Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

Carol White had the right idea in that 1989 internet article about the MacDonald case:

Perhaps there was more to the story than Stoeckley knew
or wished to tell. It is possible that higher-ups in the operation
feared that Dr. MacDonald was in a position to inform on
them. In any event, after the murder, a coverup would have
been in their interest, and that is precisely what occurred. It
would appear that the Justice Department was fully cooperative
in this.

 

[byn63]

There is no lab document which sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect because any such exculpatory evidence was deliberately and illegally censored by the prosecution

No, there is no such documentation because no such evidence existed.

like the skin under the fingernail which that bent ...... somehow manged to lose.

The "alleged" skin in the fingernail scrapings was never examined by an expert so we do not know if it was skin or if it was not skin. The scrapings were placed in a vial, and when it was examined no skin was found. This makes it just as likely that it was NOT SKIN. However, inmate was not convicted on this skin or lack there of....

Plus, since inmate had fingernail scratches down his chest if it was skin it was his skin.

It was years later after the trial that MacDonald lawyers were able to find out about the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and around Colette's arm and mouth with no known source from the Freedom of Information Act,

I don't know that the defense never heard of the dark wool fibers found on the club through the FOIA or not, really doesn't matter.....UNSOURCED does not automatically (especially in this case) mean the fibers were NOT from that house.

Inmate rid himself of his families belongings long before the fibers could be compared to things from the home. There is plenty of evidence to show there were dark wool items in the home that were long gone by the time the evidence evaluation was to begin. Evidence such as home videos and photos of Colette, Kimmie, and Kristy wearing dark wool hats, scarfs, etc. Not to mention crime scene photos with a crocheted afghan on the sofa that was predominately dark wool. (yes, I know it was crocheted, I have one made in the same pattern, popular in the sixties, designed to use up yarns from other projects {the flowers} and surrounded by dark wool for the borders)

which Murtagh opposed at the time./QUOTE]

No he did not - and he could not have - the MOST that could happen was that the office with the files could request that certain information be redacted and the guidelines about what can and cannot be redacted and for what reasons are very strict. The rules for answering FOIA requests are the same throughout the USG and everyone abides by them - up to and including a specific office that handles the FOIA for its agency.

That points to an intruder wearing black clothing.

that is one hell of a leap and pretty damn ridiculous. the family owned dark woolen items and inmate got rid of them before the fiber analysis could take place. it really is that simple and it shows that inmate was guilty because if he had nothing to hide he would not have gotten rid of everything so quickly. consciousness of guilt in flashing neon!

Similarly with the mystery blonde synthetic hair- like fibers which point directly at Helena Stoeckley,

More ridiculous comments. The blonde synthetic fiber came from more than one source which ELIMINATES Helena's wig that she ALWAYS INSISTED SHE DID NOT HAVE ON THAT NIGHT BECAUSE GREG MITCHELL DIDN'T LIKE HOW SHE LOOKED IN IT. Plus, the fibers were matched to doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection AND AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES THE FIBERS WERE MADE OF SARAN AND COSMETIC WIGS WERE NOT MADE OF SARAN AT THAT TIME. IF they had been the defense would have been able to find one, and they were unable to do so.....again, because they didn't exist. THIS FACT ALSO ELIMINATES HELENA AND HER WIG.

 

[Henri McPhee]

More ridiculous comments. The blonde synthetic fiber came from more than one source which ELIMINATES Helena's wig that she ALWAYS INSISTED SHE DID NOT HAVE ON THAT NIGHT BECAUSE GREG MITCHELL DIDN'T LIKE HOW SHE LOOKED IN IT. Plus, the fibers were matched to doll wigs in the FBI exemplar collection AND AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES THE FIBERS WERE MADE OF SARAN AND COSMETIC WIGS WERE NOT MADE OF SARAN AT THAT TIME. IF they had been the defense would have been able to find one, and they were unable to do so.....again, because they didn't exist. THIS FACT ALSO ELIMINATES HELENA AND HER WIG.

You keep insisting that Helena Stoeckley was a liar and yet you believe what she said about Greg Mitchell supposedly saying that he didn't like her wearing a wig. What the soldier said isn't evidence as one British judge has said in the past.

The normal cosmetic wig may not have had saran, though there is no conclusive evidence of that, but Helena's wig was a cheap witchcraft, or joke shop, type of wig which probably came from the Far East, and it was not in an FBI exemplar collection.

There is some background information to all this in an article by Cohen of the Wall Street Journal in, I think, 1997. Aljazeera TV in English has been most severe in its criticism of the FBI hair and fiber department in the past, as it has been of the CIA work and torture in Central America, and of Murtagh's work in the Lockerbie case. It's probably why aljazeera has been quietly taken off the air in Freeview in the UK:

The hair, Mr. Silverglate suggested, might have belonged to Helena Stoeckley, who at the time of the murders was a 19-year-old Fayetteville resident and heavy drug user who had admitted that she owned and wore a blond wig and at times had confessed to being involved in the crime. (Other times, she said she took too many drugs to remember -- and the judge had ruled her testimony inadmissible.) She died in 1983.

To evaluate these materials for the government, the prosecution in 1990 brought in Special Agent Malone, then the top hair-and-fiber examiner in the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime lab and a near-legend among prosecutors for his powerful performances as an expert witness.

In reviewing the evidence, Mr. Malone discovered two additional blond strands, one 24 inches and one 9 inches long. He determined that the dark fibers were ordinary household debris and that the synthetic hair -- made of a substance known as saran -- came from dolls that had been owned by the MacDonald girls. He further asserted in an affidavit that the saran fibers were "not consistent with the type of fibers normally used in the manufacture of wigs."

When defense lawyers pointed out that the government hadn't proved the synthetic fibers actually came from dolls, Mr. Malone offered another, more detailed, affidavit, dated May 21, 1991. In it, he said he had consulted "numerous standard references which are routinely used in the textile industry and as source material in the FBI Laboratory" and that "none of these standard references reflect the use of saran fibers in cosmetic wigs." A reason, he suggested, was that saran couldn't be made in the "tow" -- or clumped -- form essential to the manufacture of human wigs.

He summed up by saying, "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the ... blond saran fibers in this case are not cosmetic wig fibers."

Mr. Malone's willingness to reach such an unequivocal conclusion was a hallmark of his work, and it had already made him a controversial figure among forensic scientists. He didn't respond to repeated requests, by phone and in writing, to comment for this article.

 

[JTF]

Squirming Won't Work

HENRIBOY: Your habitual squirming won't work. You have admitted that you cannot produce a lab document sourcing a single evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. Compare that to the 1,100 inculpatory evidentiary items presented at trial AND the inculpatory DNA test results.

I'm not a math major, but there is a major numerical gulf between 1,000 and ZERO. You have failed to meet the parameters of my simple challenge, so your posts are nothing more than true crime trolling. For the past decade plus, you have embraced innuendo, supposition and fabrication over documented fact.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

HENRIBOY: Your habitual squirming won't work. You have admitted that you cannot produce a lab document sourcing a single evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. Compare that to the 1,100 inculpatory evidentiary items presented at trial AND the inculpatory DNA test results.

I'm not a math major, but there is a major numerical gulf between 1,000 and ZERO. You have failed to meet the parameters of my simple challenge, so your posts are nothing more than true crime trolling. For the past decade plus, you have embraced innuendo, supposition and fabrication over documented fact.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

You can't just say that because there was 1100 evidentiary items that those items were necessarily inculpatory. None of them were inculpatory. That's like a juror saying because there was OMG blood, blood, that a defendant must be guilty. That's a logical fallacy as Hank keeps mentioning.

If there was any real proof that MacDonald did it I would stop posting on the internet forums immediately. It's just the same with the JonBenet Ramsey case. There is no real proof. MacDonald was screwed. The real culprits have got away with murder thanks to an incompetent and probaby corrupt Army CID and FBI.

This is part of an intellectual article about the way the FBI have fabricated evidence from the Penn State Law eLibrary:

Now consider United States v. MacDonald,83 one of the most
storied cases in the annals of crime.84 There, an examiner
testified that “this hair—in conducting a comparison examination
with the comparison microscope—microscopically matched the
head hairs of Colette MacDonald.”85 This statement was not
deemed erroneous, since it made no assertion beyond the bare
fact that the questioned and known hairs matched. But upon
being asked on cross-examination why he was not concerned
about the fact that the questioned hair was entangled with a
thread, the examiner explained that he was examining it only to
reach a “conclusion” about “its origin.”86 How it had been stored
was irrelevant to that question. The FBI, the NCDL, and the IP
all classified the exchange as a Type I error—an express or
implied assertion “that the evidentiary hair could be associated
with a specific individual to the exclusion of all others.” Never
mind that the examiner had not testified that the hair originated
from Colette MacDonald or anyone else. In this instance, the
reviewers’ judgment that this examiner made a source attribution
of any kind seems questionable.

Moving to some examples of Type II errors, an examiner in
an Arkansas case testified “it is possible for two different people’s
hair to exhibit the same uniqueness, but it’s very rare. . . . t
would be a very low degree of probability of it happening.”87 This
statement does not seem to supply a statistical weight or
probability, but it unequivocally expresses “an opinion as to the
likelihood or rareness of the positive association.” As such, it
clearly exemplifies one category of a Type II error.88 Compare this
with the report in MacDonald stating that “[a] forcibly removed
Caucasian head hair . . . exhibits the same microscopic
characteristics as hairs in the K2 specimen. Accordingly, this hair
is consistent with having originated from Kimberly MacDonald,
the identified source of the K2 specimen.”89

This, the FBI concluded, was also a Type II error. But why?
Again, the examiner had not “assigned to the positive association
a statistical weight or probability.”90 Additionally, he had not
“provided a likelihood that the questioned hair originated from a
86. MacDonald, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64572, at *6; see also Kaye, supra
note 84 (detailing the cross-examination and testimony with further specificity).

Of course, one can criticize phrases like “consistent with” and
“match” as creating an unacceptable risk that—in the absence of
clarification on direct examination, cross-examination, or by
judicial instruction—jurors will think the words connote a source
attribution. But this would make their use a Type I error, which
does not seem to be the FBI’s position.95 More importantly,
arguments of this sort stray from determinations that an
examiner has made statements that “exceed the limits of science”
to judgments that an examiner has made statements that are
scientifically acceptable but prone to being misunderstood.
91. MacDonald, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64572, at *5.

 

[JTF]

Squirming Part Deux

HENRIBOY: Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and two daughters, so the byproduct of that conviction is that the State's evidence was inculpatory. You do understand that your hero is currently rotting in prison due to the inculpatory nature of the evidence presented at trial?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

HENRIBOY: Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and two daughters, so the byproduct of that conviction is that the State's evidence was inculpatory. You do understand that your hero is currently rotting in prison due to the inculpatory nature of the evidence presented at trial?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

There never was inculpatory nature of the evidence presented at trial. MacDonald was screwed. The prosecution case came from Stombaugh of the FBI who testified that MacDonald hit MacDonald with a hairbrush and then Colette murdered one of the little girls and then MacDonald self -inflicted his wounds. As Murtagh said in court, though the jury were never told this, Stombaugh only said it could be and the same with the threads. It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.

Some of the other so-called evidence was that there was an FBI reconstruction and that there were pajama fibers on the murder weapon, which turned out not to be true. Exculpatory evidence like the black wool fibers with no known source and the the blond hair-like fibers, and the blood and pajama fibers where MacDonald fell unconscious, were illegally withheld from the MacDonald jury at the 1979 trial. Hair and fiber evidence was presented which exceeds the limits of science.

Judge Dupree then clearly erroneously reused to admit the statements of Helena Stoeckley, who had previously named names, and only allowed anti-MacDonald psychiatric testimony to be shown to the jury. It was the wrong verdict and a mistrial. The Article 32 proceedings in 1970 were fair and just. You can't then just then say MacDonald was a murdering bastard with no supporting evidence.

There is some background to this in an article in People magazine in August 3 2016:

Despite so-called “newly discovered evidence” his lawyers claimed in a June filing to have uncovered, the initial trial evidence against former Green Beret surgeon Jeffrey MacDonald remains “strong” and his 1979 conviction should stand, prosecutors argued in an 80-page response brief filed Tuesday.

MacDonald, 72, was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters on Feb. 17, 1970.

“Without any newly discovered evidence that is reliable, credible and probative of innocence, the district court properly found that ‘MacDonald has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murder of his wife and two daughters,’ ” assistant U.S. attorneys Leslie Cooley and Jennifer May-Parker wrote.

MacDonald is seeking to have his conviction overturned for the alleged murders. His case is currently before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as an “actual innocence” claim. In order to prevail, his attorneys have to prove that the “newly discovered evidence,” if proven and viewed in light of the “evidence as a whole,” would mean no “reasonable factfinder” would find him guilty of the offenses.

Hart Miles, one of MacDonald’s attorneys, tells PEOPLE he wasn’t surprised by the content of the new brief.

“The fact that the government continues to deny that any credible evidence of innocence even exists should not surprise anyone,” he tells PEOPLE.

MacDonald’s lawyers’ 64-page brief in June detailed evidence they say proves his innocence. Some was discovered through DNA technology that was not available at the time of his trial but others, they allege, was withheld from them during the trial by prosecutors and was obtained by his attorneys only through Freedom of Information Act requests.

MacDonald was sentenced to three consecutive life terms in prison. Prosecutors said he murdered his family after becoming enraged when his youngest daughter, Kristen, 2, wet the bed he shared with his wife, Colette, 26. They said he wounded himself to make it look as if he was a victim as well and added there were no signs of intruders.

MacDonald says he fell asleep on the living room couch after discovering the bed-wetting and put Kristen back in her own bed. He says he then woke to screams from his wife and daughter Kimberley, 5.Despite so-called “newly discovered evidence” his lawyers claimed in a June filing to have uncovered, the initial trial evidence against former Green Beret surgeon Jeffrey MacDonald remains “strong” and his 1979 conviction should stand, prosecutors argued in an 80-page response brief filed Tuesday.

MacDonald, 72, was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters on Feb. 17, 1970.

 

[Border Reiver]

Yes, we can say there was inculpatory evidence, and that MacDonald is a murdering bastard - he was convicted by a jury of his peers and the conviction was upheld on appeal.

You fail legal reasoning.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Yes, we can say there was inculpatory evidence, and that MacDonald is a murdering bastard - he was convicted by a jury of his peers and the conviction was upheld on appeal.

You fail legal reasoning.

Juries are notoriously uncertain, and what one jury might decide another jury on the same facts might decide differently to-morrow. The appeals in 1985 and 1992 were decided by the same biased trial judge, Judge Dupree. Exculpatory evidence was disregarded. The 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court just rubber stamped the wrong verdict. The real culprits, like Mazerolle, have got away with murder thanks to bad police, and FBI work, and an FBI media campaign against MacDonald.

This point of law was discussed in the Steve Thomas deposition in the JonBenet Ramsey case in 2001:

17 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) "It should be a
18 lesson to communities across America not to
19 allow any politician to become an emperor and
20 merely interpret the law as he or she sees
21 fit."
22 Have I read that correctly?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you also agree that
25 communities across America should not allow

438

1 any police officer to become an emperor and
2 merely interpret the law as he or she sees
3 fit?
4 MR. DIAMOND: Objection.
5 Argumentative. You may answer.
6 A. In the context, again, please, Mr.
7 Wood.
8 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Yes, just as a
9 statement of principle that communities across
10 America should not allow any police officer
11 to become an emperor and merely interpret the
12 law as he or she sees fit, it would apply to
13 politicians and police officers, wouldn't it?
14 A. Non committal on that.
15 Q. You don't have a position on the
16 difference between a politician and police
17 officer in terms of interpreting the law?
18 A. I'll give it some thought.

 

[Border Reiver]

Juries are notoriously uncertain, and what one jury might decide another jury on the same facts might decide differently to-morrow.

Henri, that is irrelevant to MacDonald's status. In this case the jury convicted him. He appealed - several times - and lost.

You keep saying that there is no inculpatory evidence. Since he has been convicted, the jury disagrees with you. You are allowed to disagree, but need to remember that your opinion does change the jury's verdict. Endlessly repeating that the judge was corrupt is simply wrong.

 

[HSienzant]

You appear not to understand that the quotes you provide from Penn Law Library argues against there being any error on the part of Stombaugh.

Thanks for that.

Hank

 

[ScottPletcher]

From "Carol White" article, from which Henri quoted:

Most incredible of all is the fact that the group of attackers
described by him was known to police authorities as a practicing
Satanic cult

That's a false claim, and quite bizarre besides. Beasley thought MacD's description vaguely resembled Stoeckley -- as indeed it was vague enough to match a large percentage of American women alive at that time. Beasley never stated Stoeckley was a "practicing Satanist". Those bizarre claims came later from MacD's team.

Besides, anything from a Lyndon Larouche publication really can't be take seriously anyway.

 

[JTF]

Conspiracy Nut

The documented record demonstrates that Stoeckley's first reference to being part of a satanic cult was in 1981. Why did it take Stoeckley 11 years to bring forth this claim? Ted Gunderson is the name, and conspiracy theories were his game.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html

Gunderson's influence had little impact on inmate's legal fate for he couldn't conjure up a lab document that sourced a single evidentiary item to Helena Stoeckley. Interesting how Gunderson and every other MacDonald advocate couldn't come up with the forensic goods needed to set the Ice Pick Baby Killer free.

 

[Henri McPhee]

You appear not to understand that the quotes you provide from Penn Law Library argues against there being any error on the part of Stombaugh.

Thanks for that.

Hank

Without saying that the FBI hair and fiber work was junk science the Penn Library did say that Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be Colette's and Kristen's hair and maybe, and perhaps it was, and maybe it wasn't. That isn't facts and evidence to put a man into prison for thirty years.

I don't know if Satanism exists. All I know is that Helena Stoeckley said she was involved in it, and there were police and others in the area who agreed with her.

With regard to this saran business in the MacDonald case blonde hair-like fibers I still think the matter needs to be further investigated. It's true that saran is used in the manufacture of doll hair, but there is no firm evidence those fibers ever came from MacDonald dolls. There are numerous references on Google to saran wraps in the manufacture of wigs, particularly in areas like Broadway and films and TV. This is one reference:

https://fabricnfiction.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/to-make-a-wig/

The first step to any custom wig is, of course, a good fit. This ensures that the wig is comfortable, doesn’t constrict, and will want to stay on the head with minimal pinning and gluing. To get a good fit, we take (or clients take themselves) a head wrap by covering the head (only the hair part, of course!) in Saran wrap, and taping it down with clear tape and drawing on the hairline in Sharpie. The tape means that the Saran wrap will hold the form of the head once it is removed. This allows us to get not only the measurements of the head, but the shape, which is much more important for a good fit. It also allows us to follow a clients hairline exactly, which will help the piece look more natural on them.

 

[Border Reiver]

Henri,

Your reference is about the use of saran wrap in the fitting of a wig, not saran fibers used to make some wigs.

 

[BStrong]

Carol White had the right idea in that 1989 internet article about the MacDonald case:

Considering that the CO of the 5th SFG (Special Forces Group) in Vietnam couldn't get away clean on killing a VC double agent in the middle of a war, I'd bet that grand conspiracy at Bragg is a no-goer out of the gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Rheault

 

[byn63]

https://fabricnfiction.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/to-make-a-wig/

roflmao! this is about using saran wrap to essentially make a mold of the head so that the wig's webbing can be fit properly. this IS NOT ABOUT SARAN FIBER. Cosmetic wigs were not made with saran fiber (saran could not be used to make a tow fiber which is essential to create cosmetic wigs) in the late 1960's through 1970's.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The documented record demonstrates that Stoeckley's first reference to being part of a satanic cult was in 1981. Why did it take Stoeckley 11 years to bring forth this claim? Ted Gunderson is the name, and conspiracy theories were his game.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html

I don't think it's right judgment to come on the internet and say that satanism doesn't exist. There are numerous references to it on Google of it existing in America and Australia, and of prominent people and celebrities and perhaps of Lockheed Martin being involved in it. It seems to be connected to pedophilia. Personally, I think it's connected to the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

That's like saying with a straight face that child prostitution doesn't happen, or bugging, or barking dogs day and night. People only say that because it's never reported on Fox News, and nothing ever gets done about it unless it becomes a public scandal.

I must say that Larouche had the right idea about the MacDonald case. Quite honestly I don't know much about him. I don't know why everybody seems to dismiss anything he says out of hand at the mention of his name.

This is from a Larouche article about the MacDonald case which makes sense to me:

www.angelfire.com/electronic2/kc_jones/009.HTM

Stoeckley described how drugs were being transported from
Vietnam to U.S. Army bases, hidden in the stomachs of dead
soldiers. Only after the drugs had been removed would the
soldiers' bodies be sent home to their families. According
to Stoeckley, the drug network had a high level of
protection. She also described how many members of the
network were also involved in Satanic cult activity.
According to her, this Satanic cult operated covens across
the country that had been threatening her with death should
she talk.

From the time the murder was reported, the Army made no
attempt to apprehend the criminals described by MacDonald.
Not even the simple step of setting up a roadblock was
taken, although, according to witness reports, had this been
done, individuals fitting MacDonald's description might well
have been immediately apprehended. This raises the question
of whether a coverup was immediately put in place to protect
Army top brass who were implicated in the drug trafficking.
It is of interest that Michael Aquino served at this base
soon after the murders.

 

[Border Reiver]

Ignoring your little gaff of confusing Saran Wrap with Saran fibers in favour of speculation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JTF]

Running Away From The Truth

The documented record demonstrates that Stoeckley's first reference to being part of a satanic cult was in 1981. Why did it take Stoeckley 11 years to bring forth this claim? Ted Gunderson is the name, and conspiracy theories were his game.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html

Gunderson's influence had little impact on inmate's legal fate for he couldn't conjure up a lab document that sourced a single evidentiary item to Helena Stoeckley. Interesting how Gunderson and every other MacDonald advocate couldn't come up with the forensic goods needed to set the Ice Pick Baby Killer free.

Speaking of forensic goods, still waiting on that lab document sourcing Stoeckley, Mitchell or any other intruder suspect to a single evidentiary item collected at the crime scene. I want to remind you that articles constructed by MacDonald advocates are not viable replacements for actual lab analysis.

Speaking of forensic analysis, BOTH the DNA test results AND the FBI's report on hair/fiber comparisons demonstrates that Paul Stombaugh's forensic analysis was flawless. In order to save you from yourself (e.g., saran wrap/saran fiber fiasco), I need to point out that the definition of flawless is without error.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com