or innocence. That's why MacDonald has always been keen to have over sixty items DNA tested which Judge Fox then restricted to items where MacDonald had no chance of success. A wise man might sometimes say I am not sure and be skeptical about the matter. In that Hennis case in North Carolina as I understand it Hennis was cleared on a second appeal by a jury until the prosecution magically suddenly 'found' some Hennis DNA at the crime scene. Hennis is now on death row. In the early days of DNA in the car thief world cigarette butts from garbage bins were deliberately planted by perpetrators in stolen cars in order to confuse the investigators as to identity. There is a bit of waffle about the matter at this website:

https://insidetime.org/fingerprints-the-new-dna/

Quote:
In the rush to solve unsolvable crimes and gain convictions the ‘experts’ must be very careful not to overplay technology. In the USA, recently, there have been serious doubts raised upon the reliance of DNA evidence and the phenomenal numbers used to try to convince juries, such as ‘a one in a billion’. It has been shown that actual fingerprint evidence can be doubtful, fingerprints can be ‘moved’ and hands can pick up other people’s DNA from door handles and suchlike.

Acknowledgements: Police Chronicle

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th 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 16th May 2019, 02:28 AM   #1411
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by GiSEQ View Post
Segal, like any defence lawyer, hates actual evidence.

After the trial, even JMcD fired him and called him a bum
Any defence lawyer does not like manufactured or invented, or withheld, evidence because it ain't fair. I agree MacDonald is supposed to have called Segal 'pathological' once he became imprisoned, and he then changed lawyers, but to my mind that was the natural reaction of an angry client who is fearfully aggrieved. I think Segal was a competent lawyer, if not a prominent lawyer. He was too academic for a North Carolina jury. They didn't know what he was on about. That might not have been a disadvantage with the intelligent Colonel Rock at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th May 2019 at 02:54 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 16th May 2019, 03:18 AM   #1412
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 25
The evidence against JMcD has stood the test of time and litigation, and his misguided followers haven’t been able to change any of it.

Still guilty and in his cage.
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 16th May 2019, 04:37 AM   #1413
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Personally, I think fingerprint or DNA evidence can be real proof of guilt or innocence.
So you're admitting the claim below is false:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is no absolute certainty that fingerprint and DNA evidence is accurate.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's why MacDonald has always been keen to have over sixty items DNA tested which Judge Fox then restricted to items where MacDonald had no chance of success.
Still the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. The truth of the matter is not determined by how many times you assert something.



Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
A wise man might sometimes say I am not sure and be skeptical about the matter.
You're reminded that's the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts. You initially asserted this:
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is no absolute certainty that fingerprint and DNA evidence is accurate.
That doesn't sound like you weren't sure.

(Snip change of subject and obligatory link to unproven assertions found on the internet).

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 16th May 2019, 04:48 AM   #1414
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
I checked with a lawyer friend who has discussed this case on several forums over the years AND who was a JAG while in the Air Force and he commented:

1. The Article 32 would have had limited admissibility, if any, most likely only to rebut testimony or prove inconsistency of statements.
2. The Article 32 was flawed in large part due to the FACT that Colonel Rock was not a lawyer and had absolutely no legal training. Although that was not uncommon at one time, most military went to using lawyers as the IO.
3. Colonel Rock did not understand the significance of several pieces of evidence especially the bloody footprints EXITING Kristen's room with no bloody footprints (bare or otherwise) in the entire apartment.
4. The charges from the Article 32 were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. that is not all the same thing as being exonerated.
byn63 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 16th May 2019, 06:15 AM   #1415
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,996
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Any defence lawyer does not like manufactured or invented, or withheld, evidence because it ain't fair.

Only if it benefits the prosecution.

I have knowledge of criminal and civil cases where "evidence" was cited that turned out to be simply false (or deliberately false), on both prosecution and defense sides and plaintiff and defendant sides.
__________________
"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 16th May 2019, 09:30 AM   #1416
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
3. Colonel Rock did not understand the significance of several pieces of evidence especially the bloody footprints EXITING Kristen's room with no bloody footprints (bare or otherwise) in the entire apartment.
The footprints are some of the biggest load of crap in the MacDonald case like the pajama fibers and blood evidence and fabric impressions and urine stains. It's made up evidence which the 4th Circuit judges don't seem to understand. The matter was discussed in an unseemly wrangle during the testimony of Professor Osterburg at the 1979 trial:

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

Quote:
Q There is some testimony in this matter by Mr. Medlin in regard to a footprint on the floor of Kristen's room, where the suggestion was that there was light coming from a window which created difficulty in photographing of prints there and other matter in that room?

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, I would MOVE TO STRIKE that question. I don't believe it comports with the witness' testimony at all.

THE COURT: Well, I will SUSTAIN the objection. I won't strike the question, but I will sustain the objection to the question; but I will allow counsel to show whether or not there is such evidence in the record.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Let me ask you this -- we will come back to this particular problem or non-problem in a little while. Do you have an opinion, Mr. Osterburg, as to whether or not there is a scientific explanation for the fact that Mr. Medlin says he was able to observe ridge lines on the bloody footprint on the floor, but he was unable to photograph and that they disappeared by the time of the photograph of them?......

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q All right, let me put this question to you: is there any realistic possibility in your mind, based upon your knowledge and training, that between the time a bloody footprint could be seen on the floor by Mr. Medlin and the time that the floor section was taken up and carried back to Fort Gordon that the ridge lines he observed would disappear on the floorboard and become lost?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I have seen the floorboard, and there is a bloody footprint impression on the floor. There are no ridge details in the bloody footprint.
I cannot see any reason or explanation that is reasonable why those areas of the bloody footprint bearing the ridge details would selectively disappear while the rest of the imprint would remain. I just don't understand that.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 16th May 2019 at 09:58 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 16th May 2019, 11:48 AM   #1417
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,205
You've Failed

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The footprints are some of the biggest load of crap in the MacDonald case like the pajama fibers and blood evidence and fabric impressions and urine stains. It's made up evidence which the 4th Circuit judges don't seem to understand. The matter was discussed in an unseemly wrangle during the testimony of Professor Osterburg at the 1979 trial:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...osterburg.html
Avoiding the topic at hand will not deter posters from demanding that you walk the walk. 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

Last edited by JTF; 16th May 2019 at 11:49 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 17th May 2019, 11:46 PM   #1418
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,205
Kitchen Sink

At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox's decision to allow both the defense and the government to present the evidentiary kitchen sink, was the result of the following mandate from the 4th Circuit Court.

"We elaborated that the court must make its “§ 2255(h)(1) determination — unbounded ‘by the rules of admissibility that would govern at trial’ — based on ‘all the evidence, including that alleged to have been illegally admitted [and that] tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after the trial.''

Again, inmate was given the kind of opportunity that most convicted murderers only dream of, yet he failed to take advantage of this golden opportunity. No smoking gun, not a single evidentiary item definitively sourced to a known intruder suspect, and ineffective rebuttals to the mass of evidence that led to his 1979 conviction. This included DNA, hair, fiber, blood, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric/non-fabric impression evidence. Jeffrey MacDonald is not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilty beyond ALL doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 17th May 2019 at 11:51 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 Yesterday, 03:20 AM   #1419
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox's decision to allow both the defense and the government to present the evidentiary kitchen sink, was the result of the following mandate from the 4th Circuit Court.

"We elaborated that the court must make its “§ 2255(h)(1) determination — unbounded ‘by the rules of admissibility that would govern at trial’ — based on ‘all the evidence, including that alleged to have been illegally admitted [and that] tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after the trial.''
The 4th Circuit judges were on the correct murder trail in that statement. It's just that the criminal defense lawyers had no way of proving the hair and fiber evidence was illegally admitted or wrongly excluded, or to become available after the trial, because biased old judge Fox insisted it was all about Jimmy Britt and a few DNA tests. Personally, I would have had a few unseemly wrangles about the black wool fibers with no known source, and the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers, and the fabric impressions by unqualified Stombaugh, and the pajama folding experiment, and doubting the integrity of Blackburn, and a few other things, like making it up. There is a bit about this sort of thing at this website:

https://www.kurtzandblum.com/crimina...minal-defense/

Quote:
Recently a photo of the Raleigh, North Carolina, crime lab at the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) showed analysts with their elbows on the table. This is a prime example of how contamination can occur and should never take place in a lab.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 03:22 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 Yesterday, 09:54 AM   #1420
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,552
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
This included DNA, hair, fiber, blood, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric/non-fabric impression evidence. Jeffrey MacDonald is not only guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is guilty beyond ALL doubt.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Hair and fiber evidence is unreliable. Criminal defense lawyers need to mug up on the subject especially in death row cases. The FBI are not the only people qualified to give an opinion about the matter. There is a bit of legal waffle about the matter on the internet which does not link to this forum:

Quote:
Conclusion
As noted earlier, hair evidence may be invaluable in some cases. Nevertheless, it is also one of the most abused types of scientific evidence. It should be challenged as a matter of routine.
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 Today, 03:00 AM   #1421
GiSEQ
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 25
The internet is about 70% waffle and rubbish as evidenced by posts from JMcD supporters.
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
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 03:15 AM.
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.