Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[byn63]

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

not to be picky JTF but you left out the CIA, Brian Murtagh, and Freddy Kassab as corrupt in Henri world.....

 

[Henri McPhee]

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.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

I don't think the judges in the 4th Circuit in North Carolina, or Virginia, are extremely competent. They are just so-called judges as Donald Trump describes them, and they are mainly just rubber stampers. They are not profound enough and they have bad courts there.

The so-called conclusive evidence in his closing argument from the convicted fraudster prosecution lawyer Blackburn was that there were pajama fibers on the murder weapon. JTF always comes up with some cock and bull story that Stombaugh of the FBI took some pajama fibers from the murder weapon and put them separately in a vial. There has never been any documentation that I have seen to back up that story.

Browning of the Army CID lab testified that the fibers on the murder weapon were pajama fibers, while there are lab notes that Kathy Bond described those fibers as "pajama-like" fibers. The expert examiner Frier of the FBi described them as black wool fibers with no known source. Frier made no mention of pajma fibers on the murder weapon. Frier's information was withheld by Murtagh and Blackburn at the 1979 trial. Stombaugh and Browning were making it up, or mistaken.

I have discussed this matter previously:

This is what the MacDonald lawyer Bisceglie had to say about it in 1989:

“It demonstrates that Murtagh had concluded pre-trial that the handwritten bench notes were highly exculpatory and would have been material in producing a verdict of acquittal.

The first memorandum in the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution memo, which, in analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both the prosecution and defense cases concluded that unmatched hairs found in Colette MacDonald’s right hand“would aid the defense”. Clearly the discovery in particular of unmatched black wool fibers on Colette’s body and on the wooden club murder weapon, long blond wig hairs, in addition to other unmatched hairs and fibers would have more than merely “aided” the defense; it would have steamrolled the prosecution case.”

This is from an article on the internet about how fair the MacDonald trial was:

"When Murtagh put an Army forensic laboratory technician on the stand, he questioned her only about various blood stains in the house. The prosecutor never revealed that the technician, Janice Glisson, had analyzed hair samples and discovered the presence of synthetic blond wig hairs inside the house, as well as other human head and body hairs that could not be matched to any member of the MacDonald family.

- Instead of calling FBI forensic expert James Frier to testify in the case, Murtagh persuaded defense attorney Segal to waive Frier's appearance, saying the expert would testify only about some uncontroversial fibers from a bedroom throw-rug, according to Segal's affidavit. In order to save time, Segal agreed to waive the chance to cross-examine Frier.

Unknown to the court at the time, Frier had discovered the unexplained black wool fibers on Colette MacDonald's mouth area and arm, as well as on a wooden club used in the murders. Stoeckley has said that she wore black on the night of the murders. Frier's analyses of several other green, brown and white fibers that could not be matched to any items inside the house were never revealed by the prosecution.

- Before the trial began, Murtagh asked a law clerk for a memo which defense lawyers say provides the "smoking gun" of Murtagh's illegal intentions.

In his request, the prosecutor asked law clerk Jeffrey Puretz to research the constitutional requirements for disclosing exculpatory material. Under a case known as Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution is legally bound to turn over to the defense any evidence that might support a defendant's claim of innocence.

Murtagh's second question, in the eyes of his adversaries, was even more revealing. "Need the detailed data of a lab report, as distinguished from the conclusions of the report, be disclosed, where such conclusions have been disclosed and are nonexculpatory?"

Finally, Murtagh asked: "At what point in time must exculpatory materials be disclosed to the defense in a criminal proceeding?"

 

[byn63]

and still hasn't answered JTF's challenge and put NON-factual comments down in response to desi's request that he provide 5 FACTS that he (henri) had ever posted. funny how there is lots of documented records that are factual and henri refuses to accept that FACTS are not opinion or theory....

 

[Ygraine]

Henri:
There is one 4th Circuit Court in this country, and it's in the city of Richmond, VA. That is a fact.

 

[BStrong]

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.

1. Not proven to be exculpatory anywhere but inside your head.

2. Through 5. see above.

6. Stoeckley told too many different stories to be considered any type of reliable source wrt the murders.

7. Hearsay.

8. Assuming facts not in evidence and false equivalence - the fact that other crimes may or may not have been committed in the same general area do not preclude JM from murdering his family.

9. Hearsay.

10. Immaterial and false equivalence.

Bolded: Since you're in mind reading mode, could you get me the winning numbers in the lottery?

Henri and several other crime groupies I've encountered share a couple of common traits.

They have -0- knowledge about how investigations are conducted, and they have no idea about how various pieces of evidence are accounted for in an investigation and the vetting process involved with determining credible evidence and credible witnesses..

The analogy I came up wrt the various 9/11 CT's actually fits here too:

You have a residential house fire.

Once the blaze is put out, there's a DB inside the remains of the structure.

Fire Marshall and Coroner do their respective jobs.

Eventually the FM concludes their part of the investigation and determines that the fire started due to an electrical short in the kitchen, and documents the evidence.

Coroner does their thing, decedent died from smoke inhalation and documents the evidence.

Case closed.

Along comes 'net crime groupie who asks the FM and the coroner if they investigated the possibility of the fire and associated death being an example of Spontaneous Human Combustion.

They answer in the negative and johnny junior G man then has an opportunity to spout off about "the inadequate investigation" etc.

That's pretty much what we see in the JM case. The groupies have never in their life been involved with a real criminal investigation and have no idea that not every piece of evidence collected is culpatory or exculpatory.

Unexplained items/evidence are discovered at all sorts of crime scenes.

In some cases evidence may be collected that cannot be connected to the crime in question as there's no method of determining (for instance) that a given item (beer bottle) wasn't at the scene before the crime was committed. In the JM case there are items (that certain posters are married to) that don't fit in the mix and the crime groupie works the old defense attorney maxim - "If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If you've got nothing on your side, pound on the table."

That is exactly what's going on here. The fact that the unaccounted for fibers or the synthetic hair exists does not mean that the fibers and synthetic hair are exculpatory evidence. That fact seems far outside the grasp of individual crime groupies.

 

[byn63]

Transfer Theory of Locard - every criminal takes something away from the crime scene and every criminal leaves something AT the crime scene. However, that doesn't mean that every hair, fiber, or other debris (skin cells, dust, grease etc) is exculpatory evidence.

Simple example: I park in a hotel parking lot every day for work. I walk across the garage to the elevator, take the elevator up to the lobby, cross the lobby, and then out and across the street to my office. During this trip I will shed a variety of things like hairs, skin cells, gravel from various places I have tread in the shoes I am wearing etc. At the same time, I will pick up various things such as glass dust, hairs, fibers etc that others have left behind. The same thing will happen all day as I work and move through the building and again as I go back to my car. Once home I will shed some more items, including things I picked up during my day. If I was then found dead, an unsourced hair would be of no use in determining anyone's guilt or innocence. Thus the layman's explanation of the Transfer Theory of Locard.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There was an interesting posting on another forum in 2008 by Wudge about the MacDonald case, and JTF's website, with which I agree:

Aug 28, 2008
JTF, you don't get to retract "perfect match" without admitting that you lied, because that is what you did. You knowingly added the word "perfect" from you went from one post to post to another.

No one ever said "perfect match". You knowingly create these falsehoods.

You did the same thing in our discussion in Crime Library's forum on 5-15-2007 when you claimed that Judith Schivas said in an affidavit that saran could have been the source of the 24" saran fiber. No such affidavit exists -- as I got you to eventually admit.

Fifteen months later, we're in a different forum, and you create your "perfect match" lie on the exact same item of exculpatory evidence (the unsourced 24" saran hair). You know what you are doing when you create these falsehoods. They're no accident. They are boldfaced lies.

Moreover, you pretend people can find these lies somewhere in your website when you direct them there.

As I told you in the Crime Library forum, you and your website have no standing with me. You have zero credibility, and you proved that yet again in this forum.

As for the word "match", when Malone (a discredited liar from the FBI's laboratory who was removed from it because of his lies) uses the words "consistent" or "similar", they do not equate to "match".

Given your own problems with the truth, if your best reference is to a known and disgraced liar like Malone, that is truly pathetic.

HTH

 

[Henri McPhee]

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

You are not medically qualified. MacDonald was a brilliant emergency room doctor who was the doctor of choice by police in California when they became injured on duty, who they called Dr. Jeff. MacDonald never denied the footprints could have been his. It proves nothing.

What is it about beyond reasonable doubt that you and the 4th Circuit judges don't understand? You don't jump to conclusions in a murder investigation, or disregard leads and suspects. You do a CAREFUL INVESTIGATION and a complete investigation.

This matter of the knife removed from Colette's body was discussed at the Grand Jury in 1975:

Q Yeah. Now, you say you withdrew a knife from her chest.
A Yeah.
Q Do you have any idea what you did with the knife?
A I just --
Q Once you had it in your hand?
A I just threw it aside.
Q Which way?
A I believe -- I believe it was to the left, because I believe I pulled it out with my left hand.
Q Now, when you say to the left -- does that -- in which direction would it go?
A I don't have any ideas, sir. I honestly have no idea. I would say towards her feet.
Q From your experience in emergency rooms, do you have victims brought in who have knives or other things stuck in them?
A Infrequently, yeah.
Q What's the standard procedure?
A Depends on how bad they are. You take it out and you fix the wound; put in a chest tube if they're still alive, or open the chest and do a heart massage if they have cardiac arrest.
But if you mean take it out or leave it in, you take it out.
You leave it in in the field unless you have to do close chest massage.
Q Why is that?
A If you have to do closed chest massage, you're pumping up and down on the chest, right?, and the knife blade is going to puncture the organ each time you move it up and down.
Q Well, why is the procedure different in the field?
A Well, I'm assuming, when I say in the field, I mean with non medical personnel.
The trained personnel are trained to leave it in place so the doctor can see, for instance, how deep the blade is. Because every witness will tell you different.
Four policemen saw the stabbing, and one said it went in an inch, and the other ones said it went in eight inches. It's a big difference.
Q Well, I'm going to ask you again how deep was the knife thrust into her chest?
A Seems to me that it was -- it was -- all I saw was the handle.
Q You gave her mouth to mouth resuscitation, and the air escaped from her chest?
A Right.
Q And you checked her pulse?
A Right.
Q Now, how did you check her pulse?
A Well, you know, I'm just telling you what I would normally do. I remember holding her wrist, and I remember checking the left femoral area in the groin, and I think I checked her carotid. That's the usual check, is the carotid.
But, you know, it was pretty bloody.
Q Now, where did you go when you left Colette?
A I went to see Kimberly, in the front bedroom.

 

[Border Reiver]

You notice how he states that he took the knife out, contrary to what you do in the field? Dude might have been a doctor and surgeon, but in that situation, even if you accept his story, he did exactly the wrong thing with the knife.

 

[BStrong]

There was an interesting posting on another forum in 2008 by Wudge about the MacDonald case, and JTF's website, with which I agree:

Which in your little corner of delusion qualifies as fact but is immaterial to actual discussion.

Your opinion and the opinion of whoever the hell wudge is has no bearing on the established facts of the case.

 

[BStrong]

You are not medically qualified. MacDonald was a brilliant emergency room doctor who was the doctor of choice by police in California when they became injured on duty, who they called Dr. Jeff. MacDonald never denied the footprints could have been his. It proves nothing.

What is it about beyond reasonable doubt that you and the 4th Circuit judges don't understand? You don't jump to conclusions in a murder investigation, or disregard leads and suspects. You do a CAREFUL INVESTIGATION and a complete investigation.

This matter of the knife removed from Colette's body was discussed at the Grand Jury in 1975:

You must hold some alternative interpretation of the world "brilliant," because in combat medicine 101 you learn to never remove an object from an injured person outside of the field hospital or other actual medical facility.

You jump to conclusions as a matter of course. Why do you then assert that doing so is inappropriate?

I know your code words by now - when you state that all evidence and suspects must be taken into consideration your intent is to disregard the need for credibility in witnesses and validity of evidence. Your partisan pov is that all witnesses and evidence are equal when they are demonstrably false or not culpatory or exculpatory.
\
ETA - other than LBPD, who it appears JM directly ingratiated himself with, any evidence for the assertion that JM was "doctor of choice by police in California?"

 

[desmirelle]

You are not medically qualified. MacDonald was a brilliant emergency room doctor who was the doctor of choice by police in California when they became injured on duty, who they called Dr. Jeff. MacDonald never denied the footprints could have been his. It proves nothing.

What is it about beyond reasonable doubt that you and the 4th Circuit judges don't understand? You don't jump to conclusions in a murder investigation, or disregard leads and suspects. You do a CAREFUL INVESTIGATION and a complete investigation.

First paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The FACT is that you do not remove an imbedded object UNLESS YOU ARE IN A MEDICAL FACILITY WHERE YOU CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUES WHICH MAY ARISE FROM THE REMOVAL. Go ask YOUR doctor if that is not the case. (Okay, again, we get the FACT that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT OUR EXPERTISE IN ANY GIVEN AREA IS.

You are the only person to which the second paragraph applies. A carefule investigation and re-investigation was done. That you do not like the outcome of said investigations is YOUR problem. That reality won't change for you or for anyone else.

 

[desmirelle]

Bstrong - thanks for addressing the 'facts' he presented.

 

[byn63]

You are not medically qualified. MacDonald was a brilliant emergency room doctor

I have been trained in CPR and Advanced First Aide for YEARs henri. I have the books and manuals handy.

Efffective performance of external cardiac compression requires more than just pushing on the chest. There are numerous small details that make the difference between effective and ineffective, safe and unsafe, proper and improper, performance of external cardiac compression. Strict attention should be given to the details....

The patient MUST ALWAYS be in the horizontal position when external cardiac compression is performed. During cardiac arrest there is no blood flow to the brain when the body in is the vertical position, even during properly performed external cardiac compression.

For external cardiac compression to be effective, the victim must be on a FIRM SURFACE, such as the ground, the floor , or a spine board on a wheeled litter. If the victim is in a bed, a board, prefereably the full width of the bed, should be placed under his/her back.

IF inmate was such a wonderful ER Doctor then HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT CPR MUST BE DONE ON A HARD SURFACE. Inmate is the one who claimed to have attempted to resuscitate his family. The photos of how the girls were found PROVES that he did no such thing. PERIOD.

As for the knife he "alleged" he removed from Colette's chest:

Some penetrating foreign objects, such as sticks or pieces of metal, may protrude loosely from the body. Some penetrating objects, such as a stake in the ground or a spike of a fence, may be fixed and cause the victim to become impaled. Under no circumstances should be pulled loose from a fixed object. Obtain help at once, preferably from ambulance or rescue personnel equipped to handle the problem. If the object is fixed or protrudes more than a few inches from the body, it should be left in place, be cut off at a safe distance from the skin, and be secured carefully to prevent movement that could cause further damage.

These quotes are from the manuals for Standard First Aid and Personal Safety and CPR. FACT henri.

who was the doctor of choice by police in California when they became injured on duty,....

so what? you just prove my point even further.....if a first responder knows that CPR must be performed on a hard surface with the patient on their back, then an ER doctor should also know that.......and if a first responder knows to leave an impaled object in place, secure it, and get additional help IMMEDIATELY then the same is true....

MacDonald never denied the footprints could have been his. It proves nothing.

Not 'could have" they WERE his footprints. Inmate himself stated at an interview at the hospital immediately following the events he placed shoes and/or boots an the feet OF ALL HIS ALLEGED INTRUDERS. the bloody footpritns were his and they are further proof of his guilt.

What is it about beyond reasonable doubt that you and the 4th Circuit judges don't understand? You don't jump to conclusions in a murder investigation, or disregard leads and suspects. You do a CAREFUL INVESTIGATION and a complete investigation.

I understand reasonable doubt and so does the 4th Circuit Court. So does the Federal Court of the Eastern District of North Caroline and the US Supreme Courts. No one jumped to conclusions - we followed the evidence as adduced at trial. Maybe you heard but didn't realize it ~ inmate was tried in 1979. The trial lasted about 7 weeks. The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The case presented consisted of only about 60% of the evidence available. Since that time, the DNA results have come in and the results were even more damning for inmate. These are facts henri. you are apparently the only one who believes you get to disregard facts. All leads and suspects were investigated fully. NO DNA, HAIRS or FIBERS from any viable suspects were found. It really is that simple. inmate is guilty, he's been proven guilty. Simple!

For your edification, the below is a reasonable doubt jury instruction provided by a lawyer to us for clarification. :

A reasonable doubt instruction usually defines the concept as:

1. not beyond all doubt,

2. that something is more probably than not; and,

3. when making the determination, jurors should exercise the same type of judgement they normally would use in making decisions in the more serious and graver matters of life.

 

[Henri McPhee]

This is what Jerry Potter has written about disregarding leads and suspects in the MacDonald case:

"Nearly twenty years after the crimes the BBC producer phoned the girl, now a mature woman, and asked her about her relationship with Helena Stoeckley. The woman became very agitated and hung up the phone. Learning about her possible involvement, I phoned her a few years later. She was very friendly until I told her what I was doing. When I asked her about Stoeckley she refused to talk with me any further. I cannot say whether she was involved with Stoeckley, or involved in the murders. I can only say that, in my view, because of what I've been told by law enforcement officers and others who were on the case at the time, and because of her suspicious behavior on the phone, she bears investigating.

I don't speak idly, or irresponsibly. Using government documents released by the FOIA, Fred and I have established that the officer in charge of the case, the father of this girl, did lie, blatantly, to the FBI that morning and throughout that first week to keep FBI agents from investigating the drug problem at Fort Bragg (as they were specifically ordered to do by J. Edgar Hoover himself very early on the morning of the murders.)

And our recent investigations into drug users at Bragg, relying heavily upon and backtracking some of the previous work of the BBC producer, indicate that besides these two colonel's daughters, Stoeckley and the other girl, more than 15 other teenaged dependants of top level officers at Bragg (generals, majors, and colonels) were reportedly involved with drugs and drug trafficking. Some of them were running with members of the "hippie" group who actually confessed to these murders. The son of one very powerful colonel was listed in an army CID investigation report as being the common law husband of one of the young women who later confessed to being involved in the murders."

 

[Henri McPhee]

ETA - other than LBPD, who it appears JM directly ingratiated himself with, any evidence for the assertion that JM was "doctor of choice by police in California?"

Dr. MacDonald was held in high regard by the Long Beach Police in California and they had compassion and sympathy for him. That's a fact. This is a letter from Long Beach Police re: Jeffrey MacDonald:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/long-beach-police-dinner.html

 

[JTF]

Wow

HENRIBOY: Where to begin?

1) Wudge's attempt to go toe to toe with me on this case was short-lived and he or she has not contacted me with his or her impressions of my revamped website. I'm assuming that the mass of information on my website resulted in cognitive overload for this hit and run advocate of a convicted mass murderer.

2) For at least the 25th time in the past 14 years, I will remind you that lab technician Kathy Bond was not involved in this case. It was Shirley Green, not Bond, who analyzed and labeled hair/fiber evidence during the FBI's 1978 trace evidence re-analysis.

3) By the late 80's, multiple sources (e.g., Fayetteville Observer, William Ivory) confirmed that a majority of his supporters at the Long Beach Police Association turned their backs on MacDonald. This is just one of many examples of your penchant for using outdated material (e.g., Article 32 forensic testimony) to push your singular agenda.

Getting back to my 3rd and most recent challenge, please 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

 

[HSienzant]

The way the law works in Michigan is that a person with mild senile dementia can be a witness in a court room.

I was unaware the crimes happened in Michigan.

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.

So why did you bother to cite the law in Michigan about senile dementia?

You just said he didn't have it. If he doesn't have it, The cite you provided is meaningless. Cite the appropriate law pertaining to other brain disorders -- particularly the one in question.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Dr. MacDonald was held in high regard by the Long Beach Police in California and they had compassion and sympathy for him. That's a fact. This is a letter from Long Beach Police re: Jeffrey MacDonald:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/long-beach-police-dinner.html

I had great regard for my friend Desi right up the moment I found out he had caught his wife in flagrante delicto, shot and murdered her and then commuted suicide.

If you have any evidence that LBPD investigated JM and concluded he was innocent of the charges please post same.

ETA - Hey Henri, my original question was what California LEA other than LPD held an opinion on JM, as I was responding to thois assertion of yours:

"MacDonald was a brilliant emergency room doctor who was the doctor of choice by police in California"

Any evidence to back that up?

 

[Henri McPhee]

HENRIBOY: Where to begin?

2) For at least the 25th time in the past 14 years, I will remind you that lab technician Kathy Bond was not involved in this case. It was Shirley Green, not Bond, who analyzed and labeled hair/fiber evidence during the FBI's 1978 trace evidence re-analysis.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

That's not facts. I think it's patently untrue. What happened is that for some unknown reason Browning of the Army CID lab testified at the trial that the fibers on the wooden club murder weapon were pajama fibers. The FBI lab were in disagreement with this Browning of the army CID lab analysis, but that Frier information was withheld at the trial by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense lawyers, and from the jury.

From what I can make out Kathy Bond was the assistant to the expert FBI examiner Frier. If JTF thinks that's wrong then he should present evidence to back it up. In Kathy Bond's lab notes she describes the fibers on the murder weapon as "pajama-like fibers". Shirley Green has an affidavit somewhere saying that she was mainly involved in the conceptually unsound business of trying to match up the 48 holes in the pajama top to the 21 ice pick wounds, and that Frier was the expert examiner who examined the fibers on the murder weapon. Frier said the fibers were black wool fibers with no known source, but he was never cross-examined about that.

There is background information to all this in an affidavit by Segal in 1990:

38. On August 21, 1979, at a bench conference, Judge Dupree denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the government's failure to turn over Brady materials. However, Judge Dupree again admonished the government, stating:

But now, I'll say this: I have always taken the position that if the Government has anything that classifies as Brady material and they do not give it to you, they are certainly going to get reversal. I have instructed them to do it, but now I am not going into their files and in a case as big as this, I am not going to take three days off to see what they've got and whether or not you are entitled to it -- I'm not going to make that. That's their risk. If they've got stuff, they're going to do it. (emphasis added) (Attached hereto as Exhibit 28)

39. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Janice S. Glisson which reference her findings of blond synthetic hair-like fibers on a clear-handled hairbrush (designated by the CID as Exhibit "K") taken from the MacDonald home. (Attached-20-hereto as Exhibit 29) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

40. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten inventory notes and laboratory notes of FBI lab technicians James Frier and Kathy Bond, which document the existence of black, green, and white wool fibers found in debris taken from the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the FBI as exhibits Q-88 and Q-100) and the wooden club murder weapon (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-89). (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

41. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel an unsigned typed FBI laboratory report dated March 14, 1979, and numbered "90103084 S RR IZ." (Attached hereto as Exhibit 31) I have carefully reviewed this typed report and state with certainty that I never saw it prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case, nor was I aware until now that the FBI had conducted a re-examination of certain pieces of evidence in early 1979.

42. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of Army CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of fibers within the debris taken from underneath the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-303) that did not have the blue pajama top as their source. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 32) I have carefully reviewed these hand written notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

43. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes that were provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Dr. MacDonald's attorney, Anthony P. Bisceglie, by former FBI lab technician Paul M. Stombaugh. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 33) These handwritten notes indicate that the FBI's lab examiner discovered within FBI exhibit Q-79, which was the debris taken from underneath the trunk of Colette MacDonald's body, the existence of fibers that did not have the blue pajama top (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-12) as their source. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

44. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, concerning his examination of debris (designated by the CID as exhibit E-211) taken from a blue sheet that was found on the floor of the master bedroom. (Attached here to as Exhibit 34) These documents indicate that the CID found what possibly may have been a piece of "skin tissue" and an "animal hair" within the debris taken from the blue sheet. I have also been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being another page of handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, concerning another examination of the debris taken from the blue sheet (the blue sheet itself having been designated by the CID as exhibit D-211), which document the presence of a pubic hair within the debris taken from the sheet. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 35) I have carefully reviewed the handwritten notes in Exhibits 34 and 35, and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

45. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of FBI lab technicians Kathy Bond and James Frier. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) These notes, which document the FBI's laboratory examination of the debris taken from the blue sheet that was found on the floor of the master bedroom (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-125), document the FBI's conclusion that the CID had misidentified the hair found in this debris as being an animal hair when, in fact, it was a human hair. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

46. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being the handwritten laboratory notes of CID lab technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of a human hair found in debris taken from the bedding of Kimberly MacDonald (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-124). (Attached hereto as Exhibits 36 and 37) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw these notes prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

47. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes that were provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Dr. MacDonald's attorney, Anthony P. Bisceglie, by former FBI lab technician Paul M. Stombaugh. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 38) These handwritten notes, like the notes compiled by CID laboratory technician Dillard Browning, indicate the presence of unidentified human body hair in the bedding of Kimberly MacDonald (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-93). I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

48. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being the handwritten laboratory notes of CID lab technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of a human hair found in the debris taken from the bedspread on Kristen MacDonald's bed (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-52NB), that did not match hair samples taken from Dr. MacDonald. (Attached hereto as Exhibits 39, 40 and 41) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

49. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being the handwritten laboratory notes of FBI lab technician Kathy Bond, which document the existence of a human hair within the debris taken from the bedspread of Kristen MacDonald (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-87). (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

50. The only handwritten laboratory notes that the defense ever received, were received during trial, and were limited to copies of handwritten notes that FBI laboratory technician Paul M. Stombaugh brought with him to the stand when he testified. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 42) After Mr. Stombaugh testified, I immediately requested that his notes be turned over to the defense pursuant to the Jencks Act. The Court ordered that Mr. Stombaugh's notes be turned over, and the government provided the copies of the notes to the defense, which consisted of 54 pages of notes, primarily having to do with the government's allegation that the blue pajama top had been stationery on the body of Colette MacDonald when the stab holes were made in it. These notes were immediately reviewed by myself and Dr. John Thornton for use during cross-examination. These notes make no mention of any findings or laboratory notes such as I have described in 38-49, supra.

51. During the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case, the defense entered into a stipulation concerning the testimony of James Frier. Prior to entering into this stipulation, it was represented to me by prosecutor Brian M. Murtagh that Mr. Frier, if called by the government, would testify that:

(a) he had examined multicolored strands of yarn removed from the night stand in the master bedroom of the MacDonald home (Government trial exhibit 381) and that these yarns microscopically matched a green yarn found on a throw rug in Kristen MacDonald's room; and,

(b) he had examined fibers found within the debris (Government trial exhibit 307) removed from the wooden club murder weapon and determined that fibers removed from the wooden club murder weapon microscopically matched the fibers of the multicolored throw rug that was found at the feet of the body of Colette MacDonald. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 43)

52. Prior to entering into this stipulation concerning Mr. Frier's testimony, I was never informed by Mr. Murtagh or any other government prosecutor that Mr. Frier had discovered the presence of black and green wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon. Further, I was also not informed by Mr. Murtagh or any other government prosecutor that Mr. Frier or other FBI laboratory personnel had conducted reexaminations of the debris taken from Colette MacDonald's body and the wooden club murder weapon in which the FBI discovered the presence of additional black, green and white wool fibers.

53. If I had been aware of the extent to which the FBI had reexamined various pieces of evidence taken from the crime scene or that Mr. Frier's laboratory notes revealed the presence of black, green and white wool fibers on the body of Colette MacDonald and on the wooden club murder weapon, I would not have agreed to the stipulation. I would have demanded that copies of Mr. Frier's handwritten notes be turned over to the defense and that he appear as a witness so that I could cross-examine him on his findings.

54. Had I been informed that Janice Glisson had discovered and documented in her handwritten laboratory notes the presence of blond synthetic hair-like fibers, some 22 inches in length, on the clear-handled hair brush taken from the MacDonald home, I would have demanded that Glisson's handwritten notes be turned over to the defense so that I could cross-examine her on her findings.

55. In both instances involving Frier and Glisson's findings, I was either directly or indirectly misled by the government by virtue of its representations to me -- and often to the Court as well -- and its failure to turn over these exculpatory documents that would have allowed me to follow the course of action described above.


Sworn to before me this 13 day of October, 1990.

James C. Talley, Notary public

My commission expires May 25, 1993.