Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[desmirelle]

Point of Fact: A stage name is an alias used by an actor. A nom de plume is an alias used by a writer.

 

[desmirelle]

And why is it unfair to point out that your idol was RELIEVED his family was gone?

 

[Henri McPhee]

And why is it unfair to point out that your idol was RELIEVED his family was gone?

It's unfair because it's not expert psychiatric testimony. This is the opinion of an expert psychiatrist which would be admissible in a courtroom, and it's not just a laywoman's emotional opinion which would not be admissible, except in a bad court, like a Judge Dupree court:

21 April 1970: First official psychiatric assessment. Conducted by Dr. Robert Sadoff, per defense counsel Bernard Segal. His final conclusion was that there existed no evidence of psychosis, delusion, or hallucination. Dr. Sadoff remarks that MacDonald was articulate, expressed himself well, was highly self-analytical, and had compartmentalized his grief and depression normally. The psychiatrist notes that Jeff broke down completely several times during the interview, always when prompted to speak more about his family, which was also normal.

The doctor probed a great number of areas with MacDonald including some that lay-people would find his responses to disturbing. One was that he admitted to feeling a sense of relief once life began to settle again and it crossed his mind that all the burdens and responsibilities of his former role as father and husband were no longer. Accompanied by a deep sense of shame for having had those thoughts at all. Believe it or not, this is actually a normal part of the grieving process when a person loses someone valuable to them who was also dependent upon them. A peculiar characteristic of grief is that when the mind attempts to process it in a way that does the least psychological damage and produces the least amount of emotional distress. This sometimes produces thought processes that the detached public would not understand and in some instances claim are evidence of criminal guilt.

Cor luvva duck. If you are wrongly convicted in America you have to present a writ of actual evidence, and new evidence. Never mind that the original evidence of Stombaugh and the prosecution was fatally flawed. Dr. MacDonald has tried all that in the past and has then come up against District judges who are in bed with the prosecution, and the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court judges who are not sympathetic to criminal defendants, even if they are totally innocent, and an FBI media campaign against Jeff MacDonald to sway the court of public opinion, and drunken Joe McGinniss in financial trouble. North Carolina judges need to pull their socks up.

 

[byn63]

henri - it is inmate's own quote "I am relieved" that desi brought up so that is not UNFAIR it is what it is - A FACT - the man was not bereaved he was RELIEVED. Words from his own mouth.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The ONLY reason to present psychiatric testimony is DEFENSIVE; i.e., this is why he did this, he'd been taking Eskatrol and didn't need it and he'd been overworking himself with moonlighting jobs and women on the side and he just suffered a psychotic break. Since mack the knife's defense was he didn't do it, there was no reason to listen to shrinks argue the point of "his personality". His character wasn't on trial, although Segal did his best to make it the point of the trial.

This Eskadrol business is gossip and hearsay. I don't think it was ever discussed at the 1979 trial for that very reason. Drunken Irish son of a bitch Joe McGinniss, in financial trouble, highlighted the diet pills in his Fatal Vision book. Millions of people were taking those diet pills at the time without murdering anybody. McGinniss seems to have got the amphetamine psychosis theory from Kassab who was going off his rocker at the time.

McGinniss testified at that 1987 McGinniss v MacDonald that Murtagh had told him in a phone call that the Army CID lab at Fort Gordon were incapable of testing for amphetamines, which sounds strange to me. The fact is that the Army CID never tested positive for amphetamine psychosis. There is background to this matter at :

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1-1987-mcginniss3.html

Note from ChristinA Masewicz: Pages 61 through 64 of this transcript was missing when I received it

Note: page 65
First line of the page directly below is missing

first-four sections, all in to Putnam's where the pages will be cleanly typed , etc., etc.
Did you really have an understanding with your publisher that you could change the ending according to new events as late as January?

A If the new events were significant enough, certainly.

Q At that point did you have in mind what you would do if there was A new trial granted in terms of taking out the section about the Eskatrol Spansules?

A At that time I was only focusing on the work in front of me. I wasn't speculating what I might do if something else might happen.

Q But you were trying to tell Dr. MacDonald that if there were some new developments, that you could put them in; is that right?

A If there were significant new developments, I could have made alterations as late as the middle of January, yes, sir.

Q When you said the ending could be modified, is it the ending where you talk about pathological narcissism and the drugs?

A Well, actually the very ending, I think is in his own word, but the ending in terms of the legal history of the case was what I was referring to there.

Page 66

Q But you wouldn't have been able to change the ultimate conclusion of your book that he was, in fact, guilty of murder; would you?

A Wouldn't have been able to change A conclusion, is A question that I don't I don't know the answer to. I -- at that time that conclusion was pretty firmly fixed in my mind.

Q No matter what developments occurred in January, you would have had to leave that conclusion in the book; right?

A I would have, had A new trial been granted for any reason which seemed to do with the correctness -- to have to do with the correctness of the jury's verdict, I certainly would have incorporated that information. And, in fact, towards the ending of the book I did incorporate A great deal of the, quote, "New Investigation" type of thing that he and his detectives and psychics, and those people were working on

Q But you wouldn't have been able to change the ultimate conclusion that you knew that he had committed the crimes; right?

A I don't think at that point there would have been any -- who could say it wouldn't, who could say it couldn't, that's just something that didn't happen. But I didn't foresee anything on the horizon that would have caused me to modify my conclusion at that point.

Q Would you take A look at the last page once again, just

Page 67

above your signature.

Do you see where you talk about the next four weeks of being hellish?

A Yes, I do.

Q Down from the third line at the bottom it says: And please keep me posted on the progress made by O'Neill and investigators. The ending can be altered even after the book is set in type if there is A truly important break.

Who is O'Neill?

A O'Neill was his, at that time, criminal attorney, Brian O'Neill.

Q Had you had contact with O'Neill?

A If I did, it was very limited. There may have been one phone call and A brief note. It was not extensive, sir.

Q The investigator that you're talking about, is that Ted Gunderson?

A Gosh, I don't know if Gunderson was still into it then, or if he had been replaced. I think that's when Gunderson was still into it, yeah.

Q Did he have another investigator by the name of Ray Shedlick?

A I don't know if they worked together or Shedlick replaced Gunderson. I can't keep that straight.

Q Did Shedlick ever give you any information about new information that he said he had found?

 

[byn63]

No the Eskatrol business is NOT GOSSIP or HEARSAY. It was the number one item on the list of things he gave to his attorney. 1. Took Eskatrol. Again, same thing as if he said it outloud. He was taking eskatrol and it COULD (and probably DID) have contributed to the brutal, savage, vicious manner in which he slaughtered his pregnant wife, 5 year old daughter, and 2 year old daughter.

 

[BStrong]

It's unfair because it's not expert psychiatric testimony. This is the opinion of an expert psychiatrist which would be admissible in a courtroom, and it's not just a laywoman's emotional opinion which would not be admissible, except in a bad court, like a Judge Dupree court:



Cor luvva duck. If you are wrongly convicted in America you have to present a writ of actual evidence, and new evidence. Never mind that the original evidence of Stombaugh and the prosecution was fatally flawed. Dr. MacDonald has tried all that in the past and has then come up against District judges who are in bed with the prosecution, and the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court judges who are not sympathetic to criminal defendants, even if they are totally innocent, and an FBI media campaign against Jeff MacDonald to sway the court of public opinion, and drunken Joe McGinniss in financial trouble. North Carolina judges need to pull their socks up.

You keep making that assertion with -0- evidence.

Does the "providing evidence" part of this discussion confuse you? JM's defense attorney pounded on Stombaugh's creds to no effect. SOP in criminal proceedings. Without actual evidence, the assertion fails.

Provide evidence or find a new tune.

 

[desmirelle]

Well, at least you're consistant....

It's unfair because it's not expert psychiatric testimony.

Once again, I hate to point out your reading incomprehension skills: JEFFREY MACDONALD, not some shrink, stated he was RELIEVED his family was gone and item #1 on a list JEFFREY MACDONALD wrote in his own handwriting was the Eskatrol.

 

[JTF]

Still Waiting

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that lab document sourcing Stoeckley, Mitchell or any other member of the Fort Bragg community to this crime. You also need to come to terms with your inability to think critically as evidenced by your reliance on blogs/articles.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

You keep making that assertion with -0- evidence.

Does the "providing evidence" part of this discussion confuse you? JM's defense attorney pounded on Stombaugh's creds to no effect. SOP in criminal proceedings. Without actual evidence, the assertion fails.

Provide evidence or find a new tune.

Blackburn in his closing argument stated that MacDonald pajama fibers on the murder weapon was the conclusive evidence against MacDonald. Stombaugh of the FBI in his manufactured evidence and 'FBI reconstruction' agreed with that. JTF says there were pajama fibers and black wool fibers from an unknown source on the wooden club murder weapon. Stombaugh couldn't prove MacDonald did it after the Article 32 cleared him, and so Stombaugh made it up to fool a jury.

Kathy Bond in an FBI lab document states that those fibers were 'pajama-like fibers' and the FBI expert examiner Frier states that they were black wool fibers from an unknown source, without mentioning pajama fibers. Murtagh excluded Frier from testifying that at the 1979 MacDonald trial and the MacDonald defense were never informed. It was either fabricated evidence, or Browning of the Army CID lab was a cheat and a liar, or incompetent.

This is part of Murtagh's cross-examination of Browning at the 1979 trial:

Q: Okay, Mr. Browning I believe you testified a minute ago with respect to Government Exhibit 307, the debris removed from what has been identified as the club, you found two purple cotton threads?

A: Yes. That is correct.

From that University of Pennsylvania Law review:

Regardless of MacDonald's guilt or innocence, Stoeckley's statements should have been admitted to prevent even the appearance of injustice.

 

[desmirelle]

In a closing argument, Blackburn was allowed to CLAIM the fibers are conclusive evidence. Segal was allowed to CLAIM that MacDonald's personal history precluded him being the murder. A closing argument is NOT evidence, it's the final statement to the jury as to why each side thinks the jury should side with them. The jury then evaluates the evidence, not the closing arguments, and makes a decision.

You call Browning a cheat and a liar, but he's got nada on MacDonald, who cheated on his wife and lied and said he was a good husband and did not murder her or the girls.

 

[desmirelle]

Okay, we admit ALL of Helena's statements. The first one she gave was: I was too stoned to know where I was. The ones after that alternated between I saw it and I don't know where I was that night, I was too stoned. I think the jury will like my favorite the best, since it fits the facts: I was Mac's lover and I watched him kill his family.

 

[Henri McPhee]

In a closing argument, Blackburn was allowed to CLAIM the fibers are conclusive evidence. Segal was allowed to CLAIM that MacDonald's personal history precluded him being the murder. A closing argument is NOT evidence, it's the final statement to the jury as to why each side thinks the jury should side with them. The jury then evaluates the evidence, not the closing arguments, and makes a decision.

You call Browning a cheat and a liar, but he's got nada on MacDonald, who cheated on his wife and lied and said he was a good husband and did not murder her or the girls.

That's not the point. The purpose of a fair trial is to elicit the truth, not to convict by false testimony and by preventing the jury from hearing any exculpatory evidence. If some forensic scientist said your pajama fibers were on a murder weapon in a murder trial you would probably be a bit upset, and even alarmed. You would think that it's surely some mistake.

I agree that many magistrates and jurors think an opening argument is evidence before that evidence is weighed. That doesn't excuse a prosecutor from telling downright lies in a closing argument in order to prevent an acquittal. That's dishonest. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.

I agree that Helena lied through thick and thin, and she lied like a trooper. She was never given any immunity to prevent her from ending up in prison for many years herself. The point is she was known as a reliable informant and she named names. That should never have been disregarded by an astute detective, or by the FBI. Judge Dupree was far too stringent about that because he thought her out of court statements might lead to an acquittal. It was the same with the psychiatric testimony. Judge Dupree was a biased trial judge.

There is a bit of background about all this on the internet:

1997] T
Unfortunately, too many lawyers are forgetting their obligation of
professionalism.0 8

It appears prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument will continue in
Florida unless the trial courts recognize closing arguments which are designed
to be inflammatory, as opposed to dramatic, and either grant mistrials, or
proceed with a disciplinary action through The Florida Bar.20 9 Perhaps a
proper deterrent would be to require prosecutors and defense counsel to attend oral argument when there are issues of prosecutorial misconduct and invited response.

It is imperative that lawyers be aware of the specific ethical obligation
they assume when they step into the role of an advocate.2 10 "If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom."21' All
attorneys should govern themselves by the words of Chief Justice Gerald
Kogan: "[Y]ou can win your cases, you can win the tough ones, but you have
to do it with dignity and with honor .... We are a noble and an honorable
profession."212
Candice D. Tobin

 

[byn63]

Okay, we admit ALL of Helena's statements. The first one she gave was: I was too stoned to know where I was. The ones after that alternated between I saw it and I don't know where I was that night, I was too stoned. I think the jury will like my favorite the best, since it fits the facts: I was Mac's lover and I watched him kill his family.

I think that "I was his lover and I watched him kill his family" is the quote that most jurors would choose to believe out of all of Helena's statements, mainly because that one can be matched to evidence in re: all of the sourced evidence points directly at inmate as the sole bad guy.

 

[JTF]

Rinse And Repeat

HENRIBOY: Repeating the same debunked claims over and over again (e.g., past 12 years) does not magically enhance their importance. Your thought process reminds me of a child who asks for a cookie 100 times in the hope that the parent will give him that cookie. Still waiting on that lab document sourcing Stoeckley, Mitchell or any other member of the Fort Bragg community to this crime.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[BStrong]

Blackburn in his closing argument stated that MacDonald pajama fibers on the murder weapon was the conclusive evidence against MacDonald. Stombaugh of the FBI in his manufactured evidence and 'FBI reconstruction' agreed with that. JTF says there were pajama fibers and black wool fibers from an unknown source on the wooden club murder weapon. Stombaugh couldn't prove MacDonald did it after the Article 32 cleared him, and so Stombaugh made it up to fool a jury.

Kathy Bond in an FBI lab document states that those fibers were 'pajama-like fibers' and the FBI expert examiner Frier states that they were black wool fibers from an unknown source, without mentioning pajama fibers. Murtagh excluded Frier from testifying that at the 1979 MacDonald trial and the MacDonald defense were never informed. It was either fabricated evidence, or Browning of the Army CID lab was a cheat and a liar, or incompetent.

This is part of Murtagh's cross-examination of Browning at the 1979 trial:

Q: Okay, Mr. Browning I believe you testified a minute ago with respect to Government Exhibit 307, the debris removed from what has been identified as the club, you found two purple cotton threads?

A: Yes. That is correct.

From that University of Pennsylvania Law review:

Your opinion is based on wish fulfillment, not a review of the actual evidence.

In your version of events, a drug crazed gang went into a home on Ft. Bragg, the home of a bunch of go-fast units (one of which JM was serving with) where one could be reasonably certain that in invading a home a serious potential threat would be encountered (note to Henri, it actually happened on the eve of the failed mission to rescue the hostages in Iran in 1980. A SFOD troop shot and killed an intruder in his on-base housing at Bragg.)

When the imaginary DCG got inside a home, evidently their first attempt of the evening given no evidence of an earlier encounter, they proceed to slaughter every living person inside the dwelling save the one potential threat that could fight back - JM.

JM displays superficial wounds where the other victims were stabbed multiple times and battered to death (Note to Henri - in every case where I was involved with multiple victims w/ serious physical injury or fatality, I never encountered an instance where a lesser potential threat victim was injured significantly more than the greater potential threat victim by the actor or actors, save for drive-by shootings) each fatality suffered multiple stab wounds

Evidence of DCG appears more staged than organic, and no credible reports of said DCG gang exiting Bragg exists.

So a fairly objective picture can be established that a family was brutally murdered, save the one individual at the scene who was a potential threat to the actor(s) The one survivor does not receive like wounds to the extent of the other victims. The one survivor tells a tale that can not be supported by evidence from the crime scene, or by independent witness.

Lets take another step. Investigator discredited from involvement in criminal or civil law in the state of California allegedly elicits confession from potential actor in the crime, who has previously made conflicting statements regarding her whereabouts or recollection of the day/date in question. No corroborating evidence (as concluded by examination) exists to support the confession, a common enough occurrence in notorious crimes that LEA's hold back key details from disclosure in an effort to determine that a false confession has been submitted.

I could go on, but the fact is JM was found guilty. All the surrounding jive and your particular POV has failed in an actual court of law, so fighting it out on the 'net isn't exactly scholarship or social justice for a wrongfully convicted victim, it's reality and the farther you go afield with quoting hobbyists on the 'net, the less weight your opinion carries.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Your opinion is based on wish fulfillment, not a review of the actual evidence.

I could go on, but the fact is JM was found guilty. All the surrounding jive and your particular POV has failed in an actual court of law, so fighting it out on the 'net isn't exactly scholarship or social justice for a wrongfully convicted victim, it's reality and the farther you go afield with quoting hobbyists on the 'net, the less weight your opinion carries.

It's not a question of being a true crime hobbyist. You decide on the evidence without fear or favor and on the FACTS. You take everything on the evidence, not the manufactured evidence, or who the police and internet posters have chosen as the real culprit. There are many professional lawyers, and even journalists, who agree with me about the MacDonald case.

The MacDonald case was a grievous injustice. The MacDonald 1979 trial was demonstrably biased and clearly erroneous and full of irregularities. That wrong verdict should have been reversed years ago. I agree that it's worse in somewhere like Turkey or Egypt or Bahrain but that's not the point.

There is a bit about fair trials in a book published in 2010 called 'The Rule of Law' by the former British judge Tom Bingham. I don't know if they believe in fair trials in America. It can get complicated in family courts where people secretly have their children taken from them, sometimes on faulty medical evidence, or complex terrorist cases:

The right to a fair trial has been described as 'the birthright of every British citizen'. It has also been said that to be axiomatic that a person charged with having committed a criminal offence should receive a fair trial and that, if he cannot be tried fairly for that offence he should not be tried for it at all'. Yet again the right to a fair trial has been described as 'fundamental and absolute'. Over the centuries a framework of rules has grown up, developing over time, to protect the fairness of the trial. Two of the rules, that the court (whether judge, or judge and jury) must be independent and impartial, have already been noticed. A third rule is that the trial should, largely, if not wholly, be held and judgment given in public.

The defendant must have enough time and the facilities he needs to prepare his defence.........He is entitled to disclosure of material which is helpful to him because it weakens the prosecution case or strengthens his. All these rights would, I think, strike most people as a very basic entitlement. But there are problematic areas...........

 

[Border Reiver]

It's not a question of being a true crime hobbyist. You decide on the evidence without fear or favor and on the FACTS. You take everything on the evidence, not the manufactured evidence, or who the police and internet posters have chosen as the real culprit. There are many professional lawyers, and even journalists, who agree with me about the MacDonald case.

There are more who don't. Besides there are only a few people involved whose opinion matter, and you, me, etc. aren't in that group - the juries and appeal court judges are.

The juries who have reviewed the evidence didn't agree. None of the appeal courts have agreed. And these are the people who needed to be convinced that there was a reasonable doubt that MacDonald did it. He and his lawyers haven't been able to do that to the people who matter - all the analysis here is wasted effort.

 

[BStrong]

It's not a question of being a true crime hobbyist. You decide on the evidence without fear or favor and on the FACTS. You take everything on the evidence, not the manufactured evidence, or who the police and internet posters have chosen as the real culprit. There are many professional lawyers, and even journalists, who agree with me about the MacDonald case.

The MacDonald case was a grievous injustice. The MacDonald 1979 trial was demonstrably biased and clearly erroneous and full of irregularities. That wrong verdict should have been reversed years ago. I agree that it's worse in somewhere like Turkey or Egypt or Bahrain but that's not the point.

There is a bit about fair trials in a book published in 2010 called 'The Rule of Law' by the former British judge Tom Bingham. I don't know if they believe in fair trials in America. It can get complicated in family courts where people secretly have their children taken from them, sometimes on faulty medical evidence, or complex terrorist cases:

Your opinion is just that and nothing more, and the asserted opinions of others are no different.

The fact that mistakes/errors/omissions and sometimes bad intent exist isn't in question. To conclude that because case "A" demonstrably involved mishandled evidence does not equate to the evidence in case "Z" was mishandled absent evidence that proves the theory.

JM's attorney hammering Stombaugh doesn't prove anything, and neither does your continued assertion that JM's attorney was correct.

 

[JTF]

Hyperbole And Fixed Delusions

HENRIBOY: Repeating the same debunked claims over and over again (e.g., past 12 years) does not magically enhance their importance. Hyperbole is not a substitute for documented fact. Still waiting on that lab document sourcing Stoeckley, Mitchell or any other member of the Fort Bragg community to this crime.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com