Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[BStrong]

That's not absolutely correct. If MacDonald had taken legal advice and had a lawyer with him at that April 1970 he might have kept his mouth shut about all those medicines which came to haunt him later on. It's ridiculous for a juror to say publicly that MacDonald was arrogant at that April 1970 interview and that's why he was convicted. MacDonald was being frank, candid and open.

This is what MacDonald said about the matter of medicines in his house. There is nothing suspicious about it.

On what planet?

JM, even being an O rank and a physician had no authority to store medical supplies at his rersidence and possession of amphetamines outside of a deployment would be enough to get him court martialed and if convicted, possible prison time before being BCD'd out of the Army. Being a physician doesn't grant someone the authority to possess schedule II stimulants outside of having a prescription for the medication themselves in both civilian life and military service.

 

[byn63]

On what planet?

JM, even being an O rank and a physician had no authority to store medical supplies at his rersidence and possession of amphetamines outside of a deployment would be enough to get him court martialed and if convicted, possible prison time before being BCD'd out of the Army. Being a physician doesn't grant someone the authority to possess schedule II stimulants outside of having a prescription for the medication themselves in both civilian life and military service.

In fact, as I stated earlier inmate should have been charged with theft of government property (at a minimum) because he indeed signed a form stating that the property assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Medical offices had been destroyed. He admitted that is where he acquired those drugs, disposable scalpels, etc. I honestly believe the USA gave him a pass once the Commander had dismissed the charges against him for insufficient evidence so he would leave the Army and no longer be on their hands.

 

[BStrong]

In fact, as I stated earlier inmate should have been charged with theft of government property (at a minimum) because he indeed signed a form stating that the property assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Medical offices had been destroyed. He admitted that is where he acquired those drugs, disposable scalpels, etc. I honestly believe the USA gave him a pass once the Commander had dismissed the charges against him for insufficient evidence so he would leave the Army and no longer be on their hands.

The command staff dropped JM asap so he'd be someone else's problem.

Little did they know that he'd become arguably the best loved convicted murderer on the 'net.

 

[desmirelle]

<snip>

I speak only as to the facts in the MacDonald case, <snip>

Name FIVE, from this forum.

 

[JTF]

Thirty-Five Greater Than Zero

DESMIRELLE: And I thought that my challenges to Henriboy were tough. Five facts, eh? He can't come up with one, much less five. The last time I posted the following list, Henriboy's laughable response was that there was no evidence linking inmate to the murders.

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

 

[byn63]

DESMIRELLE: And I thought that my challenges to Henriboy were tough. Five facts, eh? He can't come up with one, much less five. The last time I posted the following list, Henriboy's laughable response was that there was no evidence linking inmate to the murders.

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

roflmao! henri did indeed state on this forum that there was no evidence linking inmate to the murders. and Desi is challenging henri to point out 5 facts from his ramblings? I can't even think of one fact that he has ever posted.....

Evidence that links inmate to the crime:
1. E-5 bloody distal portion of a limb hair found along with a bloody splinter clutched in Colette's hand. A 100% DNA match to inmate.
2. No injuries on inmate consistent with his story....his one injury that required treatement was a "neat, clean, surgically precise 1cm INCISION in the 5th intercostal space". (not even a nick on the ribs)
3. No blood, no fibers, no splinters in the living room where he alleged a fight occurred.
4. Blood stains on his pj top that showed he transported bodies.
5. Kimmie's blood in master bedroom (6" full thickness soaking stain) that showed she laid there for some time bleeding.
6. inmate's story is medically impossible
7. inmate's story is physically impossible
8. inmate claimed to have attempted to resuscitate his family yet both Kimmie and Kristie were found in their beds. even the most basically trained first responder KNOWS you must place people on a hard flat surface ON THEIR BACKS to do CPR. A Board Certified Surgeon should know that....
9. inmate claimed he pulled a knife out of Colette's chest. Two problems with that:
(1) the knife he claimed to have pulled from her chest had never been in her chest; and,
(2) even the most basically trained first aid person KNOWS you do not remove an impaled object from a body. you stabilize it and get them to a hospital immediately. EVEN if you plan to attempt CPR because the object may be acting as a plug.
10. the bloody footprints were inmate's

 

[Henri McPhee]

That's a load of baloney from Byn. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

Stombaugh of the FBI testified about the blood evidence. Stombaugh was never a blood man. There is no evidence that any pajama fibers at the crime scene appeared suddenly there on the night of the murder, as JTF suggests. The Army CID incompetently lost the pajama bottoms. Jeff MacDonald wore an old pair of pajamas which shed fibers easily.

This matter of pajama fibers which so excites JTF on his website was discussed at the Article 32 with an EXPERT, Professor Wolfgang:

The matter was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with textile expert Professor Wolfgang, but conveniently ignored by Murtagh and Blackburn at the 1979 trial so that the jury were not informed:

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--

 

[Henri McPhee]

JTF is not absolutely correct about the pajama pocket on his website. I know all this must be a bit boring to anybody unfamiliar with the MacDonald case. but the devil is in the detail. I still think it's very unfair on Jeff MacDonald to be falsely accused by a bunch of dour Irish men and hysterical women:

This is a sensible reference from a former defense response to all that pajama pocket nonsense which is supposed to be real proof of MacDonald guilt according to JTF:

"A conclusion equally plausible with the government’s theory is that Jeff
MacDonald, upon finding his wife’s bloody body in the master bedroom, and while removing the bath
mat and trying to move Colette as he testified happened, at some point began trying to frantically unbind
the pajama top that was wrapped around his wrists. As he was attempting to do this the pajama pocket
could easily have been torn away from the top, but only after it had already come in contact with both
Colette’s blood which was all around her body, and blood of Kimberley’s blood type which was on the
bath mat covering Colette. This explanation is consistent with the evidence. It is no more or less likely
than the government’s speculation about it. Hence, the torn pajama pocket evidence is neutral. Contrary
to the myth perpetrated by the government over the years, it is not probative of Jeff MacDonald’s guilt."

 

[Henri McPhee]

That hair in Colette's hand with the wooden splinter which Byn mentions was forensic fraud by Murtagh and the FBI lab, and possibly by Judge Fox. It was never identified until 2006 when suddenly Murtagh and the FBI lab substituted it for a MacDonald hair for the AFIP DNA testing.

This matter of the ice pick which JTF on his website thinks is conclusive evidence against Jeff MacDonald is full of grave doubts. There was perjury involved in the witness testimony with regard to the matter:

This is how truthful the baby sitter Kalin was. Colette's mother was also very keen to say there was an ice pick at the 1979 trial when she had never provided that information before then when asked:

This was part of the cross examination of Kalin-Cochran at the 1979 trial by Wade Smith :-

Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, let me ask you to refresh your recollection and state whether or not it isn't true that in February of 1970 you were interviewed by the CID and told them that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick anywhere in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q Do you remember that?
A No; I had no recollection of any of the weapons--not just the ice pick.
Q You had no recollection at all on February 19, 1970, of ever seeing an ice pick in the Mac-Donald house?
A Right.
Q And then you were interviewed--weren't you--by the FBI and told them a few days after this event occurred that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick in the house; do you remember that?
A No.
Q But you do remember telling the CID that you had never seen an ice pick?
A I believe they came over to our house.
Q Do you remember now talking with them?
A Yes.
Q You remember?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember telling any of the lawyers for Dr. MacDonald, for example, a Mr. Malley, that you had never seen an ice pick at their house?
A I don't remember.
Q But you do recall that you had said on a number of occasions that you never saw an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, do you remember testifying before the grand jury here in Raleigh--do you remember your testimony?
A Yeah.
Q Mrs. Cochran, I ask you to listen to my reading of a part of the typed transcript of your testimony before the grand jury and ask you if it refreshes your recollection with respect to anything about the ice pick.
On page 23 of the transcript of the grand jury, I will read you the question and then read you your answer, Mrs. Cochran, and ask you if you recall it. The questioner asked you this question.
"Question: Now, how about the ice pick? Do you recognize it? Answer: No."
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you stated further that you thought the MacDonalds had an ice pick; is that true?
A Yes.
Q You were shown the ice pick on that occasion and you said that you did not remember ever seeing that ice pick; didn't you?
A Right.
Q Now, it was only later--it was later, after lunch, that you remembered seeing an ice pick; would that be correct?
A It was in the afternoon..........

Q Now, during that four-year period, had anybody ever talked with you about it?
A No.
Q Is there any reason that you can think of why your recollection would be better four years after the event than it was a day or two after the event?

 

[byn63]

That's a load of baloney from Byn. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

Yes henri the COURTS must take into consideration the EVIDENCE and every piece that I quoted above IS EVIDENCE INCULPATORY EVIDENCE. This isn't THEORY, inmate was TRIED and CONVICTED. THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST HIM ARE FACTS. YOU are the only person spouting opinion and pretending it is any way credible or valid. HENRI POSTS NOTHING BUT BOLLOCKS!

Stombaugh of the FBI testified about the blood evidence. Stombaugh was never a blood man. There is no evidence that any pajama fibers at the crime scene appeared suddenly there on the night of the murder, as JTF suggests. The Army CID incompetently lost the pajama bottoms. INMATE wore an old pair of pajamas which shed fibers easily.

THE COURT ACCEPTED STOMBAUGH AS AN EXPERT. Just because you do not like what he testified to does not make him less and expert nor negate his testimony. Your claims that inmate's "old pajama's" shed fibers easily is ridiculous. EVEN OLD PAJAMAS WOULD NOT SHED THE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF FIBERS AND THREADS FOUND IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, KIMBERLEY'S ROOM, AND KRISTEN'S ROOM (not to mention the bloody fiber found under Kristen's fingernail).

You don't like the facts, we get it, but claiming they are not FACT doesn't change them from FACTS. EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

Now answer desi - point out 5 facts that you've posted on this board....put up or shut up....

 

[BStrong]

Yes henri the COURTS must take into consideration the EVIDENCE and every piece that I quoted above IS EVIDENCE INCULPATORY EVIDENCE. This isn't THEORY, inmate was TRIED and CONVICTED. THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST HIM ARE FACTS. YOU are the only person spouting opinion and pretending it is any way credible or valid. HENRI POSTS NOTHING BUT BOLLOCKS!



THE COURT ACCEPTED STOMBAUGH AS AN EXPERT. Just because you do not like what he testified to does not make him less and expert nor negate his testimony. Your claims that inmate's "old pajama's" shed fibers easily is ridiculous. EVEN OLD PAJAMAS WOULD NOT SHED THE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF FIBERS AND THREADS FOUND IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, KIMBERLEY'S ROOM, AND KRISTEN'S ROOM (not to mention the bloody fiber found under Kristen's fingernail).

You don't like the facts, we get it, but claiming they are not FACT doesn't change them from FACTS. EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

Now answer desi - point out 5 facts that you've posted on this board....put up or shut up....

He's incapable of either.

 

[JTF]

I'm Not Going Anywhere

HENRIBOY: The irony of your obsession with Mazzerolle is that no other MacDonald advocate shares your fantasy narrative. Gunderson, Bost, Silverglate and a host of other advocates admitted that Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70. This collective opinion was based on the correctional records, Mazzerolle's firm denials of involvement in this crime and the FACT that no trace evidence collected at the crime scene was sourced to Mazzerolle.

It's important to note that when given the opportunity to DNA test exemplars from the "Stoeckley Gang," inmate's defense team only requested exemplars from Stoeckley and Mitchell be tested by the AFIP. Hmmm, what does that tell ya? The defense had access to hair exemplars from Cathy Perry and Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle were alive when DNA testing protocol was being formulated.

The fact that the defense only requested exemplars from two members of the Stoeckley Seven, speaks to the defense team's lack of confidence that Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle had any involvement in this horrific crime. Heck, the defense never even attempted to contact Perry, Harris, Smith, Fowler and yes, Mazzerolle for permission to provide DNA samples to the AFIP.

At the oral arguments session, Joey Z had no choice but to argue that the 3 unsourced hairs were from unknown hippie home invaders. The illogic of this position is palpable. Basically, the defense is arguing that Stoeckley and Mitchell were accompanied to 544 Castle Drive by individuals who were mere acquaintances rather than friends and/or fellow substance users.

In order for this fantasy narrative to work, Stoeckley and Mitchell would have to convince these 4 individuals to partake in a home invasion that has no specific motivation or goal. No drugs were taken from the residence and 2 small children/pregnant woman were slaughtered whereas the focus of this home invasion was left alive.

It took several months for you to admit that no lab documentation exists that sources a known intruder suspect to this crime. It's been almost a month since I issued a new challenge, yet you have failed to provide documentation that proves the CID and FBI failed to investigate a viable intruder suspect.

Considering the depth and scope of the CID's 4 year reinvestigation and the FBI's 3 year investigation into suspects not named Jeffrey MacDonald, I would wager it's going to take another several months before you admit that you cannot come up with the goods.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[desmirelle]

That hair in Colette's hand with the wooden splinter which Byn mentions was forensic fraud by Murtagh and the FBI lab, and possibly by Judge Fox. It was never identified until 2006 when suddenly Murtagh and the FBI lab substituted it for a MacDonald hair for the AFIP DNA testing.

You can blither and babble about your beliefs (despite the fact that murdermac swore up and down that hair was going to clear him but then could only come up with 'it was ON her hand, not IN her hand' when it turned out to be HIS DNA) when chain of evidence prevents the sort of malfeasance you imagine.

But you cannot cite even five facts you've presented?

Sad, really sad.

 

[Henri McPhee]

HENRIBOY:

In order for this fantasy narrative to work, Stoeckley and Mitchell would have to convince these 4 individuals to partake in a home invasion that has no specific motivation or goal. No drugs were taken from the residence and 2 small children/pregnant woman were slaughtered whereas the focus of this home invasion was left alive.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The motivation, or goals, for Jeff MacDonald presented by the far from credible prosecution lawyers was something along the lines that there was supposed to have been a violent argument with Colette due to a rage over bedwetting, and that MacDonald was supposed to have moved bodies and then inflicted his own wounds. Besides some other flimsy evidence that he was supposed to have been suffering from sleep deprivation. All that stuff about the boxing coach and trip to Russia, and Kassab's false allegation of child sex abuse, and possible amphetamine psychosis was never mentioned at the trial because it was gossip and hearsay, and inadmissible under the rules of evidence and procedure.

The motivation for the Mazerolle and Mitchell killer gang was that they were bad characters maddened by drink and drugs, and possibly sadistic psychopaths intent on revenge. They don't have much respect for the law, and they don't think they will ever get caught or convicted or punished because of the incompetence and corruption of the Army CID and FBI, and inaccurate newspaper reports. The plan was for MacDonald to be wrongfully convicted and that's what happened. Leads and suspects were disregarded, as in the Ramsey case. There needs to be INVESTIGATING, not cover-ups.

I speak only as to facts and not as to manufactured evidence, and forensic fraud like JTF.

 

[desmirelle]

<snip>
I speak only as to facts and not as to manufactured evidence, and forensic fraud like JTF.

1. Name

2. FIVE

3. Facts

4. You've

5. Cited.

 

[Henri McPhee]

1. Name

2. FIVE

3. Facts

4. You've

5. Cited.

1. There were black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on her arm, or biceps, and on the murder weapon with no known source. That information was withheld from the MacDonald defense at the trial by the prosecution, and the jury were never informed.

2. There were blonde synthetic hair like fibers found at the crime scene with no known source, which by false testimony the FBI tried to explain away as coming from MacDonald dolls, which unfortunately had been destroyed. That was not MacDonald's fault.

3. There was candle wax found at the crime scene which Browning of the Army CID lab testified at the Article 32 in 1970 did not come from any MacDonald candles.

4 There was a surgical glove fragment found at the crime scene which an expert testified at the trial did not come from a MacDonald surgical glove.

5. There was a match, or matches, found at the crime scene when the MacDonald family did not use matches.

6. Officer Gaddis of Nashville testified at the 1979 trial that he would have investigated further after what Helena Stoeckley had told him about the MacDonald murders.

7. One witness made a statement that Greg Mitchell had told her that all children under ten should be exterminated.

8 Judge Dupree was a biased trial judge and there was drug smuggling by the Army CID and CIA at Fort Bragg, and the Pope Air Force base.

9 The foreman of the jury was overheard by three different witnesses saying he was going to convict the hell out out of MacDonald before the trial even started.

10. Judge Fox was a pal of Judge Dupree, and Judge Fox attended Dupree's funeral.

There is more exculpatory evidence, but it has been confused over the years with Kassab and Joe McGinniss lies. The hairs in the hand and under the fingernails are still being disputed in court, but the prosecution and FBI lab can prevent MacDonald from proving his innocence that way by forensic fraud.

I suppose it's beating against the wind but the MacDonald case is still a notorious miscarriage of justice. People like Mazerolle and Bruce Fowler and Dwight Smith and Don Harris and their wives and partners need to be closely questioned. They have knowledge in relation to the crime and they are keeping their mouths shut.

 

[desmirelle]

 

[JTF]

Landlord Of The Island Of Misfit True Crime Buffs

HENRIBOY: You're the gift that just keeps giving. Your most recent rant opens the door for yet another challenge. You sheepishly admitted that you were unable to answer my first challenge and you've yet to deliver the goods on my 2nd challenge. My new challenge is for you to provide COURT documentation stating that the CID and/or FBI committed so-called "forensic fraud" in this case.

Knowing that you create your own terminology to avoid my challenges, I will remind you that COURT documentation is defined by decisions rendered by the District Court, 4th Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. In terms of your list of documented facts, ah, those are not documented facts. Your list consists of uncorroborated claims and hyperbole.

It's important to note that if an evidentiary argument has been debunked in a court of law, any subsequent regurgitations of that argument does not magically enhance the merits of the issue at hand. This is the same logic posed by Judge Fox in his 2008 decision. He pointed out that Helena Stoeckley was unreliable in 1970, 1971, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. He added that she remained unreliable in 2008.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Ygraine]

JTF:
Henri may have a problem providing Court documentation from the 4th Circuit. On PLanet Henri, Henri keeps thinking that the 4th is in some backwater part of North Carolina. On our planet - the 4th is in Richmond, VA. It may take him awhile to figure that out. Again.

 

[JTF]

Fantasy Masked As Fact

YG: Henriboy will always combat documented fact with hyperbole, innuendo and sporadic name calling. In his world, Judge Dupree/Judge Fox/4th Circuit Court were as corrupt as the CID and FBI. Henriboy knows we will demand proof of this claim and we know he will not provide a salient rebuttal. It is a vicious circle, but I prefer to put the pressure on him. Skeptics forums should be a safe haven for critical thinkers, not for conspiracy theorists.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com