Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

More from that Rigsby interview with Blackburn:

RR: Okay, this is my question. Why wouldn't he want 'em to see it? If there's so much evidence pointin' to his guilt, then why wouldn't..? I'd be glad to let 'em see it. I don't understand why they wouldn't.

Jim B: At that time, in 1979, there was enormous distrust between the two sides. For example, they initially wanted the evidence to be sent to California for testing. We opposed that. The reason we opposed that, quite frankly, (garbled) we believe Segal would've done something to the evidence. We believe the defense would have damaged the evidence.

RR: But couldn't the prosecution easily have (garbled) done something with the evidence? I'm not saying you did...

Jim B: Yes, yes, yes.

RR: In fact, there's no fair trial because the investigators go in and collect the evidence and they have total control over it, and...

Jim B: But one side has to do that.

RR: I know.

 

[Henri McPhee]

My own view is that Judge Dupree and Murtagh deliberately, and illegally, withheld the exculpatory evidence from Segal, and the MacDonald defense, because it might have caused an acquittal if the jury had been told about it, particularly the black wool fibers on the murder club with no known source. This was then blamed on Segal by Blackburn.

There is a bit about this matter in that Rigsby interview with Blackburn:

They were given opportunities to look at it. They were given those opportunities late in the trial, (garbled), cause they didn't ask for it sooner. They... they ... they were really slack about doin' that. They kept wanting us to send it to California. We kept sayin' we ain't gonna send it to California.
You get a court order that makes us send it to California, we'll send it to California.

RR: Don't you think it's a shame though ... not just him ... but if a person really is innocent, and they have schlock attorneys, and their one shot is wasted ... don't you think that's a shame? (nervous chuckle)

Jim B: Yes. Yes. He's never raised that issue. He has never raised the issue of a slack attorney. For instance, you know why. Cause he's afraid the courts never argue that. They're not gonna argue that they lost time.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Blackburn spent a few months in jail himself for fraud and embezzlement and, I think, altering a Judge's signature. I think part of the trouble is that most lawyers don't want to become criminal defense lawyers any more, or police court solicitors as they used to be known in the UK. It's not a glamour industry They go where the money is, like representing Goldman Sachs, or Pepsi Cola, in court, or trying to sue the NHS any time somebody dies in hospital. Many lawyers don't now deal with divorce or crime, and many legal aid law firms are closing in the UK.

There is a bit of background to this at:

www.militarycorruption.com/drmacdonald.htm

We at MilitaryCorruption.com feel the long ordeal of Dr. MacDonald - the ex-Special Forces officer has always maintained he was innocent of the crimes - should now be ended. MacDonald's conviction should be overturned and the wrongly imprisoned man finally set free. And we hope he "sues the hell out of" one and all who railroaded him into prison in the first place.

PROSECUTOR THREATENS HELENA STOECKLEY

Britt's bombshell affidavit contains revelations he heard slimy prosecutor James Blackburn tell defense witness Helena Stoeckley he'd "indict her on murder charges" if she stuck to a story that she was part of a hippie group that actually killed MacDonald's wife and kids and assaulted the sleeping Green Beret doctor when he tried to fight back.

Frightened for her own future, Stoeckley suddenly got "amnesia" on the witness stand and the key defense figure was no longer any help to the accused doctor's case.

 

[byn63]

roflmao! if HENRI quotes some Internet article it is important and believable but if anyone else does it is "That's just violent prejudice and emotion." roflmao pfft pfft pfft I can't even keep a straight face.....

however much you want to disagree the FACT is that HELENA STATED THAT SHE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH INMATE AND THAT SHE WATCHED HIM KILL HIS FAMILY.

that is what she said so it is NOT prejudice or emotion. it is what it is - she said! Now, you are always wanting to believe Helena so WHY do you violently and emotionally refuse to believe THIS particular confession in favor of some of her incredible less believable? That she was having an affair with him - plausible - incredibly plausible because the man never kept it in his pants ----- that she watched him kill his family - plausible (although less so) because we KNOW he killed his family since it has been proven in a court of law (more then any other murderer in US jurisprudence he basically gets convicted again and again, when not a single one of his appeals have granted him relief (unless you count the approval of DNA testing then he gets half a win, that didn't reduce his time in jail). Even today in prison he has not been a good guy.....otherwise why does he keep ending up in solitary? Oh, right last time he decided he was entitled to a bagel from the commissary and he didn't pay......get with it, you KNOW he is guilty and it has been proven.

So, answer JTF's challenge or go away

 

[desmirelle]

Will someone OTHER than Henri explain why if Blackburn, during an imaginary meeting that Britt "witnessed", informs Helena of her rights (that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law) is "threatening" her? It's usually the first thing you're supposed to be told. Sounds like Britt is making up a proper warning of someone of their consitutional rights, not a threat.

And, byn, Henri can't answer the questions he's asked (hence the random, irrelevant internet quotes), so he babbles about nada. That's why we haven't gotten that answer about a citation, why it's unfair to point out that mack the knife was the one to say he was relieved & took Eskatrol, and why he only believes Helena when it suits his "case".

 

[BStrong]

Henri:

"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 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."

You accept anonymous posts on the 'net as being evidence.

You have repeatedly posted what you claim as evidence from an official discredited source (Gunderson.)

You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the U.S. criminal justice system.

You have demonstrated remarkable ignorance of real world U.S. law enforcement and military law enforcement procedures.

At what point do you start to correct the above noted deficiencies and actually attempt to post from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance?

Absent that, why should anyone care about what your pov is in the JM (or any other) criminal investigation?

 

[BStrong]

Will someone OTHER than Henri explain why if Blackburn, during an imaginary meeting that Britt "witnessed", informs Helena of her rights (that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law) is "threatening" her? It's usually the first thing you're supposed to be told. Sounds like Britt is making up a proper warning of someone of their consitutional rights, not a threat.

And, byn, Henri can't answer the questions he's asked (hence the random, irrelevant internet quotes), so he babbles about nada. That's why we haven't gotten that answer about a citation, why it's unfair to point out that mack the knife was the one to say he was relieved & took Eskatrol, and why he only believes Helena when it suits his "case".

Generally speaking, initial conversations with suspects or witnesses don't require the Miranda.

A LEO can engage in consensual conversation with anyone, and if the conversation turns in a direction that provides reasonable suspicion that the contact is going to result in criminal charges it's time to Mirandize the contactee.

If no charges were anticipated against a witness, no Miranda warning is required, and immunity is always a possibility.

 

[desmirelle]

Obviously, in this case, Blackburn knew about Helena. Ergo, why wouldn't he Mirandize her to save the (theoretical) case against her if she confessed (again, although it would have been funny as all get out if she'd testified that after watching her lover mac kill his family, she ran screaming from the family quarters...)

It's sort of a common sense thing, had the meeting actually occurred as Britt said it did.

 

[byn63]

Obviously, in this case, Blackburn knew about Helena. Ergo, why wouldn't he Mirandize her to save the (theoretical) case against her if she confessed (again, although it would have been funny as all get out if she'd testified that after watching her lover mac kill his family, she ran screaming from the family quarters...)

It's sort of a common sense thing, had the meeting actually occurred as Britt said it did.

right - we all know the meeting alleged by Britt didn't take place.

LOL, the part that always amuses me is that in the REAL WORLD Helena WAS afraid of one of the lawyers on the case - named Bernie Segal! That is right, Helena called the presiding Judge and told him she was seriously afraid of Bernie Segal. Why has the government never brought it up again? Maybe they think "too easy" and let it go....roflmao! I think I'd have been afraid of Bernie too!

 

[desmirelle]

The gov't didn't bring it up because hysterical laughter is harder to get under control than angry outbursts?

 

[BStrong]

Obviously, in this case, Blackburn knew about Helena. Ergo, why wouldn't he Mirandize her to save the (theoretical) case against her if she confessed (again, although it would have been funny as all get out if she'd testified that after watching her lover mac kill his family, she ran screaming from the family quarters...)

It's sort of a common sense thing, had the meeting actually occurred as Britt said it did.

Blackburn wasn't required to Mirandize Shockley before interviewing her as a cooperating witness. When Shockley was called to testify she would have been sworn in, and had she decided to confess to committing the murders on the stand before being read the M rights such a statement would certainly end up in controversy but most likely would still stand as it was stated in open court after being sworn in.

If the Britt affidavit is taken as being accurate, Blackburn acted well within boundaries by warning Shockley that her statements could result in her being charged w/ murder. Had Blackburn not given fair warning, everything she stated before being Mirandized would most likely be excluded, even with Britt as a witness.

 

[JTF]

Consciousness Of Guilt

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

 

[desmirelle]

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

Think Henri will be quoting this internet article?

 

[Henri McPhee]

right - we all know the meeting alleged by Britt didn't take place.

LOL, the part that always amuses me is that in the REAL WORLD Helena WAS afraid of one of the lawyers on the case - named Bernie Segal! That is right, Helena called the presiding Judge and told him she was seriously afraid of Bernie Segal. Why has the government never brought it up again? Maybe they think "too easy" and let it go....roflmao! I think I'd have been afraid of Bernie too!

Helena never wanted to attend the MacDonald trial for obvious reasons. She was forced to attend. Whether she was transported to the criminal court by Britt is a matter of some controversy. She was quoted somewhere as saying she was afraid of those damn prosecutors. In her little mind she thought that if she said she was at the MacDonald house when the MacDonald murders happened, or that she named names, she might have been put in handcuffs and carted off to jail. For the same reason she refused to confess to Segal in public.

There is an interesting quote from Blackburn in the Rigsby conversation about what he thought of lazy journalists involved with the MacDonald case. Blackburn said he was trying to sway the jury, not the public, or trick and con and fool the jury more like:

RR: (Overrides) I mean that's one thing that a lot of people have trouble with. One reason why people have trouble believin' that he's guilty. Cause they don't think that one man could've done that much.

Jim B: Oh, I do. That's...

RR: Oh, I know you do. I know you've heard people say that.

Jim B: That's easy. Well...

RR: I don't know. I've heard a lot of people say that. How one man could do that much, in that time frame.

Jim B: But I have ... I have a arrogant response to that. (a garbled aside to RR) My arrogant response is those people weren't there, and they didn't hear the evidence, and they are doing the very same thing that you said you didn't want to do. Cause they're makin' up their minds based on no knowledge of the evidence, or what they heard neighbors say or people in the papers say, and no evidence to show that. (Garbled word) and so they presume he's innocent. My job against is not to convince the public...

RR: (Overrides)...the jury.

Jim B: Uhhuh ... and why (??) couple things? I don't care a whole lot what the public thinks. Uh, because that's not my job, and I think, again, if I played with the public, I lose sight of my job, which is to convince those jurors. Uhm, if the newspaper reporters are pretty lazy, which they were, and they come into court at 9:30 or 10:00, and the court started at an hour before, and leave at 4:00 so they make the afternoon papers in for slack and come back from lunch ...

RR: (Interrupts) Oh, I don't believe what the media exactly what I see here from the media..

Jim B: (Interrupting) ... and ... and they missed two hours of it, and then they hurt (?). Are they bein' good? I remember some reporter asking me then what's the significance of the pajama top ... I mean, she shoulda lost her job at the newspaper.

RR: (Laughter)

 

[Henri McPhee]

Think Henri will be quoting this internet article?

There is no guarantee, or evidence, that any pajama fibers found in strange places happened to get there on the night of the murders. That's just an assumption.

This is a cross-examination of the MacDonald forensic expert Dr Thornton with regard to all that pajama cuff stuff, from the 1979 trial:

More from Dr Thornton with regard to Ms Green:

Q I asked you whether you had read testimony of Shirley Green in regard to the reconstruction experiment that she said she did in terms of putting 48 probes into holes in the--rather, taking 48 holes in the pajama top and making them fit into 21 holes.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you at that time the question of whether you had an opinion as to whether or not she did in fact do what she said she did, and you said you had an opinion in that regard.
A Yes.
Q And what was that opinion?
A I consider her reconstruction to be impossible. I consider it to be conceptually unsound and contrived.

What Dr Thornton thought about Ms Green and her 1979 trial testimony:

Q Is it possible, based upon your knowledge, information, and training, for Ms. Green, using the information that she had, to have made the reconstruction of the pajama top as she did? Is it possible for her to have done that and done it correctly--moving the 48 holes into 21?
A No.

More doubts from Dr Thornton about Stombaugh at the 1979 trial :

Q That's my fault. Let me rephrase it. If this pajama top were torn when it was in its less damaged condition when it was not rendered asunder--if it was torn, say, from a hand placed in the V-center and pulled out, do you have an opinion as to whether such a procedure would result in a substantial number of fibers falling from the garment or being released from the garment?
A I have an opinion; yes.
Q And what is your opinion in that regard?
A That it would not.

More about what Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's speculations :

Q Dr. Thornton, I would like to ask you about the areas that you had sort of gotten into, "C" and "D," which were described by Mr. Stombaugh at page 4141 of his testimony. I am going to ask your opinion about those.
He stated at that time that, "Area 'C' conforms to a bloody handprint." He then said, "Area 'C' on the sheet...conforms to a bloody left hand--the two portions of it, here, here and here." He said, "As to Area 'D,' it conforms to a bloody right hand." Let me ask you, first of all, do you agree with his opinion and his conclusion?
A No, I think that is exceedingly unlikely

What Dr Thornton thought about Stombaugh's theory about a bare left shoulder :

Dealing first of all with the statement that Area "E" has the appearance of a bare left shoulder, do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
A I disagree.
Q What is the basis of your own opinion in this regard?
A I am unable to replicate an impression that has the appearance of "E" on that item by using a shoulder, neck, or clavicle region of a human being. I can replicate it to some extent by folding the fabric over an area of bloody cloth.
Q Let me go back over what you just told us. First of all, is it your opinion that it is not in any reasonable fashion a bare--it is not an impression made by a bare left shoulder as far as you can ascertain?
A That is correct. I don't think there is any credible possibility that it could be a bare left shoulder.

Part of the cross-examination of Green at the 1979 trial :

Q Given the fact that when Mrs. Colette MacDonald died that she was wearing a pink pajama top, would you not agree that good scientific practice would require that any experiment attempted to recreate something about how she might have received her injuries would require that the experiment also have the pink pajama top in place?

MR. MURTAGH: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

 

[byn63]

There is no guarantee, or evidence, that any pajama fibers found in strange places happened to get there on the night of the murders. That's just an assumption.

OMG seriously? You want us to actually believe that you believe this nonsense? Of course, happens all the time that "in tact" pajamas spew fibers all over the place, like under the fingernail of your 2 year old daughter that you stabbed in the heart, in the bedding of your 5 year old daughter (when you claimed not to have been wearing the top when you "checked" on her) "checked=translate to putting her into her bed and covering her up after having bashed her head in".

It is not an assumption that the fibers strewn about were from the night he slaughtered his family. you know that and you know that we know you know that.......you still have not answered JTF's challenge.....it is long long long past time for you to either PROVE (anonymous internet articles and your personal opinions do not count) even one of your claims WITH documented evidence (ie lab reports) your position or go away. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

 

[byn63]

no Helena didn't want to attend the trial, but what has THAT got to do with her being afraid of the DEFENSE attorney and not the prosecutors? The fact is henri, Jimmy Britt lied in that affidavit, the government proved it at the hearings.....simple truth.....pay attention now this is important:

1. Jimmy Britt did not escort Helena from SC to Raleigh
2. Jimmy Britt did not sit in on the meetings Helena had w/defense OR prosecution
3. Jimmy Britt LIED
4. Helena said she "was not there that night, I cannot help you" and she said "someone on acid would not have done these things, maybe someone on speed" (Eskatrol=speed)
5. Wade Smith stated IN COURT that Helena had said the same things to them (defense) as she had testified to in court and he told the prosecutors that what they got out of Helena was basically the same thing the defense got out of her.

So get it straight henri - inmate lied - he DID slaughter his family and Jimmy Britt lied

 

[Henri McPhee]

OMG seriously? You want us to actually believe that you believe this nonsense? Of course, happens all the time that "in tact" pajamas spew fibers all over the place, like under the fingernail of your 2 year old daughter that you stabbed in the heart, in the bedding of your 5 year old daughter (when you claimed not to have been wearing the top when you "checked" on her) "checked=translate to putting her into her bed and covering her up after having bashed her head in".

It is not an assumption that the fibers strewn about were from the night he slaughtered his family. you know that and you know that we know you know that.......you still have not answered JTF's challenge.....it is long long long past time for you to either PROVE (anonymous internet articles and your personal opinions do not count) even one of your claims WITH documented evidence (ie lab reports) your position or go away. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

This matter of so-called pajama fibers in strange places which so interests JTF on his website was discussed in detail at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 with textile expert Professor Wolfgang. The jury at the MacDonald trial in 1979 were never informed of this information because Murtagh just said the information was ten years old, in order for him to exclude any exculpatory evidence which might cause an acquittal.

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1970-08-11-a32-wolfgang.html

Q Professor Wolfgang, assuming that certain fibers from a garment such as men's pajamas were found, some on a rug, some on bed sheets, some in other places in contact with the house, is there ways of determining from an examination of the fibers themselves, how they came to be on the rug and sheet and other places?
A No.
Q Is there any way of determining from the examination of the fibers as to whether they were torn from the garment or they had fallen from the garment, or had merely just disintegrated after considerable wear?
A No. There are some extenuating circumstances in which it might be possible. In general, however, no.
Q Was there anything in the report prepared by Mr. Browning that you examined, or in his testimony that you read, that indicated that such extenuating circumstances were present and that he testified to in his examinations?
A Not that I noticed.
Q Is there any way of telling from the examination of fibers that there were found, again in the same places as I described a moment ago, how long those fibers had lain, or been in the position that they were prior to being collected?
A By examination of the fibers, no.
Q Professor Wolfgang, again based upon your examination of the materials that we have submitted to you in writing, did you find that there was any basis upon which Mr. Browning could testify to reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the fibers and threads being definitely from the tops of the pair of pajamas that he had submitted to him?
A No. There are -- perhaps, I don't know whether you want this qualified or not --
Q Go right ahead.

 

[Henri McPhee]

no Helena didn't want to attend the trial, but what has THAT got to do with her being afraid of the DEFENSE attorney and not the prosecutors? The fact is henri, Jimmy Britt lied in that affidavit, the government proved it at the hearings.....simple truth.....pay attention now this is important:

1. Jimmy Britt did not escort Helena from SC to Raleigh
2. Jimmy Britt did not sit in on the meetings Helena had w/defense OR prosecution
3. Jimmy Britt LIED
4. Helena said she "was not there that night, I cannot help you" and she said "someone on acid would not have done these things, maybe someone on speed" (Eskatrol=speed)
5. Wade Smith stated IN COURT that Helena had said the same things to them (defense) as she had testified to in court and he told the prosecutors that what they got out of Helena was basically the same thing the defense got out of her.

So get it straight henri - inmate lied - he DID slaughter his family and Jimmy Britt lied

I don't know if Britt lied about transporting Helena from South Carolina. Murtagh could have easily coached other people to say that they did the transporting. Personally, I believe that at some point Helena confessed to Britt, perhaps in Raleigh, but that confession was never recorded by a recording device, so we will never know for certain. I also think Britt heard Blackburn threatening Helena with being indicted if she confessed in court, but that was never recorded either.

This is what Helena said to her lawyer, Leonard, at the time of the trial. It is much closer to the truth than what she said in court. It's like some politicians say things in public which they don't say in private. It's also like government by tycoons for tycoons:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/0-2012-leonard-affidavit.html

Our plan thereafter was for Ms Stoeckley to refuse to answer questions if re-called as a witness. We had the script written down for her to read from the stand in order to properly invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.

 

[HSienzant]

...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...

I am always astonished when conspiracy theorists rattle off two diametrically opposite thoughts back-to-back, as if that's the norm. And we should all just go with the flow.

Henri, your first sentence quoted above removes all doubt about how to assess your second sentence.

She lied. Constantly. You admitted it. She said she was involved at times, and denied her involvement other times. Even in the stories she told about her involvement, she told different versions of her involvement. That makes all her statements worthless. All of them.

Now, on her numerous confessions, and denials of guilt, you always reach into your goodie bag of Helena Stoeckley's statements and somehow constantly pull out the same one, and attempt to stand on that. As if that one is not worthless, like all the others.

It is. You admitted it.

If I may draw an anology here, it is like you are on a sinking ship and you step off into the choppy sea onto a 2-inch by 2-inch piece of Styrofoam and expect to remain upright. You - and your argument - collapses from its own weight.

I'm surprised you don't understand it. And if you do understand it, why you ignore it.

Hank