• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

The problem is that justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. If a surgical operation is carried out by somebody who is not medically qualified I am entitled to an opinion about that. Judge Dupree was not an extremely competent trial judge. He was biased. It was a bad court. There was prosecutor misconduct and lies, damned lies and mistakes and inventions at the MacDonald trial. The federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed.

The best defense for MacDonald would be for the real culprits, like Mazerolle and his pals, to tell the police and MacDonald lawyers exactly what happened, instead of keeping their mouths shut, and trying to focus the blame on to MacDonald.

Mistakes are made and serious ones. Sometimes the wrong man or woman gets convicted and the real culprits go free, as happened in the Darlie Routier case and the MacDonald case, and which nearly happened in the JonBenet case.There are cases in America where innocent people have been convicted, but those cases are rarely given much publicity in the mainstream media, or Fox News, in order to sway the public into thinking 'aren't our police wonderful' as well as judges and juries and the Justice Department, and to give them immunity from criticism.

There is a bit about the appeals procedure MacDonald has to go through on the internet:


Appeal Procedure

The party appealing is called the appellant, or sometimes the petitioner. The other party is the appellee or the respondent. The appeal is instituted with the filing of a notice of appeal. This filing marks the beginning of the time period within which the appellant must file a brief, a written argument containing that side's view of the facts and the legal arguments upon which they rely in seeking a reversal of the trial court. The appellee then has a specified time to file an answering brief. The appellant may then file a second brief answering the appellee's brief.

Sometimes, appeals courts make their decision only on the basis of the written briefs. Sometimes, they hear oral arguments before deciding a case. Often the court will ask that the case be set for oral argument, or one of the parties will request oral argument. At oral argument, each side's attorney is given a relatively brief opportunity to argue the case to the court, and to answer questions posed by the judges. In the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, an hour is set for oral argument of most cases, which gives each side's lawyers about half an hour to make their oral argument and answer questions. In the federal courts of appeals, the attorneys are often allotted less time than that - 10- or 15-minute arguments are common.

The appellate court determines whether errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level. It generally will reverse a trial court only for an error of law. Not every error of law, however, is cause for a reversal. Some are harmless errors that did not prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair trial. For example, in a criminal case a higher court may conclude that the trial judge gave a legally improper instruction to the jury, but if the mistake were minor and in the opinion of the appellate court had no bearing on the jury's finding, the appellate court may hold it a harmless error and let a guilty verdict stand. However, an error of law, SUCH AS ADMITTING IMPROPER EVIDENCE, may be determined to be harmful and therefore reversible error.

After a case is orally argued or otherwise presented for judgment, the appeals court judges will meet in conference to discuss the case. Appellate courts often issue written decisions, particularly when the decision deals with a new interpretation of the law, establishes a new precedent, etc. At the conference, one judge will be designated to write an opinion. The opinion may go through several drafts before a majority of the court agrees with it. Judges disagreeing with the majority opinion may issue a dissenting opinion. Judges agreeing with the result of a majority decision but disagreeing with the majority's reasoning may file a concurring opinion. Occasionally the appeals court will simply issue an unsigned opinion. These are called per curiam (by the court).

If the appeals court affirms the lower court's judgment, the case ends, unless the losing party appeals to a higher court. The lower court decision also stands if the appeals court simply dismisses the appeal (usually for reasons of jurisdiction).

If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will usually send the case back to a lower court ( remand it) and order the trial court to take further action. It may order that

a new trial be held,
the trial court's judgment be modified or corrected,
the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court.
 
Last edited:
The 4th Circuit are to hold oral arguments in January. The MacDonald lawyer has fifteen minutes to present his case. I can't quite see that this is enough time to clear an innocent man, unless perhaps it's a case of mistaken identity.

Perhaps the best defense strategy would be to make a scene and say that the original MacDonald trial was a cock-up with a biased trial judge and dishonest prosecutors and lab technicians?
 
No Shame

HENRIBOY: You have a predilection for ignoring posted case updates and later posting said updates as though it is new information. You have no shame. I posted the following on two separate occasions. Hate to break it to ya, but John is going to wipe the floor with Joey Z.

Rather than make a final, but relatively easy decision, this 4th Circuit Court continues to coddle inmate. They have agreed to hear oral arguments in January.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...136-doc045.pdf

The good news is that John Stuart Bruce will speak for the government and the victims in this case. John is a highly competent prosecutor who did a wonderful job at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. John was able to prove that Jimmy Britt was a serial fabricator who lied a whopping 27 times in 5 separate affidavits.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
The references of new uploads to the oral arguments in January are mostly procedure arrangement like the lawyers have to be there at least a quarter of an hour before it starts, and parking arrangements.

There is more to the MacDonald case than Jimmy Britt. The prosecution and Judges keep dismissing MacDonald's arguments as hearsay evidence, but it's no more hearsay than Stombaugh's and the FBI manufactured evidence and inventions and rubbish that Colette murdered one of the little girls.

Joey Z made some good points in his presentation on about September 6 this year. This is part of it:

In 1982, Sara McCann lived in South Carolina with her husband, and
befriended Helena Stoeckley through a church. (JA 2583-84). Stoeckley had a
newborn child that they assisted Stoeckley with, and Stoeckley moved in with
them during the period October through December 1982. (JA 2586). When
Stoeckley told her that she was from Fayetteville and involved in an “FBI case,”
they realized her connection to the MacDonald case. (JA 2587).
McCann asked about the case, and Stoeckley told her that “the men that did
the murdering, okay, Jeffrey’s wife, children, and almost killed Jeffrey, that they
were going to rough Jeffrey MacDonald up and that she would become a wizard in
the occult group.” (JA 2588). Stoeckley told her that she ran out screaming and
continued to have nightmares about the events. (JA 2588-89). Based on her
conversations with Stoeckley, McCann testified that “I know as well as I know that
I’m sitting here today that Jeffrey MacDonald is innocent.” (JA 2589).
6. Jerry Leonard
During the 2012 evidentiary hearing, MacDonald requested permission to
call Jerry Leonard, the attorney appointed by the trial judge to represent Stoeckley
during the 1979 trial, to testify about his communications with Stoeckley. The
district court ordered Leonard to submit an affidavit of his communications with
Stoeckley under seal to the Court for a determination as to whether the privilege
should be set aside under the principles of Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524
 
Henri, you do realize the the testimony of both these persons amounts to, "This person told me something." It is the very definition of hearsay evidence!

In addition, solicitor/client privilege is not something that should be overturned readily. Lest any defence attorney be compelled to testify against his/her client.
 
So now Helena ran SCREAMING from the MacDonald quarters. I've lost count, what number of NEW confession is this from her? OBVIOUSLY, had she run SCREAMING from the quarters, her 'co-conspiractors' (oh, wait, that was macdonald per confession 113) would have been seen leaving......by everyone looking out their windows going "What the....?"
 
Henri, you do realize the the testimony of both these persons amounts to, "This person told me something." It is the very definition of hearsay evidence!

In addition, solicitor/client privilege is not something that should be overturned readily. Lest any defence attorney be compelled to testify against his/her client.

I fully appreciate that gossip and hearsay is not evidence. Just saying you think Patsy did it in the Ramsey case, or that MacDonald is a murdering bastard, or that Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be and the same with the threads. That's just opinions by people who are not experts, and is inadmissible as facts. You decide according to the evidence without fear or favor.

The problem is that the hearsay rule can become highly technical. There are exceptions. I think it was Congress in America who were the legislators about the hearsay rule on out of court statements. It seems to have caused confusion in court cases in America. Judge Dupree was far too stringent about those Stoeckley out of court statements in the MacDonald trial. Dupree only excluded the jury from hearing them because it might have caused an acquittal. He should have allowed the jury to hear and decide the matter, at the same time perhaps warning the jury that Helena Stoeckley was a bad character.

Helena's lawyer, Leonard, never broke the client-lawyer confidentiality agreement It's all different now anyway now that the American Patriot Act allows the bugging of lawyers. Leonard said at that 2012 evidentiary hearing that the prosecution never proved its case and that MacDonald was screwed.

There is a bit about the hearsay rule, on the internet, as it applies in the UK:

Is Hearsay admissible evidence in a Criminal Trial

There are a number of limited circumstances where hearsay evidence will be admissible in a criminal trial, as follows:

Where all the parties (the Prosecution, the Defence and, the Judge) all agree to the hearsay evidence being admitted;

Where admitting the evidence is in the best interests of justice. For example, a witness may have heard a person say “it was not the accused who stole the car, I saw another person do it”. It may be decided by the judge that it is in the best interests of justice for the evidence to be admitted here as the accused may be wrongly convicted without it
;
Where there is a common law (law that develops as a result of court decisions and which applies in similar cases) exception;

Where there is a statutory (contained in a legal Act) provision under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) that renders the hearsay statement admissible.
 
Oh good grief henri - why do you insist on bringing up disproven junk? why do you fail to understand that this hearing in January is not for "proving inmate innocent" it is for determining whether Judge Fox considered the evidence as a whole and made the right decision on inmate's last gasp appeal. It was up to the defense to prove there was ANY evidence to suggest inmate didn't slaughter his wife and daughters (and unborn son) and they DID NOT COME CLOSE. The 4th Circuit should have just confirmed Judge Fox' decision, but, oral hearings have been scheduled......
 
I fully appreciate that gossip and hearsay is not evidence. Just saying you think Patsy did it in the Ramsey case, or that MacDonald is a murdering bastard, or that Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be and the same with the threads. That's just opinions by people who are not experts, and is inadmissible as facts. You decide according to the evidence without fear or favor.

The problem is that the hearsay rule can become highly technical. There are exceptions. I think it was Congress in America who were the legislators about the hearsay rule on out of court statements. It seems to have caused confusion in court cases in America. Judge Dupree was far too stringent about those Stoeckley out of court statements in the MacDonald trial. Dupree only excluded the jury from hearing them because it might have caused an acquittal. He should have allowed the jury to hear and decide the matter, at the same time perhaps warning the jury that Helena Stoeckley was a bad character.

Helena's lawyer, Leonard, never broke the client-lawyer confidentiality agreement It's all different now anyway now that the American Patriot Act allows the bugging of lawyers. Leonard said at that 2012 evidentiary hearing that the prosecution never proved its case and that MacDonald was screwed.

There is a bit about the hearsay rule, on the internet, as it applies in the UK:

UK laws aren't applicable to JM, so why even bring it up?
 
Hyperbole Is All You Got

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
 
I fully appreciate that gossip and hearsay is not evidence. Just saying you think Patsy did it in the Ramsey case, or that MacDonald is a murdering bastard, or that Stombaugh of the FBI only said it could be and the same with the threads. That's just opinions by people who are not experts, and is inadmissible as facts.

Again, hate to highlight that reading incomprehension problem of yours, but: IT IS A LEGAL FACT THAT JEFFERY ROBERT MACDONALD IS A MURDERING SCUMBAG. HE'S BEEN CONVICTED AND HAS BEEN IN FEDERAL CUSTODY EVERY SINCE (save for the time a 'speedy trial' ruling - erroneously applied - set him loose). HE'S LOST EVERY APPEAL ON THE NOT GUILTY SIDE OF THE HOUSE, HE'S BEEN CONVICTED. He tried his best to get away with a triple (since at the time a fetus didn't count) homocide and he lost the gamble. IT'S NOT MY OPINION HE'S GUILTY, HE IS GUILTY BY LAW.
 
Again, hate to highlight that reading incomprehension problem of yours, but: IT IS A LEGAL FACT THAT JEFFERY ROBERT MACDONALD IS A MURDERING SCUMBAG. HE'S BEEN CONVICTED AND HAS BEEN IN FEDERAL CUSTODY EVERY SINCE (save for the time a 'speedy trial' ruling - erroneously applied - set him loose). HE'S LOST EVERY APPEAL ON THE NOT GUILTY SIDE OF THE HOUSE, HE'S BEEN CONVICTED. He tried his best to get away with a triple (since at the time a fetus didn't count) homocide and he lost the gamble. IT'S NOT MY OPINION HE'S GUILTY, HE IS GUILTY BY LAW.

I disagree. That's just your opinion, and it's not based on facts or evidence. It's the great official principle of sticking to a mistake through thick and thin.

There is a bit about this at:

www.truthinjustice.org/convicting.htm

"These cries of innocence will forever fall on deaf ears and cynical minds. Once he (a defendant) is convicted, no one in whose hands his life is placed (his lawyer and the appellate judges) either believes him or is concerned about his innocence or guilt. It is no longer an issue of relevance. The only question remaining that is important or material is whether he "legally" received a fair trial, not whether the trial yielded a result that was factually accurate. Appellate attorneys are not expected to, nor do they have the time, inclination, and re sources to, initiate an investigation designed to unearth new evidence that goes to the question of a false conviction. Such an effort is simply beyond the scope of their thinking and beyond the realm of their professional responsibility. It is a rare attorney indeed who would dare go before any American appellate court and attempt to win a retrial for his client based on his innocence. That's like asking an actor in a Shakespearean tragedy to go on stage and pretend it's a comedy. It is simply not done".
 
Last edited:
I'm Not Going Away

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
 
I disagree. That's just your opinion, and it's not based on facts or evidence.

POINT OF FACT: He was convicted, which makes him guilty per law and all relevant legalities. You can 'disagree' until Hell freezes over and we all catch cold, but it doesn't change this FACT.

POINT OF FACT: That is not my opinion, it's the judicial system (the law).

POINT OF FACT: Your OPINION can be anything you like. You can believe what you like. But believing gravity does not exist unless you believe in it won't help you fly if you jump off Big Ben.

Now for my OPINION: I think the murdering scumbag mack the knife is right where he belongs.

And you still haven't answered JTF's query, which means you're still consistent....
 
There is an interesting interview on the internet between somebody called Rigsby, who seems to have been once in the FBI, and that fraudster prosecutor Blackburn with regard to the MacDonald case. There is also a photo from about thirty years ago of Wade Smith and Blackburn and Joe McGinniss all smiling at the camera and being chummy together which I don't like.

Blackburn made the snide remark that MacDonald's defense counsel was slack and MacDonald never brought that up. I don't think that is strictly true because Silverglate mentioned it in the 1992 Judge Dupree appeal. The biased trial judge Dupree countered that by saying he thought Segal was an astute lawyer:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/interview-blackburn-rigsby.html

RR: So that's why my big argument ... You know the justice system is to make America a safer place and have justice for all.

Jim B: It should be, but prosecutors often times think that their job is to convict.

RR: No ... But. It seemed to me. I guess I'd just be a real warped attorney because it seems to me if I was an attorney, I would want to better my society. And I would want to make sure I got the right person. What if MacDonald was innocent and these people did kill his family, and they went out and they killed other people, that nobody knows about, what favor did you or anybody do to America or society?

Jim B: That's correct.

RR: (Garbled), as a matter of fact, the situation would hurt even more so than if you just left it alone. You see what I'm sayin'?

Jim B: I agree with you.

RR: I don't understand and I'm wonderin' if the prosecutors get so wrapped up, I'm not just sayin' you, I'm just sayin' in general. They're so geared towards, I gotta get him, I gotta get him, I gotta get him ... that they forget the real focus.
 
There is an interesting interview on the internet between somebody called Rigsby, who seems to have been once in the FBI, and that fraudster prosecutor Blackburn with regard to the MacDonald case. There is also a photo from about thirty years ago of Wade Smith and Blackburn and Joe McGinniss all smiling at the camera and being chummy together which I don't like.

Blackburn made the snide remark that MacDonald's defense counsel was slack and MacDonald never brought that up. I don't think that is strictly true because Silverglate mentioned it in the 1992 Judge Dupree appeal. The biased trial judge Dupree countered that by saying he thought Segal was an astute lawyer:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/interview-blackburn-rigsby.html

Why in the friggen' world do you quote anonymous internet sources?

Here's one to sink your teeth into "Macdonald confessed to me that he killed his family."

Posted by Baron Munchausen, 1980.

Case closed.
 
Innuendo, Suppostion And B.S.

Just another example of Henriboy's lack of critical thinking/research skills. In the mid-90's, Rhonda Rigsby was a graduate student, ergo, she was not affiliated with the FBI in any way, shape or form. The totality of her MacDonald case knowledge was culled directly from the debunked work of Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter.

Her limited and slanted knowledge base provided her with the impetus to interview both James Blackburn and Paul Stombaugh. She was unable, however, to cull any information that would benefit inmate in the appellate system. No corroboration for Stoeckley's claims, no trace evidence linking a known intruder suspect to the crime scene, nothing, nada, zip.

She was unable to obtain statements from Blackburn and/or Stombaugh that would cast doubt on the government's case against inmate nor did she ask questions about the physical evidence that led to inmate's conviction. I would assume that her rationale for not asking the tough questions was her fear of answers that would paint inmate as a cold-blooded killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Innuendo, Supposition And B.S.

Just another example of Henriboy's lack of critical thinking/research skills. In the mid-90's, Rhonda Rigsby was a graduate student, ergo, she was not affiliated with the FBI in any way, shape or form. The totality of her MacDonald case knowledge was culled directly from the debunked work of Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter.

Her limited and slanted knowledge base provided her with the impetus to interview both James Blackburn and Paul Stombaugh. She was unable, however, to cull any information that would benefit inmate in the appellate system. No corroboration for Stoeckley's claims, no trace evidence linking a known intruder suspect to the crime scene, nothing, nada, zip.

She was unable to obtain statements from Blackburn and/or Stombaugh that would cast doubt on the government's case against inmate nor did she ask questions about the physical evidence that led to inmate's conviction. I would assume that her rationale for not asking the tough questions was her fear of answers that would paint inmate as a cold-blooded killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Here's one to sink your teeth into "Macdonald confessed to me that he killed his family."

Posted by Baron Munchausen, 1980.

Case closed.

You forget, BStrong, Helena and mac were lovers and she watched him kill his family........so we have a confession from mac to the baron and a witness in Helena making mac the murderer. You're right! Case closed!
 
Last edited:
You forget, BStrong, Helena and mac were lovers and she watched him kill his family........so we have a confession from mac to the baron and a witness in Helena making mac the murderer. You're right! Case closed!

That's just violent prejudice and emotion. I agree that Helena lied through thick and thin. The point is that she was accepted by the police and Detective Beasley as a reliable informer, and she said on TV shortly before she died suddenly that she was going to blow the lid off of Fort Bragg. If a woman phones a police station and says that somebody has confessed to murders, or that she has witnessed murders, you don't put the phone down and say it comes from a poor befuddled creature, and a drug addict and alcoholic, and convicted felon and liar. You further investigate.

There is a bit about this sort of thing in that interview by Rigsby with convicted felon prosecutor Blackburn:

Jim B: First of all ... Most people believe people are guilty.

RR: I know.

Jim B: That's true. There's very few presumptions of innocence .. i n truth. There's presumption of innocence under the law. But that's not (garbled) somebody's innocent or guilty.

RR: I don't understand that.

Jim B: Jeffrey MacDonald was the only person I've ever seen who was presumed innocent. (I cannot make this out at out as it sounded as if Jim said, “I think he was” which, of course, is unlikely.) People didn't want to convict him. Cause he was a nice lookin' (blank) guy. (Then unintelligible.)

RR: Right. I guess I'm just unusual ‘cause when I look at cases over and over. As soon as I look at ‘em, in fact I was tellin' you I used to be into that mode of now, where you're arrested or you (blank) guilty, it's not true

Jim B: Not true.

RR: And I started changing my mind, and now I just say, I guess, factual, but I don't understand people, when they have this opinion one way or another, before they even heard all the evidence. I can't even begin to say well I think (blank) guilty (garbled) whaddyou think of the OJ case?

Jim B: I can't say. I didn't watch the whole thing.

RR: I can't say whether I think he's innocent or guilty...

Jim B: When you're this far away from the person. You watch that person a lot. You can't put a finger on it, but a lot of it's body language. A lot of it is uh ... intuition. A lot of it is emotion watchin' a witness, close up.
(Unintelligible phrase)

Note to JRM: There seems to be some ongoing statement by Jim B. about some hypothetical witness or something re: how a witness looks, what the jurors see, etc. This is extremely boring. All they reveal is that Jim B. tried his cases a lot on body language, intuition and "watchin' them close up". When Rhonda asked about Proctor and Dupree being related, Jim B. said, “That is the silliest thing. I don't know much about that. Silly thing ... just silly.”

RR: So they were related right?

Jim B: No, not ... well ... Proctor was ... son-in-law.

RR: Right. Not by blood, but by marriage.

Jim B: But you got to understand, (Unintelligible) I don't mean in a mean way, or in a bad way. But he just had ... he had two daughters, and...

NOTE: Now it becomes overridden with noise, poor speech, stuttering and RR speaking over Blackburn.

Jim B: Was Proctor in charge of it? I don't know. I never saw anything in the files that resembled anything that Proctor ever did. It may be there and that's forgotten but he was not a big name in the ... I never met Jimmy Proctor.

RR: Never?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom