This is part of Detective Beasley's trial testimony in 1979 before his inorganic brain disorders which Byn keeps harping on about:
henri - you can disagree all you want to but that doesn't change the FACT that inmate WAS CONVICTED. Also, as desi has pointed out already - PEB WAS ALREADY ILL IN 1974 WHEN HE WAS "RETIRED" from the Fayetteville PD. By 1979 the time of trial his brain was in even worse shape and he was confabulating (lying but without intent) so his "beliefs" or "memories" were not credible by any stretch of the imagination.
Q Approximately how many friends or acquaintances or business relations or school relations of the MacDonalds were interviewed in this matter?
A Oh, many.
Q Would you say more than a hundred?
A Possibly. I do not know, a goodly number.
Q Have any of those people -- if so, who -- have any of those stated that Captain MacDonald and Mrs. MacDonald had had violent arguments?
A Most of the people who were interviewed were old school friends, who hadn't seen him for some time and their recollection --
Q Is there anyone who said that Captain MacDonald had a violent temper and reacted physically when placed under stress?
A I think somebody did say that, but I don't remember who it was.
Q Is that person going to be called as a witness in this case?
A I couldn't say; I don't know.
Q Has anybody stated, to your knowledge, of all the people interviewed in this case, that Captain MacDonald ever struck his children?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Has anybody stated to your knowledge that, in this case, that Mrs. MacDonald ever struck the children?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Has anybody stated to your knowledge that Captain MacDonald ever struck Mrs. MacDonald?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q You stated that you interviewed Mr. Kassab, the father-in-law of Captain MacDonald?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he give you any information that Captain MacDonald and Mrs. MacDonald were anything other than a very happily married couple?
A As far as he knew, they weren't having any problems.
Q Did he say anything to you about hearing from Colette within a short period of time before this incident?
A That is what I am trying to get right -- he talked to her on the telephone the weekend before, Saturday or Sunday, I don't know. And I am trying to think what it was. I guess they were talking about her pregnancy and she seemed a little worried about it, or something.
Q No domestic quarrels or problems or disputes?
A None they knew of.
Q Do you know whether they were particularly close with their daughter, kept in contact at least once a week?
A It appeared that Alfred Kassab or Mr. Kassab was in more contact than Mrs. Kassab.
Q They spoke with their daughter approximately once a week, at least, on the telephone?
A Yes; he used to call her from the office.
Q But none of these people indicated to you any particular problem in the MacDonald household on February 16-17?
A No.
Q From what anybody has told you, that there has been any particular problem between Captain MacDonald and Mrs. MacDonald, which they argued about violently?
A No.
Q Has anybody told you that there was any problem between Captain MacDonald and his two children or Colette and their two children?
A Again, names I don't know. There was something to do with the youngest child, Kristy.
Q What was the problem with Kristy?
A She seemed to be jealous of the unborn child and it just seemed that she was trying to push Colette out of the picture and take to the father; she was wetting the bed, etc.
Q Was she also described as crawling into the bed between them or with them at night, also?
A Yes.
Q Was there anything strange or abnormal about this particular phenomena to your knowledge? Do you have any knowledge --
A I have two children.
Q Is there anything strange or abnormal about that particular conduct?
A No, I had one of them in bed this morning.
Sorry about your friend, BStrong. That's always so shocking when they've kept everything to themselves and the false front up so no one else could see....
HENRIBOY: Hate to break it to ya, but your impressions or opinions on Beasley's medical history are meaningless. It is an undisputed fact that...
In 1974, Prince Beasley was forced to "retire" from the force after wandering into traffic and behaving in a bizarre fashion. As BYN pointed out, he was subsequently diagnosed with an inorganic brain disorder. This brain disorder is deteriorative which indicates that he was experiencing symptoms a few years prior to this traffic incident. This coincides with the murders of Colette, Kimmie and Kristen MacDonald in February of 1970.
It's safe to assume that by 1979, Beasley's ability to accurately recall the events of 1970 was minimal. In addition, Beasley's recollections of that time frame were first put forth to Gunderson in 1980, six years AFTER he "retired" from law enforcement. In essence, Beasley's recall in 1980 of the events of 2/17/70 lacks any real merit.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
1250 Michigan State Law Review Vol. 2012:1245
The Committee determined that courts had generally moved toward
exercising discretion in favor of generally allowing testimony and leaving it
to the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.38 In fact, the Advisory
Committee went so far as to state that it is "difficult to imagine" a witness
"wholly without capacity."39
Prior to the modern-day rules, as early as 1882, the U.S. Supreme
Court indicated the following as the "general rule":
[A] lunatic or a person affected with insanity is admissible as a witness if he have
[sic] sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath, and to be capable
of giving a correct account of the matters which he has seen or heard in reference
to the questions at issue; and whether he have [sic] that understanding is a
question to be determined by the court, upon examination of the party himself, and
any competent witnesses who can speak to the nature and extent of his insanity.40
Because capacity to testify is a question of law, judges decide whether a
particular witness is competent, with a presumption that witnesses are competent.41
The question about believability is then left to the jury, which
weighs the credibility of testimony.42
According to the Supreme Court, judges should consider the following
two criteria: "(1) whether the proposed witness is capable of comprehending
the nature of the oath, and (2) whether the witness is capable of giving an
accurate account of what he or she has seen and heard."43 "The days are
long past when any mental illness was presumed to undermine a witness's
competence to testify."44
The way the law works in Michigan is that a person with mild senile dementia can be a witness in a court room. There is no evidence that Detective Beasley was suffering from severe, or very severe, senile dementia at the time of the MacDonald murders, or at the MacDonald trial in 1979.
Again, me with FACTS....
Point of FACT: Inorganic brain disease is NOT dementia, mild or severe, senile or juvenile.
Point of FACT: Michigan law has nothing to do with a Federal case, so your 'comparison' is meaningless with regard to this case.
Points of FACT: Beasley was retired from the police in 1974 for IBD - one of those conditions that gets worse, not better with time. IBD doesn't present the way dementia does, so Beasley WOULD NOT BE DISPLAYING SYMPTOMS OF DEMENTIA.
Now, cite the evidence like JTF asked, please.
1248 Michigan State Law Review Vol. 2012:1245
As the disease continues to progress, distant memory worsens and language
and visuospatial difficulties become prominent.24 For the purposes of the
Rules of Evidence, it is also significant that symptoms in those with AD
fluctuate, so that people have "good days" and "bad days."25 It is a progressive
disease, so "a person with early-stage AD may not show any symptoms
one day; the next he or she may have trouble remembering your name or
finding the milk in the refrigerator. m 6
No studies have been conducted on the specific topic of AD and testimony.27
However, there are seven stages of AD,Z8 which are instructive in
determining whether testifying in a court of law will or may be problematic.
The Alzheimer's Association specifies the following stages:
I. "No impairment (normal function)"
II. "Very mild cognitive decline (may be normal age-related changes or earliest
signs of Alzheimer's disease)"
III. "Mild cognitive decline (early-stage Alzheimer's can be diagnosed in some,
but not all, individuals with these symptoms)"
IV. "Moderate cognitive decline (Mild or early-stage Alzheimer's disease)"
V. "Moderately severe cognitive decline (Moderate or mid-stage Alzheimer's
disease)"
VI. "Severe cognitive decline (Moderately severe or mid-stage Alzheimer's disease)"
VII. "Very severe cognitive decline (Severe or late-stage Alzheimer's disease)"29
As will be shown below, it is likely that witnesses in only stages five,
six, and seven will cause evidentiary issues for courts. Stage seven, which is
described as an individual losing the ability to respond to his or her envi-1248 Michigan State Law Review Vol. 2012:1245
The trouble is that doctors are doctor-like as Shakespeare once put it. Like lawyers and journalists and teachers they know nothing about bugging, or if they are being bugged. Murtagh never went into detail about what was wrong with Detective Beasley. It looks like senile dementia to me. Vanity Fair magazine once described Beasley's symptoms as "non-psychotic organic brain disease" whatever that is, though that may not be accurate coming from a journalist.
Beasley's daughter once wrote after his death that what her father said about the MacDonald murders was true at the time of the murders and at the MacDonald trial in 1979 but he was never believed, though she did admit that her father's health failed after that. The point is that Beasley was never talking through his hat as the MacDonald prosecution always like to maintain.
There is more about this matter of witnesses with possible cognitive disorders at that Michigan law site:
I get it, you want MacDonald to be not guilty. But you've NEVER PRESENTED ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR OPINION. You cannot even answer a straight question (cite the evidence requested by JTF). That is sad, really sad.
The evidence requested by JTF can not be presented because it was a poor investigation. Leads and suspects were disregarded and there is no DNA or fingerprints, partly because of the dishonest bungling detectives and lab technicians.
The MacDonald case will never be solved unless the FBI ups its game and does some INVESTIGATING of the real culprits, like Mazerolle and his pals. Just for the FBI asking for the names and addresses of suspects and their pals, and meekly accepting their categorical denials and lies, is not good enough. They should be relentlessly pursued. Detective Beasley was about the only astute detective on the case but he was never believed.
Beasley had to let the suspects go after the murders because the bungling detectives at the Army CID showed no interest in them, and their documentation later vanished from the police station.
This is some of the silly remarks from the 4th Circuit judges in 1985. They were not extremely competent judges. What would they have done in Beasley's boots?
To answer your last question first: They could have done what any COMPETENT DETECTIVE would have done had he believed his suspects were involved: called for squad cars and had them taken in for questioning. DUH.
Beasley had to let the suspects go if he were waiting for the MILITARY to pick up CIVILIANS OFF-POST. Since you don't understand that, I'll break it down: the MPs can follow and stop a speeding car going off post, but they cannot question people off-post unless the civilian authorities bring said people to them or invite them to 'join' the questioning. It would have been illegal for the MPs to go off-post, pick up civilians and transport them to Fort Bragg for any purpose. So, your precious Beasley has now just attempted to circumvent not only the law of NC and the US Govt, but he's also attempted to deprive citizens of their rights without due process. Sounds like he didn't think really think they were suspects.
\
What documentation? What forms did Beasley fill out ANYWHERE apart from a deposition of his actions? He didn't go the MPs, so he didn't fill out forms there, he didn't call for a squad car (SOP in these situations) to transport "suspects", so precisely what documentation do you 'think' was destroyed or altered? And why, if Beasley called the MPs, would such documentation be at a police station - that's a civilian facility?
You could take the FBI investigations out of the mix and history would still show that ALL of the viable suspects in this case were thoroughly investigated. Case in point...
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/reinvestigation.html
This is from an affidavit by Raymond Madden FBI on July 12th 1984. The local North Carolina SBI Agents were investigating the Stoeckley killer gang at that stage on the day after the MacDonald murders. Dwight Smith and Pat Reese were people of interest:
"He (Dwight Smith) could not recall specifically where he was during the evening of February 16th or the early morning hours of February 17, 1970. He does remember that during the early or mid-morning hours of February 17, 1970 that Ray Davis and Cuyler Windham, SBI Agents, came to his residence and spoke with him and Pat Reese regarding the MacDonald murders. They were seeking information from Smith and Reese as to possible suspects."