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 29th August 2018, 01:48 AM   #241
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Mr. McGinniss, You Have The Floor

Considering that it has been 20 months since oral arguments were presented to the 4th Circuit Court, I would like to revisit how this legal freak show came to pass. Although a fellow layman, the late Joe McGinniss presented the "evidence as a whole" issue far more eloquently than I ever could.

SOURCE: Final Vision Chapter 6

CHAPTER TITLE: The Evidence As A Whole

In 1996, however, Congress passed a law stipulating that a federal prisoner could only file one Section 2255 Petition unless an appellate court granted a waiver known as a pre-filing authorization. Such authorization was to be granted only if a new petition cited, "newly discovered evidence, that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty of the offense." That wasn't just a high standard. That was the Berlin Wall. But the language provided a tunnel underneath it. What did "the evidence as a whole" really mean? It was one of those amorphous phrases that reeked of being created by a committee. In a law designed to limit the filing of successive habeas petitions, this phrase, ripe for almost endless interpretation, seemed likely to have the opposite effect.

LATER IN THE CHAPTER...

What a Pandora's box Congress constructed when it tossed the phrase "the evidence as a whole" into the law books. What opportunities for mischief-making the vagueness of the phrase gave to imaginative lawyers. And MacDonald's lawyers, while bereft of favorable facts, were not lacking in imagination.

MCGINNISS THEN COVERS THE LEGAL MACHINATIONS FROM 1995-2008...

Fox was struck by the affrontery of MacDonald and his lawyers. It was as if they believed chutzpah could overwhelm fact.

CHAPTER 7 BEGINS WITH MCGINNISS DISCUSSING HOW POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS DIRECTLY EFFECT LEGAL DECISIONS

While the murder of a woman and her children by the husband and father would not seem the sort of case that would encourage judgement along partisan political lines, there is no denying that conservative judges tended toward a more restrictive view of prisoner's rights than did liberals.

The appellate judges said Fox had been wrong to apply 28 U.S.C. Section 2244 (b) to MacDonald's new habeas claim. They said he should have used Section 2255 (h). Believe it or not, this sort of judicial hair-splitting is what is keeping the MacDonald case alive...

What a legal burlesque the MacDonald case has become. What a pity that the lives of Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen MacDonald -- real lives that ended in a blur of terror, pain, shock, and blood -- should be reduced to artifacts used in games of courtroom ping-pong.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th August 2018 at 01:52 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 29th August 2018, 02:43 AM   #242
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Not everybody has such a high opinion of Congress and the Supreme Court as JTF. Their job is to see that the innocent are not prosecuted and that any withholding of exculpatory evidence, as happened in the MacDonald case, should lead to a reversal. The matter is discussed at this website:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-th...h-with-america

Quote:
Look at all the people being found innocent after serving 20 years in prison. Prisoners who are innocent are there because of the uncaring of the Supreme Court Judges. In Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S. 307 (1979), the Supreme Court made it the law of the land that, "if any rational mind could find guilt, then the conviction will stand". What this means is, it doesn't matter how many mistakes are made at the trial, no matter how flimsy the evidence is, the person will stay in prison.

At trial all 12 persons of the jury must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the police, the prosecutors and the judge will and do, just about any thing knowing they are immune, lie, mislead and fraud the jury. All these errors become, HARMLESS ERRORS DUE TO OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, in the Appeals Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. These Appeal Courts will never reverse errors at the trial if "just one person could have found guilt" the debate then becomes what is the minimum IQ requirements of this one juror, after all the other 11 jurors don't see it.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th August 2018 at 02:45 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 04:44 AM   #243
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Not everybody has such a high opinion of Congress and the Supreme Court as JTF.
So what?

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Their job is to see that the innocent are not prosecuted
No it is not. All defendants ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. There is nothing that says innocent persons cannot be prosecuted because until a person is prosecuted it is only a presumption.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and that any withholding of exculpatory evidence, as happened in the MacDonald case, should lead to a reversal.
Sorry but the courts found that there was no withholding of evidence in this case. Your continual comments claiming otherwise are tiresome and irrelevant. Just because you throw a temper tantrum when we INSIST on clouding your inane version of this case with FACTS it does not make your version an more reasonable. IN FACT, it just highlights how very ridiculous your claims remain.
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 29th August 2018, 08:22 AM   #244
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Sorry but the courts found that there was no withholding of evidence in this case. Your continual comments claiming otherwise are tiresome and irrelevant. Just because you throw a temper tantrum when we INSIST on clouding your inane version of this case with FACTS it does not make your version an more reasonable. IN FACT, it just highlights how very ridiculous your claims remain.
That's simply not true. The matter is explained at this website:

https://www.crimetraveller.org/2017/...e-of-the-case/

Quote:
The most damning piece of physical evidence used to prosecute Jeffrey MacDonald at trial in 1979 was the blue pajama top, with various arguments put forward regarding puncture wounds, fibers and bloodstains. The opposing findings between the FBI and CID of the blood stain patterns were not disclosed by the prosecution. Judge Franklin T. Dupree Jr. had swiftly ruled at trial that he would not allow the defense an opportunity to examine the documents and exhibits in question. By so ruling, the defense and the jurors knew nothing of their existence.
To be honest the 4th Circuit judges at the moment do seem to have their doubts about Judge Fox, and very little confidence in him, but they seem to be able to do nothing unless the MacDonald case is thoroughly and properly investigated. The real culprits who are still alive just categorically deny everything.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th August 2018 at 08:24 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 12:02 PM   #245
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's simply not true.
YES IT IS TRUE. I have copied/pasted the actual COURT TRANSCRIPTS for you a number of times. No Brady violations and no withheld evidence.

Just because the attorney's did not bother to fully read and review all of the files does NOT mean the prosecution didn't provide the evidence to the defense. THE PROSECUTION HAS NO REQUIREMENT TO POINT OUT EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
To be honest the 4th Circuit judges at the moment do seem to have their doubts about Judge Fox,
you have no basis for this comment.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
...but they seem to be able to do nothing unless the MacDonald case is thoroughly and properly investigated.
Geez, you are not back on this ridiculousness again? This case HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. Inmate has been tried and convicted. There is no more investigation required.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The real culprit who is still alive just categorically deny everything.
That is correct inmate is still alive and he still denies his guilt. that doesn't clear him, it just proves that he is a base coward who brutally and savagely slaughtered his pregnant wife, unborn son, and two precious daughters. EVERY piece of sourced evidence points to inmate as the sole perpetrator. PERIOD. NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE has been linked to a viable (repeat viable) alternate suspect.

VIABLE: practicable (feasible)
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 29th August 2018, 12:34 PM   #246
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 76
Quote:
The opposing findings between the FBI and CID of the blood stain patterns were not disclosed by the prosecution. Judge Franklin T. Dupree Jr. had swiftly ruled at trial that he would not allow the defense an opportunity to examine the documents and exhibits in question. By so ruling, the defense and the jurors knew nothing of their existence.
Others have pointed out the prosecution has no affirmative obligation to show the defense attorney(s) specific evidence within a block of evidence.

But, again for the sake of argument, let's assume they did. In any appeal, even such "new" evidence matters only if the "new" evidence reasonably could have led the jury to a different (i.e. not guilty) verdict. That's just not the case here. you seem to think that just showing that any one piece of evidence somehow invalidates the conviction. That's just silly, and not at all how judicial systems work.

Moreover, an even higher defense standard applies to inmate's specific case: any such "new" evidence must effectively prove inmate "innocent" to be relevant. This "evidence" -- even in the most favorable light for the defendant -- is obviously nowhere within light years of doing that.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 01:49 PM   #247
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by ScottPletcher View Post
Others have pointed out the prosecution has no affirmative obligation to show the defense attorney(s) specific evidence within a block of evidence.

But, again for the sake of argument, let's assume they did. In any appeal, even such "new" evidence matters only if the "new" evidence reasonably could have led the jury to a different (i.e. not guilty) verdict. That's just not the case here. you seem to think that just showing that any one piece of evidence somehow invalidates the conviction. That's just silly, and not at all how judicial systems work.

Moreover, an even higher defense standard applies to inmate's specific case: any such "new" evidence must effectively prove inmate "innocent" to be relevant. This "evidence" -- even in the most favorable light for the defendant -- is obviously nowhere within light years of doing that.
You seem to be totally ignorant of the law with regard to Brady violations. the matter is discussed at this website:

https://www.novilaw.com/2018/08/brady-violation/

Quote:
In conclusion, clearly something more meaningful needs to be done to ensure that all defendants get fair trials.
One way to begin is to sanction prosecutors and law enforcement officers who withhold evidence that could help a defendant. What do you think?

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 29th August 2018 at 01:51 PM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 02:19 PM   #248
ScottPletcher
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 76
Brady only requires that the defense receive all the evidence, it does NOT require the govt to point out which evidence might be more valuable than other evidence. I was very careful to phrase my statement so that it was clear that I was talking about that.
ScottPletcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 03:28 PM   #249
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Mr. McGinniss, You Have The Floor

Considering that it has been 20 months since oral arguments were presented to the 4th Circuit Court, I would like to revisit how this legal freak show came to pass. Although a fellow layman, the late Joe McGinniss presented the "evidence as a whole" issue far more eloquently than I ever could.

SOURCE: Final Vision Chapter 6

CHAPTER TITLE: The Evidence As A Whole

In 1996, however, Congress passed a law stipulating that a federal prisoner could only file one Section 2255 Petition unless an appellate court granted a waiver known as a pre-filing authorization. Such authorization was to be granted only if a new petition cited, "newly discovered evidence, that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty of the offense." That wasn't just a high standard. That was the Berlin Wall. But the language provided a tunnel underneath it. What did "the evidence as a whole" really mean? It was one of those amorphous phrases that reeked of being created by a committee. In a law designed to limit the filing of successive habeas petitions, this phrase, ripe for almost endless interpretation, seemed likely to have the opposite effect.

LATER IN THE CHAPTER...

What a Pandora's box Congress constructed when it tossed the phrase "the evidence as a whole" into the law books. What opportunities for mischief-making the vagueness of the phrase gave to imaginative lawyers. And MacDonald's lawyers, while bereft of favorable facts, were not lacking in imagination.

MCGINNISS THEN COVERS THE LEGAL MACHINATIONS FROM 1995-2008...

Fox was struck by the affrontery of MacDonald and his lawyers. It was as if they believed chutzpah could overwhelm fact.

CHAPTER 7 BEGINS WITH MCGINNISS DISCUSSING HOW POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS DIRECTLY EFFECT LEGAL DECISIONS

While the murder of a woman and her children by the husband and father would not seem the sort of case that would encourage judgement along partisan political lines, there is no denying that conservative judges tended toward a more restrictive view of prisoner's rights than did liberals.

The appellate judges said Fox had been wrong to apply 28 U.S.C. Section 2244 (b) to MacDonald's new habeas claim. They said he should have used Section 2255 (h). Believe it or not, this sort of judicial hair-splitting is what is keeping the MacDonald case alive...

What a legal burlesque the MacDonald case has become. What a pity that the lives of Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen MacDonald -- real lives that ended in a blur of terror, pain, shock, and blood -- should be reduced to artifacts used in games of courtroom ping-pong.

Nice job, Joe. Advocates for this mass murderer had nothing in 1979. They had nothing in 1985. They had nothing in 1992. They had nothing in 2012, yet the case continues to drag on. Rinse and repeat. Postulate and regurgitate. Fortunately, this toxic legal parlor game has been unable to put a dent in the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial nor does it sway the fact that a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of the Ice Pick Baby Killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 29th August 2018 at 03:35 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 30th August 2018, 08:12 AM   #250
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Fortunately, this toxic legal parlor game has been unable to put a dent in the over 1,000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial nor does it sway the fact that a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of the Ice Pick Baby Killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
That 1000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial is crap. It's just stuff like there were some Valentine cards found at the crime scene and an overturned coffee table. It proves absolutely nothing. Most of it was inadmissible under the rules of evidence. The mystery hair in Colette's left hand was a mystery from the start. It only matched the DNA profile of MacDonald in 2006 after the FBI lab switched it for the DNA testing at the AFIP lab. The MacDonald defense team were naturally interested in that hair from the start because it could have provided proof, and even the identity of intruders, but Murtagh and Malone and Judge Fox were never going to allow that.

The matter of hairs, which JTF thinks is so important, is discussed in this newspaper article:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lse-conviction

Quote:
There was only one problem: the “expert” analysis, delivered by Wayne Oakes under oath and effective enough to obliterate one-third of a man’s life and counting, was wrong.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 30th August 2018 at 08:14 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 30th August 2018, 12:54 PM   #251
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Postulate, Then Regurgiate On A Bi-Monthly Basis

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. I see you channeled your inner Alex Jones. Similar to Jones, when backed into a corner by concrete evidence, you've always relied on the conspiracy card. The broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand was labeled as the "mystery hair," by Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter. In 1999, Bost told me on the phone that this hair was THE most important DNA exhibit in this case. Bost was not a shy boy, yet he made no mention or reference to the possibility that Exhibit E-5 was somehow switched with a broken, bloody arm hair from inmate.

Bost was also convinced that the hair would match the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. He based this opinion on the color (e.g., brown) of the 1 inch hair and the fact that neither the CID nor the FBI could microscopically source that hair to Jeffrey MacDonald. History, however, has shown that Bost had scant knowledge of microscopic hair comparisons. For example, Bost was unaware of the fact that only head and pubic hairs could be compared under a microscope. Body hairs and hair fragments don't have enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons.

In essence, it was IMPOSSIBLE to microscopically source that limb hair to inmate or any other human being on the planet. Bost then doubled down on his ignorance of microscopic hair comparisons when he claimed that a 7mm hair fragment found in Kimmie's fingernail scrapings was not a microscopic match to inmate's hair exemplars. Again, body hairs and hair fragments cannot be compared under a microscope, but that didn't stop Bost and Potter from claiming that the hair had female characteristics. Two years after making this claim, the FBI smeared egg on the faces of Bost/Potter by determining that this female human hair was actually an animal hair, with the probable source being the family cat.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 30th August 2018 at 01:10 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 30th August 2018, 12:57 PM   #252
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That 1000 evidentiary items presented by the prosecution at trial is crap. It's just stuff like there were some Valentine cards found at the crime scene and an overturned coffee table.
OMG, you cannot REALLY believe that nonsense? The Valentines Day Cards were NOT among the 1,100 pieces of evidence. Neither was the over turned coffee table. Things that WERE evidence....blue pj fibers found in various locations, splinters from the murder club found in various locations, bloody footprints exiting Kristen's room, the clothing of the victims (you do remember that the VICTIMS were 2 year old Kristen, 5 year old Kimmie, and 26 year old PREGNANT Colette, right? sadly he could not be charged with killing his unborn son), the bedspread, the pj pocket, the knives, the ice pick, and the murder club, the bathmat that showed that the knife and ice pick had been wiped clean AND MANY MANY MORE. Trial transcripts are available where you can learn the TRUTH instead of continuing to spout utter nonsense!

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It proves absolutely nothing.
Since every single SOURCED piece of evidence points directly at inmate as the sole murderer it proves EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Most of it was inadmissible under the rules of evidence.
No, the 1,100 pieces of evidence were admissible. That is why the Judge accepted the items as evidence. You see that is how it works, the prosecution presents evidence via witnesses. The defense has the option to object to items, and they have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. All 1,100+ pieces of evidence were admissible.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The mystery hair in Colette's left hand was a mystery from the start.
Yes, it was a mystery because AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD NUMEROUS TIMES ONLY HEAD AND PUBIC HAIR CAN BE MICROSCOPICALLY COMPARED. HAIR FROM OTHER LOCATIONS ON THE BODY DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT, ONCE MORE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS FOR THIS SORT OF EXAMINATION. E-5 or "the mystery hair" was the distal or "tip" portion of a limb hair. (Henri that means it came either from and arm or a leg).

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It only matched the DNA profile of MacDonald in 2006 after the FBI lab switched it for the DNA testing at the AFIP lab.
I am STILL waiting for you to explain to me how anyone from the prosecution got a piece of inmate's limb hair, got it to match the descriptions in the bench notes made when the attempts were initially made to identify the hair? NOT only that, but how did they get it covered in Colette's blood?

Your cockamaimy "they switched the hair" comments are beyond ridiculous and certainly come no where near the "reasonable doubt" thresh hold....IN FACT IT IS MOST UNREASONABLE.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The MacDonald defense team were naturally interested in that hair from the start because it could have provided proof, and even the identity of intruders, but Murtagh and Malone and Judge Fox were never going to allow that.
of course they were interested, they were the ones who called it the mystery hair in the first place.....but until DNA testing became an option there was no way to determine whose hair that was.....

EVEN THE DEFENSE ADMITTED THAT THE WIELDER OF THE CLUB (ie murderer) WOULD BE THE PERSON TO WHOM THAT HAIR BELONGED.

Murtagh, Malone, and Judge Fox did not somehow bump into inmate and mysteriously grab and exact hair color, size, shape, and type from him, then cover it Colette's blood....this is beyond ridiculous to try and claim that ANYONE changed the hairs.

Also, it may have escaped your notice but inmate was not convicted on the mystery hair. The DNA testing wasn't approved until years later - as DNA testing did not exist when inmate was tried in 1979.
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 31st August 2018, 05:55 PM   #253
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
A very reliable source has told me that inmate has suffered a stroke. I do not have any other information at this time. I will share more when I learn more.
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 31st August 2018, 10:19 PM   #254
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Fantasy Narrative

BYN: Thanks for the information.

In terms of spouting hollow conspiracy claims, MacDonald advocates have always been willing and able to ignore logic. Fatal Justice provides several examples of this thought process.

"This girl, according to officer Beasley and others, was running around with the Stoeckley group and was "involved in the drug crowd. Her father happened to have been in the position to change the MacDonald case-and in fact did make command decisions that allowed investigators to get by with hiding evidence."

COMMENT: The beginnings of the UPDATED (e.g., circa 1997) conspiracy theory. My first thought after reading this excerpt was, "Which member of the Stoeckley group was NOT involved in the drug world?" The authors then leap back to the land of innuendo and unproven claims. There are no details regarding the command decisions this unnamed Army official allegedly made and the focus of the "hidden evidence" claim has been squarely on Brian Murtagh, not CID investigators. The following is the only citation/endnote that addresses the claim of a viable connection between the unnamed female, unnamed Army official, and unnamed CID investigators.

"We are not naming the individual officer's child, who may be guilty of nothing more than befriending other officers' children who were taking and selling drugs. We do have, in official army records released by the FOIA, documented evidence of the father's tremendous influence on the case."

COMMENT: IMO, if you're going to weave a conspiracy narrative that involves the brutal murder of a pregnant woman and two small children, you better provide CONCRETE details in some form or fashion. Unnamed individuals and their alleged roles in a conspiracy lacking in specifics is tabloid fodder, yet this nonsense is presented in a non-fiction book that covers a high profile murder case.

"I decided to try my luck and phone her on the evening of August 17, 1994. When I revealed that I was calling about the MacDonald case, she became agitated and said repeatedly, "I don't talk with anyone about the MacDonald case." When I told Fred Bost about this conversation, he said he had observed a similar reaction when he approached another colonel's son who had been close to members of the Stoeckley group. This man's brother also had been connected with members of this group."

COMMENT: The list of individuals in this "group" increases by the sentence. Potter and Bost don't seem to understand that expanding the participants of a group actually lessens the chances of a conspiracy being kept under wraps. The authors also fail to provide specifics of how these unnamed individuals are connected to Stoeckley and/or this ever-growing group. From 1971-1982, Stoeckley named the following people as being involved in the murders of the MacDonald family.

1) Greg Mitchell
2) Don Harris
3) Bruce Fowler
4) Cathy Perry
5) Allen Mazzerolle
6) Dwight Smith
7) Kathy Smith
8) Zig Zag
9) Wizard

I'm assuming that none of the individuals listed in the updated conspiracy theory are on this list which begs the question... Since Stoeckley wasn't shy about inserting herself into this case, why didn't she mention the unnamed individuals who the authors claim played such a big role in this alleged conspiracy?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 31st August 2018 at 10:23 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2018, 02:26 AM   #255
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
I'm sorry to read that MacDonald has suffered a stroke if that's true. It's a tragedy. The judges themselves don't believe in judicial infallibility, like JTF and Byn.
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 1st September 2018, 03:16 AM   #256
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I'm assuming that none of the individuals listed in the updated conspiracy theory are on this list which begs the question... Since Stoeckley wasn't shy about inserting herself into this case, why didn't she mention the unnamed individuals who the authors claim played such a big role in this alleged conspiracy?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The problem for Helena is that the Mafia don't like snitches or people who cooperate with the government. Corruption existed at Fort Bragg at the time and she was hesitant to name names. There is a bit of background to all this at this website:

http://www.truthmegasite.com/dr-jeff...govt-cover-up/

Quote:
She died at home, purportedly of a liver disease and pneumonia, but it was a sudden death, inconsistent with liver disease or pneumonia in a 32 year old person. She was home alone with her baby and it was her custom to seek help when she was ill since she was a very attentive mother to her son. She did not seek help at this time but she had previously expressed to her friend and an investigator that she was ready to tell something that she knew was going to be a “major bombshell” about the MacDonald case. She had hesitated to do so before because she had asked for immunity and it had been denied. (Interestingly, a resident of Stoeckley’s apartment building had seen two clean-cut men in suits who had asked for Stoeckley and hung around for about two days immediately prior to her death. A forensic pathologist was present at her autopsy, and if, in fact, Stoeckley had been the victim of foul play, it was undetectable on autopsy.)

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 1st September 2018 at 03:19 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 1st September 2018, 08:34 AM   #257
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I'm sorry to read that MacDonald has suffered a stroke if that's true. It's a tragedy. The judges themselves don't believe in judicial infallibility, like JTF and Byn.
I am hoping that inmate has at least felt terror similar to what Colette, Jimmie, and Kristy suffered at his hands was he brutally and savagely slaughtered them. I hope full cognitive awareness while being unable to move or speak. That would be some measure of justice.
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 1st September 2018, 12:51 PM   #258
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Blink Once For Yes, Twice For No

BYN: I agree. Imagine if inmate is no longer able to verbalize his gigantic web of lies to case newbies in the media? Ah, sweet justice.

HENRIBOY: That's it? Your response to getting pummeled in the face with logic is to visit crazy town? The Mafia? That's the best ya got? As I've mentioned in prior posts, you're not even trying anymore. How does it feel to rule an island (e.g., MacFantasy Island) of one? Not a single high profile advocate for inmate concurs with your claim that Exhibit E-5 was somehow switched with a broken, bloody arm hair from inmate. Not a single high profile advocate for inmate concurs with your claim that Dwight Smith, Don Harris, Bruce Fowler, and Allen Mazzerolle were not "properly" investigated by BOTH the CID and FBI. Not a single high profile advocate for inmate concurs with your claim that there is evidence linking these individuals to the murders. I could on, but you get the picture.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 1st September 2018 at 01:12 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 2nd September 2018, 03:21 AM   #259
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Not a single high profile advocate for inmate concurs with your claim that Dwight Smith, Don Harris, Bruce Fowler, and Allen Mazzerolle were not "properly" investigated by BOTH the CID and FBI. Not a single high profile advocate for inmate concurs with your claim that there is evidence linking these individuals to the murders. I could on, but you get the picture.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
I'm entitled to my opinion that the FBI switched that mystery hair in Colette's hand. Judge Fox took far too long to have it identified and for a very good reason. It was exculpatory evidence. The FBI hair and fiber department has been corrupt for years and it is now being proved. If you examine the so-called investigating of the suspects by the CID and FBI it's pathetic. They just asked for names and addresses and obtained replies that Stoeckley was unreliable. They were never relentlessly pursued. It was done to disregard leads and suspects. CID agent Ivory asked for Mitchell's alibi and obtained the reply that he might have been staying with his parents on the night of the MacDonald murders!

The trouble is that lawyers are not forensic experts, or professional investigators or professional detectives. They are unable to elicit the truth. There is a bit of background to this at this website:

https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...acdonald/trial

Quote:
Throughout a litany of anomalies committed during the trial, the most glaring was the Army’s alleged holding back of evidence and not allowing the defence to test vital evidence in the laboratory. Defence lawyer Bernie Segal made an accusatory statement saying that in any court the examination of evidence would be a right for the defence.

But in this particular case it was left entirely up to the discretion of Judge Dupree, a man who, in hindsight, should have retired from the case due to his lack of impartiality. Furthermore, the Army’s compete mishandling of the investigation along with positive testimonies of MacDonald’s character were to be kept from the jury.

Years after the trial the defence were able to scrutinise lab notes through the Freedom of Information Act that disclosed important findings that were never presented to the jury.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd September 2018 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 2nd September 2018, 06:06 AM   #260
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Henri if you want to spout off theories then you HAVE TO be able to support the theory when questioned. I have asked you several times....HOW EXACTLY did this switch take place? Murtagh would have had to get near enough to inmate to snag a limb hair that matched in size, shape, and color PLUS get it covered in Colette's blood....yet inmate nor his lawyers know anything about it. HOW Henri?

You know it didn't happen and could not have happened...
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 2nd September 2018, 12:09 PM   #261
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
The Uncontested Ruler Of MacFantasy Island.

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. I get it, your continual reliance on the old bait and switch routine is to avoid answering direct questions and/or evidentiary challenges. When you have no salient retort, simply become a castaway on MacFantasy Island. Yeah, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about CID/FBI conspiracies, but I also have the right to call you out on your penchant for replacing documented fact with imaginary scenarios.

Mixing and matching timelines is one of your old chestnuts. Judge Fox had nothing to do with the delay in the broken, bloody arm hair being sourced to inmate. Of course, you already knew that, but in the spirit of following an accurate timeline...

1) The AFIP began their testing of 29 DNA exhibits in 2000.

2) The majority of the testing was strictly for divisibility analysis.

3) The tragic events of 9/11 delayed this process for a then undetermined period of time.

4) The delay was due to the AFIP being assigned DNA testing on the victims at Ground Zero.

5) Judge Fox, the government, and the defense had no control over the length of this delay.

6) Photographs were taken of inmate's broken, bloody arm hair in 1999. Prior to the DNA testing of this exhibit in 2005, the AFIP compared the hair to the photographs and descriptions (e.g., length, color, type, and condition) put forth by Dillard Browning, Janice Glisson, and Paul Stombaugh. Guess what?

The photographs and descriptions of the hair mirrored one another. Brian Murtagh presented the photographs and AFIP's test results of that hair during closing arguments at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. He expressed the government's position that the condition (e.g., broken, bloody) and location (e.g., clutched in Colette's left hand) of the hair inculpated MacDonald in the murder of his wife.

So, now you have switched from the word "properly" to "relentlessly" in regards to the investigation of the Stoeckley Seven. Ok. As you well know, the CID, FBI, and the Fayetteville Observer all completed thorough investigations of the Stoeckley Seven. No trace evidence from any member of that group was found at the crime scene, every member of that group denied Stoeckley's ever-changing accusations, and the AFIP ended this nonsense by determining that not 1 of the 29 exhibits matched the DNA profile of Stoeckley or Mitchell.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 2nd September 2018 at 12:14 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 2nd September 2018, 03:32 PM   #262
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Henri if you want to spout off theories then you HAVE TO be able to support the theory when questioned. I have asked you several times....HOW EXACTLY did this switch take place? Murtagh would have had to get near enough to inmate to snag a limb hair that matched in size, shape, and color PLUS get it covered in Colette's blood....yet inmate nor his lawyers know anything about it. HOW Henri?

You know it didn't happen and could not have happened...

There were broken and empty vials in the MacDonald case. It's a question of scientific certainty, not trust me I'm supposed to be a forensic expert stuff. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.co...to-lethal.html

Quote:
Jeff Sessions opposes forensic science reform
Much of the forensic science used in American courtrooms is shockingly unreliable. As a result, innocent people go to prison. Some might even be executed. Mother Jones’ Pema Levy explained in August:

As DNA testing has overturned hundreds of convictions based on flawed forensic evidence, scientists and lawyers are increasingly skeptical that culprits can be accurately identified by matching fingerprints, hair samples, bite marks, bullets, and tread marks to suspects. In a landmark 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences found that nuclear DNA testing was the only reliable forensic discipline; those based on expert analysis, as opposed to laboratory testing, weren’t really science at all. The report found that crime labs nationwide lacked uniform standards, practices, accreditation, and oversight. In 2015, the FBI found that its own microscopic hair analysts made errors at least 90 percent of the time in testimony and lab reports.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn’t buying it. Even before assuming the nation’s top law enforcement position, he had a long history of pushing back against forensic reform efforts that might make it more difficult for prosecutors to win convictions. “I don’t think we should suggest that those proven scientific principles that we’ve been using for decades are somehow uncertain,” he said in response to the 2009 NAS report. And now, under Sessions’ leadership, the DOJ has ended an Obama-era commission tasked with fixing forensic science. In its place, Sessions created a new forensic working group led by Ted Hunt, a former Missouri prosecutor who was a member of Obama’s commission. But, as Pema points out, there’s a catch. Hunt actually opposed many of the science-driven reforms that the Obama commission had embraced:

In March 2016, the commission recommended that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch direct forensic experts and attorneys working on behalf of the Justice Department to stop using the phrase “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” The phrase is commonly used on witness stands and in lab reports and gives juries and judges a sense of factuality, but it is subjective and lacks any agreed-upon meaning across the sciences. Hunt was one of two commission members who opposed the recommendation, which Lynch adopted last September.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 2nd September 2018 at 03:36 PM.
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 2nd September 2018, 06:50 PM   #263
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Research

Looking back in my case notes, I came across the following information that may result in Henriboy curling up into a fetal position. So much for Henriboy's regurgitated and laughable claim that the CID and/or FBI didn't pursue leads in a "proper" or "relentless" manner.

In a 1984 appellate brief, the government pointed out that the affidavit of Kathy Smith (e.g., Smith stating that on 2/17/70, she spent the night at Bruce Fowler's residence) was "unrebutted" and that Stoeckley named Smith as a suspect in a 10/21/80 confession. The government added that, "It is also noteworthy that this is the only one of Stoeckley's numerous statements in which she claims that her roommate, Kathy Smith, was present at the crime scene."

The government presented the following from Stoeckley roommate Diane Cazares which bolsters the Fowler/Smith alibi. "According to Cazares, Kathy Smith stayed at the Village Shoppe until it closed at about 11:00 P.M. and left in the company of her boyfriend "Bruce" a civilian who drove a blue 1966 or 1967 Mustang. Cazares helpled to clean up the Village Shoppe and left at about 1:00 A.M. in the company of Don Harris and returned with him to the apartment at 1108 Clark Street. Upon returning to the apartment, Cazares found a note from Kathy Smith informing her that she had gone to Bruce's trailer."

Later in the brief, the government discusses the content of an interview that Fred Bost did with Stoeckley in 1981. Bost discusses this interview in Fatal Justice, but he leaves out several important facets of that interview. The government states, "Concerning her trial testimony, Stoeckley told Bost that to the best of her knowledge, she told the truth on the stand. However, she was afraid because she thought she saw Greg (Mitchell) sitting in the courtroom."

Later in the interview, Stoeckley contradicts her portrayal of Mitchell as frightening individual.

BOST: Was he a loud type?

STOECKLEY: No, but he was full of B.S. and everybody knew it. He usually ended up making a fool of himself.

BOST: Did a lot of talking?

STOECKLEY: A lot of lying. You know, like he'd say he'd done this and done that, and eventually no one believed anything he said.

Bost also asked Stoeckley about the allegation that she was a chronic confessor. Incredibly, Stoeckley stated, "I've never confessed to anything in my life."

Wow. Stoeckley was a complete mess.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 2nd September 2018 at 06:52 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 3rd September 2018, 02:56 AM   #264
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Frankly, I have never heard when Stoeckley ever accused Smith of being a suspect, but I suppose it's possible. It's all obstructing justice and perverting the course of justice charges as its known in the UK, which the FBI doesn't seem to know about. This is some of the crap Judge Dupree presented in a MacDonald appeal in about 1980 with regard to Smith. Have you ever heard of anybody painting a bathroom until 5am. in the morning?

Quote:
Diane Cazares remembers Stoeckley returning to the Village Shoppe with Greg Mitchell shortly before 11:00 p.m. Id., Appendix Vol. IV at Ex. 10. Where Stoeckley went after she left the Village Shoppe and what she did between 11:00 p.m. when Diane Cazares last saw her and 4:00 a.m. the next morning when she returned to her apartment is not known, but the record does reflect affidavits concerning the whereabouts of the other people Stoeckley says went with her to the MacDonald apartment. Shelby Don Harris was with Diane Cazares at her apartment while she was painting the bathroom until about 5:00 a.m. the next morning and Bruce Fowler was with Kathy Smith at her trailer until late in the morning of February 17, 1970. Id. at Ex. 9, 10. Dwight Edwin Smith does not recall where he was on February 16-17, 1970 but denies any participation in or knowledge of the murders. Id., Appendix Vol. I at Ex. X. Greg Mitchell also did not recall where he was on the night of the murders. He denies being with Stoeckley that night but cannot remember for certain whether he had gone out or was at home with his parents. Id. at Ex. W; Government's Response to Motion to Set Aside Conviction, Ex. D at Attachment 4.
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 September 2018, 10:23 AM   #265
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
HB's Beginning To Curl Up In A Fetal Position

HENRIBOY: You suppose it's possible, eh? LOL. Let me remind you that on 10/21/80, your favorite serial confessor signed an affidavit claiming that Kathy Smith was present at the crime scene on 2/17/70. Do you know who witnessed this signed confession? Yup, your favorite conspiracy nut, Ted Gunderson. Like I've said a dozen times over, you're not even trying anymore.

Oh, before I forget, no commentary on Bost's 1981 interview with Stoeckley?

Later in the brief, the government discusses the content of an interview that Fred Bost did with Stoeckley in 1981. Bost discusses this interview in Fatal Justice, but he leaves out several important facets of that interview. The government states, "Concerning her trial testimony, Stoeckley told Bost that to the best of her knowledge, she told the truth on the stand. However, she was afraid because she thought she saw Greg (Mitchell) sitting in the courtroom."

Later in the interview, Stoeckley contradicts her portrayal of Mitchell as frightening individual.

BOST: Was he a loud type?

STOECKLEY: No, but he was full of B.S. and everybody knew it. He usually ended up making a fool of himself.

BOST: Did a lot of talking?

STOECKLEY: A lot of lying. You know, like he'd say he'd done this and done that, and eventually no one believed anything he said.

Bost also asked Stoeckley about the allegation that she was a chronic confessor. Incredibly, Stoeckley stated, "I've never confessed to anything in my life."

Wow. Stoeckley was a complete mess.

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 4th September 2018, 03:26 AM   #266
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
I always remember the silly remark Judge Dupree made in the 1985 MacDonald appeal that Stoeckley and Mitchell were probably courting on a bridge somewhere during the MacDonald murders! There isn't a shred of evidence to back that up, though JTF usually comes up with some cock and bull story to agree that Mitchell was supposed to have borrowed a car.
Judge Dupree was a silly fool, and it gets worse.
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 September 2018, 04:48 AM   #267
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Troll On The Run

HENRIBOY: So, you're not going to respond to any of my talking points. Got it. Still waiting on that evidentiary item that was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven.

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 4th September 2018, 04:58 AM   #268
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There were broken and empty vials in the MacDonald case.
Actually, I have never heard that there were any "broken" vials, but there were several vials that were emptied during testing. HOWEVER, when a vial was emptied there were accompanying bench notes stating what was done with the contents. For example, "hair fragment mounted on slide" or other similar comments. Bench notes also described in detail what content had been found in the vials.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
It's a question of scientific certainty, not trust me I'm supposed to be a forensic expert stuff.
No kidding, scientific certainty? roflmao! These comments STILL do not answer the question I asked you. Since the evidence, bench notes, etc describe the "mystery hair" in detail (including that it was covered in dried blood and had been found "clutched" in Colette's hand along with a splinter from the murder club), I am demanding that you answer my question with something that comes at least close to making sense.

You have claimed at various times that either Murtagh, Malone, or Judge Fox somehow "swapped" the hair fragment that made up E-5. So, tell me how they got a limb hair fragment from inmate and were able to match it in size, shape, color, and dried blood without inmate having a clue? Nonsensical claims that somehow someone just happened to swap out the hairs and it just magically was inmate's hair is beyond ignorance. It is no where near "reasonable". Perhaps you have forgotten but the entire packaging and preparing of evidence to be sent to the AFIP was filmed and monitored by the defense.
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 4th September 2018, 08:46 AM   #269
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by byn63 View Post
Nonsensical claims that somehow someone just happened to swap out the hairs and it just magically was inmate's hair is beyond ignorance. It is no where near "reasonable". Perhaps you have forgotten but the entire packaging and preparing of evidence to be sent to the AFIP was filmed and monitored by the defense.
Real proof, or being gullible? Where is the film or videotape?

There is background information to all this at this website:

http://www.truthmegasite.com/dr-jeff...govt-cover-up/
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 September 2018, 09:42 AM   #270
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Real proof, or being gullible? Where is the film or videotape?
You STILL have not answered the question henri. all your nonsenscial changing the subject is NOT repeat NOT answering the question.

YOU CLAIM that someone changed the E-5 mystery hair. So, HOW? Tell us EXACTLY how someone got a piece of a limb hair from inmate without his knowing about it? Amongst all the evidence there was no mention of another hair even similar in description, shape, size, color with dried blood on it. E-5 was a 100% DNA match to inmate.

So tell us exactly how any of the 3 persons you have claimed to have done the switch out of hairs could have gotten close enough to inmate to grab a limb hair, AND it just randomly matched the description of E-5 including size, shape, color, length, AND how did that hair then get Colette's dried blood on it? Inmate would not be near any of those 3 persons without his lawyer(s) and inmate and any of his lawyers would have seen even the slightest bump and snatch.

Stop giving us nonsense that is so beyond unreasonable doubt....answer the question you have been asked or admit that your "I believe" is just another TROLL speak ignorance of the real world but boy I enjoy ticking people off ploy.

Oh, and just because YOU have not been privileged to see the videotape or photographs doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The courts ORDERED that the process of packing the exihibits for AFIP be filmed, therefore it was filmed. The DEFENSE was allowed to send someone to witness the packing of exhibits. Did they? I have no idea, but if they did not that is their problem. It doesn't invalidate the DNA testing (and filmed or not filmed doesn't affect the validity of the testing either).

Last edited by byn63; 4th September 2018 at 09:45 AM. Reason: additional statement
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 4th September 2018, 10:10 AM   #271
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,557
I've lurked in this thread for years, but I've only ever posted once or twice, because there are several people who are considerably more knowledgeable than I about the case. But I have a question that's been bugging me for a while. Why did inmate place the pajama top on Colette and stab it with the ice pick? This doesn't seem like a very helpful strategy in fabricating evidence of intruders, but the forensic evidence clearly indicates that he did so. Any thoughts?

Also, @Henri: A conspiracist web site?? Really?? I think JTF is right; you're not even trying.
__________________
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 4th September 2018, 10:30 AM   #272
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 481
SpitfireIX:

I believe there was blood on the top and that did not fit in with Inmate's fairy tale. So, he had to account for the blood on his pajama top (which was supposedly wrapped around his wrists whilst fighting imaginary intruders). His last stop was the master bedroom, where he'd brought Colette back from Kris' room; he put the pj top on her, did the stabbing and thought that would explain the blood.
desmirelle 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 September 2018, 02:37 PM   #273
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Rationale

Piggybacking on Desmirelle's post, inmate knew that he had to inflict overkill wounds on his family, so he proceeded to stab Colette 21 times with the ice pick. Considering that inmate wasn't wearing his glasses and the room was completely dark, he may have forgotten that he placed his pajama top on his wife's chest. He may have placed the pajama top on her chest, moved about the apartment, and then returned to the darken room to complete his horrific act.

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 4th September 2018, 03:53 PM   #274
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,557
Thanks; those are both plausible explanations.
__________________
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 September 2018, 02:25 AM   #275
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
But I have a question that's been bugging me for a while. Why did inmate place the pajama top on Colette and stab it with the ice pick? This doesn't seem like a very helpful strategy in fabricating evidence of intruders, but the forensic evidence clearly indicates that he did so. Any thoughts?

Also, @Henri: A conspiracist web site?? Really?? I think JTF is right; you're not even trying.
There is no evidence that MacDonald ever did stab the pajama top with an ice pick. That's guesswork. Fred Bost had a theory that the holes were made in the pajama top when MacDonald was stationary and unconscious on the floor, probably by the female suspects, which makes sense to me. I have always understood that MacDonald put the pajama top on Colette because her naked breasts were exposed. I expect he explained it all, probably at the Grand Jury, or trial, or even the Article 32 proceedings, but I'm not in the mood for finding the references at the moment.
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 September 2018, 02:34 AM   #276
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,563
There is a bit of waffle about this matter in the short study by Fred Bost:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ort-study.html

Quote:
CLAIM 9 -- STABBING THRU THE PAJAMA TOP

The government claims that Jeffrey MacDonald forgot he had placed his pajama top on his wife's body and that he later proceeded to stab through it with an ice pick. They say because the pajama top was not perfectly flat on the body, but was in folds, the 48 circular holes in the fabric could be matched to the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. Officials contended that if a true fight occurred the garment holes would have to be torn and jagged. For the holes to end up "round," officials say, the pajama top would have to be on an unresisting body. It is impossible for scientists to duplicate the fight described by MacDonald, so the government contention remains unproven.

The government's argument can be stolen by the defense. According to MacDonald, he was unconscious for awhile in the hallway. No tears in fabric would result if he were attacked at that time with an ice pick. An unknown number of thrusts through the pajama top twisted around his wrists could have produced 48 holes. Since the ice pick wounds in both Colette and Kristen were for the most part superficial, most of the thrusts into MacDonald's pajama top might have been specifically aimed at the garment and equally hesitant. If so, they would not have penetrated fully through the twisted cloth. Other thrusts might have been up to the hilt, penetrating flesh. MacDonald's wounds were never probed for depth. Wounds that did result, because they weren't resisted, could have ended up close together as a result of repetitious thrusts into the unresisting body -- something like the four curiously close wounds he suffered on his chest (SHORT #37).

Such a thought is merely conjecture, but so is the "physical proof" claimed by the government. Two FBI laboratory technicians folded and manipulated MacDonald's pajama top so that its 48 ice pick holes lined up with the 21 ice pick wounds in Colette's chest. This was done with the pajama top configured roughly in the position in which it was photographed on her body. That is the extent of the proof.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 5th September 2018 at 02:36 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 September 2018, 04:20 AM   #277
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There is a bit of waffle about this matter in the short study by Fred Bost:


Ah ha! So you admit that the short study is a "bit of waffle"! In American parlance "waffle" does not mean a good thing. Perhaps you have forgotten, but the short study is more or less an "outline" of the piece of crap Fatal Justice. Many of us case researchers have spent years FACT CHECKING Fatal Joke...and that is what it is A JOKE from the B-Movie cheesy Chinese Restaurant in a foggy alley to the cut and paste presentation.

With all the errors we have found, we calculated that there is AT LEAST 1 error for every 5 pages of prose. FJ is full of misrepresentation, cut and paste presentation, revisionist history, and outright lies. The short study is just a shorter version of the same crap.
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 5th September 2018, 06:18 AM   #278
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Bost and Potter Wasted 10 Years Part I

Byn ain't kidding. The following two posts only cover a mere 3 pages of Fatal Justice, but this slanted prose is strewn throughout this mess of a book.

"Now, FOIA papers not released by the FBI until 1996, seventeen years after trial, reveal that when Murtagh learned the defense team had found out about the black wool, he asked that the FBI lab retest all fibers from the club."

COMMENT: Unlike other claims in their book, the authors don't provide any citations to these FOIA papers in the endnotes. There is nothing in the documented record that corroborates this claim and Murtagh's request to retest all the fibers from the club was NOT due to the defense team's discovery. Murtagh had the fibers retested by the FBI due to the pending appellate hearing before Judge Dupree. In this instance, the authors managed to combine assumption, innuendo, and distortion with a potential (e.g., FOIA papers) falsehood.

"Like Frier, Malone did not address purple cotton in his findings even though he was asked to compare all the fibers."

COMMENT: That is false. Frier and Malone were asked to compare SPECIFIC fiber evidence in this case and Malone did state that a purple cotton fiber was found on Colette's body.

"Rhonda Rigsby, later interviewing Malone for her research project, asked him whether he had examined the fibers on the club. He said he had done so. She asked him if he had found any pajama top fibers. He said he had not. The two, and only two, dark fibers on the club, according to all released FBI reports, remain black wool, contrary to the government's "most important" claim at trial."

COMMENT: More examples of innuendo, distortion, and falsehoods. The authors clearly imply that Malone was provided with all of the fiber evidence found on the club. The documented record demonstrates that this did not occur. In 1974, Shirley Green labeled debris found on the club as FBI Exhibit Q89 and she placed two purple cotton fibers in a pillbox. Paul Stombaugh subsequently sourced those fibers to MacDonald's pajama top. The authors know that this occurred and the following is included in their endnotes.

"The debris from the club had been presented to Frier and Bond in three forms: in a vial, in a pillbox, and on a slide. Apparently, the two threads thought to be from the pajama top were residing in the pillbox, because Kathy Bond's initial inventory note, before any actual analyses took place, stated: "(2)Pillbox contains 2 short pc's sew thr (like blue PJ top)." An element that causes further confusion is her following notation, "(left as is)" Did this mean that Frier and Bond ignored the fibers in the pillbox, and never examined them, choosing only to examine the other materials? Perhaps."

COMMENT: The authors can't even get the little details right. Shirley Green, not Kathy Bond assisted Frier in the 1979 fiber re-analysis. The bigger issue is why the authors ignore their own endnotes in relation to Malone's 1990 fiber analysis? The documented record clearly demonstrates that in 1989, the FBI was still in possession of the Q89 pajama fibers in the pillbox. In preparation for the hearing before Judge Dupree, the FBI took two color photographs of the pajama fibers in the pillbox and they were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. The authors were aware of this FACT, but flat-out ignored it because it further debunked their claim that no pajama fibers were found on the club.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th September 2018 at 06:34 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 5th September 2018, 06:24 AM   #279
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,208
Bost And Potter Wasted 10 Years Part II

"Why did the army lawmen hide so much evidence"

COMMENT: The appellate courts do not agree with this assertion.

"and charge MacDonald, when it would have been so easy to pick up the Stoeckley group and interrogate them, especially after they learned that Stoeckley had been out all night the murder night, had been on drugs that night, and strangely had no alibi only for the few hours before and after the murders?"

COMMENT: Incredible. First of all, there was no Stoeckley "group" to pick up and interrogate. Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told Pat Reese that she had no memory of the ENTIRE evening of the murders and for most of the following morning. The first affiliation of Stoeckley with a specific "group" was when Prince Beasley told the CID that he saw Stoeckley get out of a car that also contained two men. Beasley, however, was unable to obtain the names of the individuals in the car with Stoeckley. One can have problems with William Ivory's cursory follow-up interview with Stoeckley, but until Stoeckley's polygraph examination in 1971, there was no tangible group of people that the CID could focus on.

"When the CID learned about the blond wig hair in the hairbrush and the unmatched hairs in each murder victims' hands, they had strong reason to believe MacDonald was telling the truth about seeing a female intruder,"

COMMENT: The authors are not only engaging in innuendo and distortion of the documented record, they are mixing and matching timelines. As an organization, the CID didn't learn about the saran fibers nor did they learn about the fibers from Colette's fall until the FBI analyzed some of the fibers in this case in 1990. Peter Kearns asked Janice Glisson to do some hair comparisons and during this process, she came across the saran fibers and fibers that were later sourced to Colette's fall. In a 1990 affidavit, Glisson stated that since Kearns asked for hair comparisons and that she did not feel that the fibers were of any significance, she didn't tell him about her analysis of the fibers in question.

In regards to the unmatched hairs, the content of Glisson's lab note was unknown to CID investigators and the first time these hairs were legally addressed was in 1997. I would argue that the authors were engaging in grandiose thinking when they state that the CID believed that MacDonald was telling the truth about Ms. Acid Is Groovy, Kill The Pigs. The authors do not provide a single example of a CID investigator who believed that MacDonald told the truth about anything in this case. No quotes from an investigator. No quotes from a lab technician. Nothing.

"I retained retired CID agent Bill McCoy to look for the reason." Several sentences later, "After reading the heart of our files, McCoy reacted strongly. "This is not just sloppiness," he said, "this was deliberate." "It couldn't have been simply inexperienced bumbling?" "Some of it, early on, yes," he said. "The crime scene tells you that, But then it got deliberate. These hairs under the kids' fingernails...." He seemed at a loss for words. "This note by the lab tech that these aren't going to be reported-who ordered the tech not to report this? Do you know." "No."

COMMENT: The reader has no idea what the "heart" of the author's files consists of, so one has to guess as to the nature of the material. McCoy's commentary on Glisson's lab note is an impulsive reaction to seemingly ominous language. The authors do not provide any information on any potential contemplation by McCoy, so the reader has to assume that his first reaction was his final thought on the note. What McCoy didn't understand was that Glisson was simply stating that her supervisor would be reporting her conclusions to investigators. Dillard Browning was the CID's hair/fiber expert and Glisson's supervisor. In keeping with their conspiracy theory, the authors certainly were not going to present this prosaic explanation to McCoy. Better to let McCoy's investigative mind run wild and allow him to delve into other aspects of the case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 5th September 2018 at 06:27 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 5th September 2018, 07:50 AM   #280
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
These hairs under the kids' fingernails...." He seemed at a loss for words. "This note by the lab tech that these aren't going to be reported-who ordered the tech not to report this? Do you know." "No."
In fact, I believe the exact words in Glisson's notes are "are not going to be reported by me" which is a different meaning then "not going to be reported".

Just one of thousands of ways that inmate and his attorney's have "played" with the facts of the case. I personally see it as "consciousness of guilt".
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
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 10:02 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.