Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[JTF]

Examples Of Sourced Evidence

HENRIBOY: Unlike you, I can back up ALL of my evidentiary arguments with actual lab documentation and expert testimony. For example, I can source the 24 fibers found under and near Colette's body to a specific garment AND provide inculpatory evidence linking inmate to that garment.

- According to hair/fiber expert Paul Stombaugh, the source of those fibers was the torn left front seam of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top

- No expert witnesses were ever called to rebut this testimony

- Considering that a majority of the fibers were found under Colette's body, logic dictates that she came to rest on the master bedroom carpet AFTER the garment was torn

- One of the fibers was found directly under Colette's head and it was protruding from a blood clot in pigtail fashion

- Logic dictates that this fiber had been shed shortly before Colette's head came to rest on that portion of the carpet

- Lab documentation and testimony from Paul Stombaugh indicates that Colette had bled on the left front seam of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top BEFORE it was torn

- No expert witnesses were ever called to rebut this testimony

- Contact and smearing stains in Colette's blood type were found on the dislodged pajama top pocket

- Lab documentation and testimony from serologist Terry Laber indicates that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood BEFORE it was torn from the garment

- No expert witnesses were ever called to rebut this testimony

What does all of this data tell us? It demonstrates that an individual wearing this garment was in a physical confrontation with Colette MacDonald, that she bled on the garment in several locations and subsequently ripped open the garment when attempting to defend herself. This resulted in 24 fibers from the left front seam of that garment falling to the master bedroom carpet and her body was later placed on top of those fibers. Jeffrey MacDonald admitted that the garment was his and that he wore the garment on 2/17/70.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

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.

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

Hank

That's tosh if you don't mind me saying so. Lies are told all the time in life. Politicians tell lies, or are economical with the truth. Salesmen sometimes tell lies. Even doctors have been known to lie in the past. A good policeman has been described in the past as a man who will lie through thick and thin. In a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, witnesses were described as people who perjure themselves as a matter of course.

The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part.

The point of a fair trial is to elicit the truth. In the MacDonald case the police and prosecutors lied, or made things up, and so did the lab technicians like Stombaugh. Helena Stoeckley was not a nice person, but her information should never have been disregarded. There was no money in it for her, and no romantic ties to MacDonald. It should have been further investigated so that Mazerolle and his pals didn't get away with murder.

There is a bit about informers, or informants, on the internet:

www.rats-nosnitch.com/rats/

What exactly is a snitch?

There are a lot of different types of snitches. We could write an encyclopedia defining them. But we're going to keep this simple.

For purposes of the book, a snitch is anybody who inserts him- or herself into your non-violent activities on behalf of government. "Government" may mean local cops. It could also mean the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, or a host of other state or federal agencies. It's absolutely mind-boggling how many seemingly innocuous agencies these days have arrest powers, armed enforcers — and snitches employed in sneaky sting operations. And thousands of them use snitches.

There are two common categories of snitch you need to look out for:

The infiltrator/agent provocateur. This is someone (often a professional) who is inserted into a group for an active purpose, such as disrupting the group, or worst, talking formerly innocent (or at least formerly non-violent) people into committing crimes in order to bust them. Agents provocateurs may, among other things, try to turn non-violent protest into violent action, thus discrediting movements, giving excuses for crackdowns, and giving more publicity and power to government agencies.

The informer/informant. This snitch is often a legitimate member of a group or social circle who continues to be active while giving information to the police. This person may be acting under duress (to save his own skin after being arrested, for instance). This person may be hoping the cops will pay with money, drugs, or ongoing criminal immunity for her dubious "services." While this person isn't necessarily a professional agent provocateur, he may nevertheless try to talk friends into committing crimes so he can get more credibility or rewards from his police handlers.

These aren't the only types of snitches. For example, there's also what we'll call the "accidental snitch" — though idiot snitch might be more appropriate. This is the person who simply can't keep her mouth shut about illegal or controversial activities. Cops love these guys! They don't even have to threaten them, pay them, hire them, train them, or gain any leverage over them. They just sit back and listen to them reveal secrets.

Then there's the type of snitch the British call a grass and old American gangsters might have called a stool pigeon. This is a person who blabs to cops or other government agents after you (and probably he) have already been arrested. This person isn't going to interfere with your activities; that's already been done. He's "only" going to give sworn affidavits and courtroom testimony against you, justifying it as a means of saving his own skin. There's not much you can do about this person. By the time you learn one of your former friends is a "stoolie," it's too late.

There are vengeance snitches — people who turn on friends and associates after having a falling out or not getting their way. There are jailhouse snitches — either deliberately planted in your cell after you've been arrested or just opportunists who happen to be there and are willing to share whatever you say (or make up lies about things you said).

Each and every one of these people is a betrayer of friendship and trust. All of them are just plain rats — and they're as welcome in the company of good people as rats are in a pantry.

 

[Border Reiver]

That's tosh if you don't mind me saying so. Lies are told all the time in life. Politicians tell lies, or are economical with the truth. Salesmen sometimes tell lies. Even doctors have been known to lie in the past. A good policeman has been described in the past as a man who will lie through thick and thin. In a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, witnesses were described as people who perjure themselves as a matter of course.

And?

You are lying here in this thread every time you say that MacDonald was not properly convicted, or that the prosecution did not prove its case. He was, because the prosecution did - that's why there is a "guilty" verdict.

The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part.

The next most common mistake is to ignore all the evidence that contradicts your preferred version of events. Helena has told at least 4 different versions of her activities that night, rendering any testimony on her part not supported by physical evidence worthless. Guess what? The only version of the Helena story that is supported by the evidence is that she wasn't there.....

The point of a fair trial is to elicit the truth. In the MacDonald case the police and prosecutors lied, or made things up, and so did the lab technicians like Stombaugh. Helena Stoeckley was not a nice person, but her information should never have been disregarded. There was no money in it for her, and no romantic ties to MacDonald. It should have been further investigated so that Mazerolle and his pals didn't get away with murder.

Mazerolle was in jail the night it happened and Helena's stories contradict each other so much that any testimony she could produce is worthless. As for the rest of your rant, it is my observation that most convicted felons claim that they are really innocent, and that the police, the crime lab, the judge, the jury, the appeal judges, the prosecutor, and their pets are all out to get them.

 

[desmirelle]

The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part.

No, the commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject every piece of evidence that does not support their presuppositions on the case.

Just like you do.

 

[BStrong]

...The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part....

The above is where hobbyists go right off the road into the weeds.

Witness credibility is paramount. If a witness is shown to have either falsified testimony or fabricated evidence they are useless in court and can face criminal charges themselves.

It's important to note that you have no difficulty in rejecting testimony or evidence based on your pov that the witness was unqualified/lied etc.

 

[desmirelle]

Bstrong - I love the Cooper quote.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Mazerolle was in jail the night it happened and Helena's stories contradict each other so much that any testimony she could produce is worthless. As for the rest of your rant, it is my observation that most convicted felons claim that they are really innocent, and that the police, the crime lab, the judge, the jury, the appeal judges, the prosecutor, and their pets are all out to get them.

Mistakes are made and serious ones. Innocent people get convicted while the guilty go free. Mazerolle was out on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders and his jail records have mysteriously gone missing. That piece of paper which fooled Fred Bost was a forgery.

Stombaugh of the FBI was involved in false testimony. It was certainly not flawless as JTF keeps mentioning. Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to pontificate about fabric impressions and the blood evidence in a criminal court, which was against the federal rules of evidence.

The forensic evidence in a criminal case must be based on a scientific rock. If a prosecutor forged the DNA results or fingerprints then that is a case for a reversal, or new trial, on appeal.

You take everything on the evidence, not on anger or emotion, or violent prejudice. There is a bit about this matter in an internet article titled 'The Jury Expert The Art and Science of Litigation Advocacy' on Google:

Emotional Evidence

Of course, both sides in a criminal case — defense and prosecution — attempt to sway jurors' emotions, and in turn, their verdicts. Prosecuting attorneys might flash as many gruesome post-mortem photographs as the judge will allow to make jurors angrier at the defendant. Defense attorneys might make appeals to jurors' empathy during closing statements. Disturbing evidence, such as autopsy photographs of children, has caused extreme reactions in jurors, such as crying or even vomiting (Rowan, 2007). Will jurors' heightened anger or disgust lead them to be more punitive toward a defendant? And if so, how?

According to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (2006), "although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Negative emotion can influence legal judgments, however, in both probative and prejudicial ways (for reviews see Feigenson & Park, 2006; Salerno & Bottoms, 2009). Thus, it is important to note that emotional evidence can affect jurors' judgments through the legally desired probative channels or the legally untenable prejudicial channels. For example, the prosecution's goal is obviously to present evidence (emotional or not) to increase punitiveness.

Evidence, such as graphic crime scene photographs and victim impact statements, is presented to demonstrate the amount of harm inflicted by an offender, and in turn, increase punishment. If jurors become more punitive because of unique information about harm, the law considers that the evidence has had a probative effect. But if the evidence does not provide unique information about harm, or if it increases jurors' emotions in informationally irrelevant ways and this outweighs the unique factual information – it could be considered legally prejudicial.

 

[desmirelle]

For Henri's eyes only:

Posts #2300, 2303, 2304, 2305.

 

[BStrong]

Mistakes are made and serious ones. Innocent people get convicted while the guilty go free. Mazerolle was out on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders and his jail records have mysteriously gone missing. That piece of paper which fooled Fred Bost was a forgery.

Stombaugh of the FBI was involved in false testimony. It was certainly not flawless as JTF keeps mentioning. Stombaugh of the FBI was never qualified to pontificate about fabric impressions and the blood evidence in a criminal court, which was against the federal rules of evidence.

The forensic evidence in a criminal case must be based on a scientific rock. If a prosecutor forged the DNA results or fingerprints then that is a case for a reversal, or new trial, on appeal.

You take everything on the evidence, not on anger or emotion, or violent prejudice. There is a bit about this matter in an internet article titled 'The Jury Expert The Art and Science of Litigation Advocacy' on Google:

Lets see, what did you just post? - oh, now I remember, about six hours ago you posted this:

"The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied as to part."

And now, the above bolded on Stombaugh.

There's a reason why your opinions aren't taken seriously.

desmirelle - The Colonel was many things, but always articulate.

 

[JTF]

Fantasy Narrative

HENRIBOY: I appreciate your efforts in providing this thread with lab documentation that places Allen Mazzerolle at this crime scene. You've not only provided corroboration for your claim that Mazzerolle was not in jail on 2/17/70, you.... wait, you haven't provided a shred of evidence backing your erroneous claims, have you?

As a matter of fact, your lone contribution to this thread is putting forth fantasy narratives that are long on hyperbole and short on documented fact. Even your obsession with Stoeckley's role in this case glosses over major credibility issues brought forth by the DEFENSE in this case.

For example, a defense-funded polygraph exam was administered to Stoeckley by polygraph expert Scott Mero. He broke down the exam into two phases and while Stoeckley passed the first phase, she flunked the second phase of the exam.

This exam took place 10 years after the murders, yet the passage of time didn't seem to enhance her ability to weave a credible intruder narrative. As Judge Fox pointed out in 2008, Stoeckley was not credible in 1970, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981 or in 1982.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

And?

You are lying here in this thread every time you say that MacDonald was not properly convicted, or that the prosecution did not prove its case. He was, because the prosecution did - that's why there is a "guilty" verdict.



The next most common mistake is to ignore all the evidence that contradicts your preferred version of events. Helena has told at least 4 different versions of her activities that night, rendering any testimony on her part not supported by physical evidence worthless. Guess what? The only version of the Helena story that is supported by the evidence is that she wasn't there.....



Mazerolle was in jail the night it happened and Helena's stories contradict each other so much that any testimony she could produce is worthless. As for the rest of your rant, it is my observation that most convicted felons claim that they are really innocent, and that the police, the crime lab, the judge, the jury, the appeal judges, the prosecutor, and their pets are all out to get them.

Mazerolle was out on bail on the night of the MacDonald murders. That piece of paper that is supposed to be his iron-clad alibi was falsified. It was never a true copy. Helena Stoeckley lied like a trooper because she was frightened.

I agree with you that clever rogues who know the ropes often claim that they are really innocent and that most people who are prosecuted are guilty. It has been said by a lawyer in the past that a third of all civil cases are decided wrongly. It's just assumed that it is different in criminal courts.

Part of the trouble is that in theory there should be a calm presentation of the facts and that the forensic evidence must be scientific fact. What happens in practice is that there is a will to win by both the prosecutors and defense lawyers. They both see how far they can go in disregarding the rules of evidence and procedure. That is made even worse in an incompetent court like a Judge Dupree court, or Judge 'corrupt bias' Fox court.

An innocent prisoner doesn't stand a chance in that situation if he is unrepresented in court, or even if he manages to obtain a bad advocate. That prisoner then becomes a fearfully aggrieved angry client of the defense lawyer. There is not much money in criminal work anyway and only the extremely rich can afford eminent and well known counsel.

 

[Border Reiver]

Mazerolle was out on bail on the night of the MacDonald murders. That piece of paper that is supposed to be his iron-clad alibi was falsified. It was never a true copy. Helena Stoeckley lied like a trooper because she was frightened.

Your evidence for any of this is?

Helena Stoeckley lied like a trooper - on multiple occasions. The story of hers that is backed up by actual physical evidence, and which therefore can be believed, is the one where she said she wasn't present at the house.

 

[JTF]

Fresh Off The Presses

BORDER: That story is actually her FIRST accounting or lack thereof of the events of 2/17/70. Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told legendary Fayetteville investigative reporter Pat Reese that she had no memory of that morning due to excessive drug use. In 1971, Reese told CID investigator Peter Kearns that, in his opinion, Stoeckley's subsequent "confessions" were due to her constant need for attention. Reese worked part-time as a drug counselor and he had several contacts with Stoeckley in the months leading up to the murders.

If anyone had a fix on the 17 year old attention-seeking drug addict, it was Pat Reese. Throughout the 70's and early 80's, Reese wrote several articles questioning Stoeckley's credibility. The most memorable article was published in 1983, and focused on the reactions of Don Harris, Dwight Smith and Allen Mazzerolle to Stoeckley's claim that they were involved in the murders. Mazzerolle called Stoeckley's claims "ridiculous" adding that "she was the informer who fingered me to the narcotics agents."


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

 

[desmirelle]

The only thing "interesting" about Brit's claim is that, while he claims to have belatedly found his conscience, COINCIDENTALLY, the recovery came AFTER THE RECORDS WHICH WOULD HAVE PROVED HE LIED WERE SCHEDULED TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED.

But for a mix-up and delay in destroying these records, no one would be able to show Brit for the lying oxygen thief he was. Karma seems to want Mack the knife to remain in jail.

 

[Henri McPhee]

BORDER: That story is actually her FIRST accounting or lack thereof of the events of 2/17/70. Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told legendary Fayetteville investigative reporter Pat Reese that she had no memory of that morning due to excessive drug use. In 1971, Reese told CID investigator Peter Kearns that, in his opinion, Stoeckley's subsequent "confessions" were due to her constant need for attention. Reese worked part-time as a drug counselor and he had several contacts with Stoeckley in the months leading up to the murders.

If anyone had a fix on the 17 year old attention-seeking drug addict, it was Pat Reese. Throughout the 70's and early 80's, Reese wrote several articles questioning Stoeckley's credibility. The most memorable article was published in 1983, and focused on the reactions of Don Harris, Dwight Smith and Allen Mazzerolle to Stoeckley's claim that they were involved in the murders. Mazzerolle called Stoeckley's claims "ridiculous" adding that "she was the informer who fingered me to the narcotics agents."


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

I was watching one of these American true crime shows yesterday about a serial killer and sadistic sociopath in the North-West of America in about 1980. The thing that interested me was that in one of his early murders of young women the police had some of his blood, but they were told by the labs that it was type B when his blood type was type O so he was excluded as a suspect. The explanation was that this was caused by bacteria. This was in the days before DNA. I think this is relevant to the MacDonald case. The average jury and judge would have no idea that mistakes could be made in blood typing.

Pat Reece/Reese was a shady local journalist and former drug addict who did his best to protect the real culprits in the MacDonald case, and to discredit Helena Stoeckley and Detective Beasley. He lived in the same apartment block as suspect Dwight Smith. There is a bit of background information about him from the Williams cross-examination at the 1979 MacDonald trial:

That was the seminar that was conducted in January, one month after Dr. MacDonald was assigned to us. Participants in the seminar were representatives from the MPs, the lawyers. There was an individual -- Mr. Pat Reece -- who was an ex-drug addict, and Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Heeston, and the chaplain. And how it went was that the -- I believe it was the law enforcement personnel presented the -- and the legal -- the lawyers presented the ramifications of what would happen to you if you were caught, and then --
Q (Interposing) Essentially they told about what the punishments were and the type of discharge that one might get if convicted of varying types of crimes?
A Right. What was unique about this is that the participants in this seminar -- it was a mandatory class, so everybody available at the group, from private on up the group commander were there; and General Emerson, the Special Forces Commander, introduced him, because Mr. Pat Reece was a good friend and had offered to do this.
Q About how many people were present at that seminar, if you can tell us, please?
A It was held at the auditorium at John F. Kennedy, and it was -- it was almost full, so -- the capacity was 300, I believe -- 300 or 350. It was almost full.
Q And there were both enlisted men as well as officers present there?
A That's correct. Everybody who could not account for something else was there and present.
Q Now, you say Mr. Reece -- Pat Reece -- also spoke as part of that seminar?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to that again on the grounds of relevancy.

THE COURT: Well, I have no idea where counsel is going but we spend a lot of time arguing relevancy. Can you come maybe a little quicker to the point than where you are right now?

MR. SEGAL: I think this is the point, Your Honor, and again I would be glad to make an offer to the Court.

THE COURT: Go ahead. Go ahead.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What was Mr. Reece's part of this seminar for the troops on January, 1970?
A He described the paraphernalia and the actions of drug abusers and addicts, and he had a briefcase. He showed us all the tools and instruments that some of us had not seen before.
Q Right.
Q Without going into detail, what was the nature of Dr. MacDonald's presentation and how did he present it to the men that were present?
A He presented it as the addiction and the drug abuse as related to the medical effects as to what this does to an individual's body, and he was followed by the chaplain who announced that the chaplain was the only individual who had privileged conversations with those they discussed anything with --
Q (Interposing) Let's just hold it right there because apparently something different has happened right now. I just want to ask you one other question about Dr. MacDonald's presentation. How would you characterize -- what was the tone of his presentation about drug abuse?
A It was what I would expect a doctor would talk to me as a patient -- what was wrong with me -- not so much why I did it as what happens to me if I take these drugs or abuse these drugs. It was a medical -- on a layman's terms that even a private could understand.

 

[desmirelle]

And what "EXPERT" declared the Mazzerolle documentation (stating he was in prison) to be a forgery?

Seriously, why don't you answer a straight question?

 

[BStrong]

I was watching one of these American true crime shows yesterday about a serial killer and sadistic sociopath in the North-West of America in about 1980. The thing that interested me was that in one of his early murders of young women the police had some of his blood, but they were told by the labs that it was type B when his blood type was type O so he was excluded as a suspect. The explanation was that this was caused by bacteria. This was in the days before DNA. I think this is relevant to the MacDonald case. The average jury and judge would have no idea that mistakes could be made in blood typing.

Pat Reece/Reese was a shady local journalist and former drug addict who did his best to protect the real culprits in the MacDonald case, and to discredit Helena Stoeckley and Detective Beasley. He lived in the same apartment block as suspect Dwight Smith. There is a bit of background information about him from the Williams cross-examination at the 1979 MacDonald trial:

I take it he was a defense witness.

I don't know how to break this to you, but character assassination of witnesses by the defense in a criminal trial is the rule rather the exception.

 

[byn63]

I get it - in henri world the defense gets to say "because I say so it is true" no documentation or corroboration required. AND in henri's world any and all documentation, evidence, forensics, corroborated or not "doesn't count because obviously they are out to get inmate" so it must all be made up. pffft pffft pffft I really try to not laugh at this position but seriously? Pat Reese outstanding journalist who spent years counseling drug addicts - anti inmate, the entire USArmy - out to get inmate, the US Bail Bonds association - anti-inmate, the CID, the US Justice Department, the entire STATE of NC - all out to get inmate. really? do you REALLY believe the nonsense you spout?

Benjamin Franklin once said "Three men can keep a secret, only after two of them are dead". No conspiracy here...inmate slaughtered his pregnant wife and two precious little girls and the base coward that he is has continued to try and get out of the punishment he earned.

 

[ScottPletcher]

BORDER: That story is actually her FIRST accounting or lack thereof of the events of 2/17/70. Two days after the murders, Stoeckley told legendary Fayetteville investigative reporter Pat Reese that she had no memory of that morning due to excessive drug use. In 1971, Reese told CID investigator Peter Kearns that, in his opinion, Stoeckley's subsequent "confessions" were due to her constant need for attention. Reese worked part-time as a drug counselor and he had several contacts with Stoeckley in the months leading up to the murders.

If anyone had a fix on the 17 year old attention-seeking drug addict, it was Pat Reese. Throughout the 70's and early 80's, Reese wrote several articles questioning Stoeckley's credibility. The most memorable article was published in 1983, and focused on the reactions of Don Harris, Dwight Smith and Allen Mazzerolle to Stoeckley's claim that they were involved in the murders. Mazzerolle called Stoeckley's claims "ridiculous" adding that "she was the informer who fingered me to the narcotics agents."


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

Stoeckley would be completely unknown and forgotten except for her association with this case. She obviously knew that and wanted to be remembered. One can hardly blame her, given the difficult, drug-ridden life she had.

 

[JTF]

Nuff Said

SCOTT: The following is the best synopsis ever written about Henriboy's favorite red herring. The author of this synopsis is Brian Murtagh and it was part of the government's 1984 appellate brief.

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com