Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
now you have truly gone of the deep end. The blue pajama fiber was totally saturated in blood and was initially thought to be a blood clot. This is indeed proof beyond "all doubt" not just beyond a reasonable doubt that the wearer of those pjs was the knife wielder.

I don't know if it was a blue pajama fiber under Kristen's fingernail, or if it had any blood on it because I have never examined it, and neither have any MacDonald defense lawyers, or forensic experts. It's all trust me I'm in the FBI lab stuff. As I have said before if it is true there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. There was skin 'lost' under a fingernail by Ivory which might have proved MacDonald's innocence now with modern DNA testing.

The matter is mentioned in that PeopleCrime article, which I think is People Magazine, by Nicole Weisensee December 29 2016:

According to the brief, the new evidence warranting the overturning of MacDonald’s conviction includes: DNA testing of unidentified hairs found beneath Colette’s body, under Kristen’s fingernail and on her bedspread on the bed where she was murdered that do not match MacDonald; Stoeckley’s confessions to her lawyer and to her mom (shortly before she died in 1983) and the statements of seven other people that she was there that night; statements from now-deceased federal marshal Jimmy Britt, who says he heard then-prosecutor Jim Blackburn threaten to arrest Stoeckley if she testified at MacDonald’s trial that she was at the scene of the killings and affidavits from three people who say Mitchell, Stoeckley’s boyfriend at the time, confessed to his involvement in the murders prior to his death.

“Had all of this newly discovered evidence been available at trial … it would have established beyond all question that reasonable doubt existed, and in fact that MacDonald is innocent,” Zeszotarski wrote.
 
I don't know

Boilerplate verbiage snipped...

The matter is mentioned in that PeopleCrime article, which I think is People Magazine, by Nicole Weisensee December 29 2016:

Only truthful statement in your post.

Because you have no credibility, any reference you cite can be rejected out of hand.
 
Also, it is impossible for inmate to have carried Kristen from the master bedroom to her room "after having wet the bed" because Kristen DID NOT WET THE BED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. The urine was tested with the results showing that it was either a person with Type A or a person with Type AB blood that urinated on the master bed. It is NOT SCIENTIFICALLY OR MEDICALLY POSSIBLE FOR IT TO HAVE BEEN KRISTEN. PERIOD.

ABO BLOOD TYPING:

Type A includes antigen A and anti-B antibodies
Type B includes antigen B and anti-A antibodies
Type AB includes antigen A and antigen B (no antibodies)
Type O includes antigen H and anti-A and anti-B antibodies

When tested the stain (although degraded) showed antigen A (no antibodies) which is conclusive that either a Type A or Type AB made the stain. The lack of antigen B is likely from the length of time before it was tested. But no matter the level of degradation the fact is that IF IT HAD BEEN KRISTEN THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND ANTIGEN H. no ifs and or buts henri. SIMPLE ABSOLUTE FACT.

Kearns of the Army CID demanded a retest of the urine stain after ninety weeks and then proudly proclaimed Jeff MacDonald was lying and that the urine stain was caused by Kimberley, and not Kristen. That's not scientifically reliable. To put it bluntly it can't be done.

The mater has been explained by somebody else in the FBI lab:

On 7/20/88 Mr. Allison C. Semmes, advised he was in the serology unit, FBI Laboratory from 1954 to 1976 when he was transferred to the field. He has no knowledge of tests conducted by the FBI Laboratory on the MacDonald case other than the fact it was a "big thing" in Paul Stombaugh life. He recalls that Stombaugh spent numerous hours on the case but Mr. Semmes cannot furnish any details. He doesn't recall if serology tests were conducted by the FBI.

He reviewed the FBI serology test dated 8/28/79. He states it is a normal report and there is nothing unusual about it. He said it is difficult to work with blood that is ten years old. Based on his review he doesn't feel there is a coverup in this instance.

Mr. Semmes advised the FBI report contains a request from the Army to analyze the urine. It is important to note that urine stains cannot be typed. If the Army claims they can, they are in direct conflict with a known scientific fact. He emphasized that this is important."
 
Kearns of the Army CID demanded a retest of the urine stain after ninety weeks and then proudly proclaimed inmate was lying and that the urine stain was caused by Kimberley, and not Kristen. That's not scientifically reliable. To put it bluntly it can't be done.

henri- starting with your statement that I italicized.....it can be done, yes the stain was degraded HOWEVER they did find Antigen A in the urine stain. Urine stains CAN BE TESTED for ABO types especially if the person who is the contributor of the stain is a secretor......

what part of the Blood Typing do you NOT understand? The urine stain was tested and they found Antigen A...therefore KRISTEN HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY AND MEDICALLY ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTOR OF THE URINE STAIN. KRISTEN was Type O therefore her blood contains Antigen H and both anti-A and anti-B antibodies. This is not a make believe statement it is a MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY. No way in the world to make even an old stain show Antigen A yet be a stain made by a Type O person WHO HAS ANTIGEN H (no antigen A or antigen B) It is that simple.

So, with the testing the only two family members who COULD have left the urine stain were Colette (Type A) and Kimberley (Type AB). There was no sign of Colette having urinated on herself, but there WAS URINE on Kimberley's pjs and underwear. The testing found Antigen A and no antibodies. Therefore, the tester noted that the lack of antibodies meant either Kimberley had urinated on the bed and age had made the antigen B not show up OR Colette had urinated on the bed. Common sense says it was Kimberley and I am certain that most experts would say it was Kimberley within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

THUS PETER KEARNS WAS CORRECT INMATE LIED. It is that simple, it is FACT, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet you WILL NOT become more credible. No magic wand is going to make it in any way, shape, manner, or form possible for Kristen to be the one who urinated on the master bed. PERIOD.

wait, maybe you are suggesting that one of the alleged intruders urinated on the bed? Hate to break it to you henri but INMATE LIES - he lied about the intruders, he lied about which daughter wet the bed, he lied about killing one of the alleged intruders, he lies, has lied, will lie, does lie.....FACT
 
Last edited:
Run Away

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on your responses to Challenges 2 and 3. It took you two months to sheepishly admit that you couldn't come up with the goods for my initial challenge, so should I expect to wait another 6 months for two challenges?

Over a period of 4 days, the CID collected over 125 fibers and 28 hairs at the crime scene. At autopsy, the CID collected a blue pajama seam thread that was found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy. Six months after the murders, Janice Glisson found a 5mm hair fragment in Kristen's fingernail scrapings.

Microscopic comparisons of the hairs in 1970, 1974 and 1999 resulted in all but 4 of the hairs being sourced to a specific individual. DNA tests sourced one of the hairs to Jeffrey MacDonald and the other 3 hairs remain unsourced. None of the hairs or fibers were sourced to Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell.

ALL of the sourced hair/fiber evidence that could be construed as being inculpatory was linked to one person. That person is Jeffrey MacDonald. Arguments to the contrary have no basis in science. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
henri- starting with your statement that I italicized.....it can be done, yes the stain was degraded HOWEVER they did find Antigen A in the urine stain. Urine stains CAN BE TESTED for ABO types especially if the person who is the contributor of the stain is a secretor......

what part of the Blood Typing do you NOT understand? The urine stain was tested and they found Antigen A...therefore KRISTEN HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY AND MEDICALLY ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTOR OF THE URINE STAIN. KRISTEN was Type O therefore her blood contains Antigen H and both anti-A and anti-B antibodies. This is not a make believe statement it is a MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY. No way in the world to make even an old stain show Antigen A yet be a stain made by a Type O person WHO HAS ANTIGEN H (no antigen A or antigen B) It is that simple.

So, with the testing the only two family members who COULD have left the urine stain were Colette (Type A) and Kimberley (Type AB). There was no sign of Colette having urinated on herself, but there WAS URINE on Kimberley's pjs and underwear. The testing found Antigen A and no antibodies. Therefore, the tester noted that the lack of antibodies meant either Kimberley had urinated on the bed and age had made the antigen B not show up OR Colette had urinated on the bed. Common sense says it was Kimberley and I am certain that most experts would say it was Kimberley within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

THUS PETER KEARNS WAS CORRECT INMATE LIED. It is that simple, it is FACT, and no matter how many times you stamp your feet you WILL NOT become more credible. No magic wand is going to make it in any way, shape, manner, or form possible for Kristen to be the one who urinated on the master bed. PERIOD.

wait, maybe you are suggesting that one of the alleged intruders urinated on the bed? Hate to break it to you henri but INMATE LIES - he lied about the intruders, he lied about which daughter wet the bed, he lied about killing one of the alleged intruders, he lies, has lied, will lie, does lie.....FACT

He doesn't hesitate to lie, so he probably doesn't view lying by JM as anything to be concerned with.

My previous opinion was that Henri didn't know the difference between fact and fiction, but my conclusion now is that he makes up "facts" as he goes along. I believe he's in line for a White House job any day now.
 
You have -0- credibility. Why should anyone grant an anonymous internet poster credibility because you cite them?

I'm reminded of Joseph Welch asking Joe McCarthy "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

You've repeatedly (lets keep this polite) made flat out misrepresentations of fact concerning the evidence in hand, made statements and assertions that were 100% false, have continually asserted facts not in evidence and have continually labeled every single individual involved in the case (other than the actual bad actor that murdered their family) as incompetent, crooked, lying, biased etc. if they were in conflict with your delusional version of the criminal act.

This is the bottom line - Henri, you are the individual that your labels describe.

You're the incompetent . You're the biased. You're the liar. You are projecting onto others that which is in your own character.

awesome.jpg
 
I still think that there was a lack of extremely competent judges on the MacDonald case. I'm not an expert on American law, or justice, but Judge corrupt bias Fox seems to think that it's not the duty of the Supreme Court to establish actual, or factual, innocence. I don't know why they are then being paid big pensions for their trouble. In the UK it is safe to say that all judge interventions must be governed by the supreme duty to see that a fair trial is enjoyed by the parties.

Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous with regard to the admissibility of Stoeckley's evidence. In that Judge Fox ruling in 2014 Fox makes the silly remark that Greg Mitchell's confessions were "untimely" so they must be ruled out. It's obviously an unsafe verdict, and it only happened because people like Butch Madden of the FBI disregarded leads and suspects and distorted the facts, and the sheer ignorance of the American public and media.

This is what Judge Fox said about Helena Stoeckley's lawyer Leonard, who has been quoted as saying the prosecution never proved its case and that MacDonald was screwed:

Leonard questioned how she knew she couldn't remember a particular night, and Stoeckley explained that everybody knew of the murders right after they happened. Htr. 1113. Stoeckley said she had spoken with investigators very soon after the murders, and that is how she knew she had no recollection of the night of the murders. Htr. 1113. Leonard testified that “that was it as far as I was concerned.” Htr. 1113.

That afternoon, however, Stoeckley asked Leonard, “What would you do if I was there?” Htr. 1114. Leonard responded that he would still represent her, and that he needed to know the truth. Htr. 1114. Stoeckley then told Leonard she was there, and told him the story of what happened that evening. Htr. 1114. According to Stoeckley, she was there but did not participate in the actual murders. Htr. 1115. Stoeckley said she did not hurt anyone, nor did she anticipate that any of the MacDonalds would be hurt. She explained that at the time of the murders, she belonged to a cult, which had a core group of followers that engaged in rituals and believed in witches. Aff. of Leonard [DE–302] ¶ 13; Htr. 1191. Stoeckley told Leonard that the cult associated newborn babies with the devil. Htr. 1192. She also said that one of the members of the core group wanted to confront MacDonald about his discrimination against heroin users in a drug treatment program, because heroin users were recommended for court marshal or discharge, while other drug users received more favorable treatment. Aff. of Leonard [DE–302] ¶ 14; Htr. 1191, 1198. This man talked the rest of the group into going. The end result, according to Stoeckley, was that things got out of hand and the people she was with committed the murders. Aff. of Leonard [DE–302] ¶ 14; Htr. 1191. Leonard told her that she could not take the stand again and testify, and that he would help her to assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Htr. 1114.

Leonard said that during the remainder of the week, Stoeckley would initiate conversations about the murders and offer additional random details. For example, she said that while she was in the MacDonald home, the phone rang, and she picked it up. One of the people she was with told her to put the phone down and hang up. Htr. 1115; 1194. She also, apparently out of context, spoke about a broken hobby horse in the MacDonald home, and remarked that the parents had not fixed it. Htr. 1189.
 
I'm Not Going Anywhere

HENRIBOY: Still waiting on your responses to Challenges 2 and 3. It took you two months to sheepishly admit that you couldn't come up with the goods for my initial challenge, so should I expect to wait another 6 months for two challenges?

Over a period of 4 days, the CID collected over 125 fibers and 28 hairs at the crime scene. At autopsy, the CID collected a blue pajama seam thread that was found under Kristen's fingernail at autopsy. Six months after the murders, Janice Glisson found a 5mm hair fragment in Kristen's fingernail scrapings.

Microscopic comparisons of the hairs in 1970, 1974 and 1999 resulted in all but 4 of the hairs being sourced to a specific individual. DNA tests sourced one of the hairs to Jeffrey MacDonald and the other 3 hairs remain unsourced. None of the hairs or fibers were sourced to Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell.

ALL of the sourced hair/fiber evidence that could be construed as being inculpatory was linked to one person. That person is Jeffrey MacDonald. Arguments to the contrary have no basis in science. Nuff said.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Thoughts

A few thoughts on the recent oral arguments session before the 4th Circuit Court.

1) I'm glad that the 3 judges pointed out to Joey Z that the burden of proof is extremely high. John Bruce quoted the 4th Circuit's 2011 statement that the burden is on the defense and the task of meeting that burden was "daunting."

2) This 4th Circuit Court seems to have a soft spot for inmate and Judge King let those sentiments slip out when he chastised John Bruce for being too harsh on key defense witnesses at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. At one point, he accused John of treating these witnesses as "scoundrels."

3) John responded by pointing out that it was the government's job to challenge claims that were contradicted by the documented record.

4) John added that at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense was unable to prove ANY of their claims.

5) In regards to the Britt claims, John pointed out that some of Britt's claims "were bizarre." LOL.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
A few thoughts on the recent oral arguments session before the 4th Circuit Court.

1) I'm glad that the 3 judges pointed out to Joey Z that the burden of proof is extremely high. John Bruce quoted the 4th Circuit's 2011 statement that the burden is on the defense and the task of meeting that burden was "daunting."

2) This 4th Circuit Court seems to have a soft spot for inmate and Judge King let those sentiments slip out when he chastised John Bruce for being too harsh on key defense witnesses at the 2012 evidentiary hearing. At one point, he accused John of treating these witnesses as "scoundrels."

3) John responded by pointing out that it was the government's job to challenge claims that were contradicted by the documented record.

4) John added that at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense was unable to prove ANY of their claims.

5) In regards to the Britt claims, John pointed out that some of Britt's claims "were bizarre." LOL.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

There is more to the MacDonald case than Britt, or even Helena Stoeckley or Greg Mitchell. Jeff MacDonald is innocent and he was wrongfully prosecuted by a dishonest Army CID and FBI, and dishonest prosecutors. It's not me that's dishonest, or just talks blah blah blah.I have every right to question the integrity of prosecutors like Blackburn. This is a quote from the 2012 evidentiary hearing with regard to Blackburn:

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THE CONDUCT BEGAN THAT RESULTED IN
2 YOUR DISBARMENT AND CONVICTION OF CRIME?
3 A. THIS IS A GUESS, BUT I WOULD ESTIMATE SOME TIME IN 1991.
4 Q. SO, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HOW MANY YEARS AFTER THE
5 MACDONALD TRIAL?
6 A. ABOUT A DOZEN.
7 Q. AND ABOUT HOW MANY YEARS AFTER YOU LEFT THE U.S.
8 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
9 A. ABOUT TEN.
10 Q. AND WHAT WERE THE CRIMES THAT YOU WERE CONVICTED OF?
11 A. I WAS CONVICTED -- I PLED GUILTY TO ALL COUNTS, WITHOUT
12 ANY PLEA AGREEMENT, TO A 12 COUNT BILL OF INDICTMENT.
13 Q. AND THAT WAS IN STATE COURT, IS THAT RIGHT?
14 A. YES. YES. AND WADE SMITH AND RICK GAMMON WERE MY
15 FRIENDS AND LAWYERS. I PLEADED GUILTY TO -- AND I MAY LEAVE
16 ONE OUT -- BUT EMBEZZLEMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, I SUSPECT
17 THERE'S A FRAUD CONVICTION IN THERE SOMEWHERE, AND FORGERY.
18 WHAT I HAD DONE, TO PUT IT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, WAS TO
19 MISAPPROPRIATE OR TAKE OVER $234,000, AT LEAST $75,000 OF
20 WHICH WENT TO CLIENTS DIRECTLY, $56,000 FROM THE LAW FIRM'S
21 TRUST ACCOUNT, ANOTHER $26,000 WENT TO THE UNITED STATES
22 GOVERNMENT AS REIMBURSEMENT ON A CASE. THAT'S WHERE THE
23 FORGERY CAME IN BECAUSE I -- WE -- THE LAW FIRM WANTED ME TO
24 PUT A DOCUMENT IN THE FILE, PROMISSORY NOTE, FOR THE CLIENT.
25 HE WAS OUT OF TOWN AND SO I SIGNED HIS NAME TO THE NOTE AND
Blackburn/Direct Page 636
September 19, 2012
1 PUT IT IN THE FILE. THAT WAS THE FORGERY.
2 THE OTHER MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN WENT INTO MY OWN
3 ACCOUNT AND OUT OF THAT ACCOUNT I WROTE CHECKS OVER A LONG
4 PERIOD OF TIME TO VARIOUS CLIENTS, WHICH I HAD GOTTEN BEHIND
5 ON OR MATTERS THEY THOUGHT THEY DESERVED.
6 I BASICALLY SHOT MY LEGAL CAREER IN THE HEAD AND IT
7 ENDED ABRUPTLY IN MID-JANUARY OF 1993, I THINK. ACTUALLY, IT
8 WAS THE 13TH OF JANUARY 1993, WHEN THE LOCAL BANK, BB&T, HAD
9 BEEN ALERTED THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE TRUST ACCOUNT.
10 THE LAW FIRM ITSELF IS THE ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, TURNED ALL THIS
11 INFORMATION IN TO THE STATE BAR.
12 I SAW WADE SMITH LATER THAT DAY. WE TALKED. AND
13 WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER THAT, BY THE 15TH OF JANUARY, I HAD
14 RESIGNED FROM THE LAW FIRM AND HAD MY FIRST MEETING WITH DR.
15 JEAN SPAULDING, A PSYCHIATRIST IN DURHAM, WHO WAS AT DUKE, AT
16 THE ADVICE OF WADE SMITH, AND I WOULD SEE HER FOR TWO OR THREE
17 YEARS.
18 AND SO IN THE FALL OF 1993, OR MAYBE EARLY DECEMBER
19 OF 1993, I ENTERED -- I THINK IT WAS EARLY DECEMBER OR LATE
20 NOVEMBER, ENTERED A PLEA IN FRONT OF JUDGE HIGHT IN RALEIGH TO
21 ALL COUNTS AND THEN I WAS SENTENCED A WEEK LATER.
22 THE SENTENCE THAT I GOT WAS A THREE YEAR SENTENCE.
23 AND THIS WAS BEFORE STRUCTURED SENTENCING, I THINK, IN NORTH
24 CAROLINA AT THAT TIME. SO, IT MEANT, ESSENTIALLY, ABOUT A
25 MONTH FOR A YEAR AT THAT TIME. AND THE JUDGE RECOMMENDED THAT
Blackburn/Direct Page 637
September 19, 2012
1 I BE ENTITLED TO WORK RELEASE.
2 I GOT WORK RELEASE AND I WORKED FOR THE PERSON WHO
3 GAVE ME MY FIRST JOB AS A LAWYER, SENATOR ROBERT MORGAN, IN
4 HIS RALEIGH -- DOWNTOWN RALEIGH LAW OFFICE.
5 I WAS HOUSED AT WAKE CORRECTIONAL, I THINK, WHICH
6 WAS A MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY, UNTIL EARLY APRIL OF 1994. I
7 WAS RELEASED ON APRIL THE 6TH.
 
Jeff MacDonald is innocent and he was wrongfully prosecuted by a dishonest Army CID and FBI, and dishonest prosecutors.

It's not me that's dishonest, or just talks blah blah blah.I have every right to question the integrity of prosecutors like Blackburn.

This is a quote from the 2012 evidentiary hearing with regard to Blackburn:

1. Lie.

2. You have no credibility. Your questions are immaterial to any wider discussion.

2. You have no credibility. Anything you cite as evidence can be rejected out of hand.

Anyone who wishes to grant credibility to Stoeckley, Britt or Gunderson rightfully deserves to take their rightful place on the JM discredited personality hall of shame.
 
Read It And Weep

Thought I would add yet another document that proves beyond ALL doubt that Shirley Green, not Kathy Bond, assisted James Frier with the re-analysis of hair/fiber evidence. Henriboy will most certainly ignore this document or weave a fantasy narrative based on "old" or debunked arguments. IMO, page 10 is the most illuminating document for it demonstrates that Shirley Green placed the two pajama threads found on the club in a pillbox.

In the end, it doesn't matter if two or twenty unsourced dark woolen fibers were found on the club. The fact that two seam threads were found adhering to the club in Colette's blood demonstrates that inmate repeatedly lied under oath when he claimed that his pajama top was torn long BEFORE he "discovered" his wife's dead body in the master bedroom.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/fbi/1979-01-xx_fbi_inventory_green.html
 
Last edited:
Thought I would add yet another document that proves beyond ALL doubt that Shirley Green, not Kathy Bond, assisted James Frier with the re-analysis of hair/fiber evidence. Henriboy will most certainly ignore this document or weave a fantasy narrative based on "old" or debunked arguments. IMO, page 10 is the most illuminating document for it demonstrates that Shirley Green placed the two pajama threads found on the club in a pillbox.

In the end, it doesn't matter if two or twenty unsourced dark woolen fibers were found on the club. The fact that two seam threads were found adhering to the club in Colette's blood demonstrates that inmate repeatedly lied under oath when he claimed that his pajama top was torn long BEFORE he "discovered" his wife's dead body in the master bedroom.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/fbi/1979-01-xx_fbi_inventory_green.html

My own opinion is that there were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon and that these mysterious fibers which Shirley Green, or Stombaugh, or Kathy Bond put into a slide, or pillbox, which JTF keeps mentioning, were "pajama-like" fibers. Whether they were Kathy Bond's handwritten notes, or Shirley Green's handwritten notes, as JTF keeps disputing, seems to be a matter for a forensic document examiner.

Murtagh arranged a reinvestigation of those hairs and fibers in February 1979 and the MacDonald defense were never informed of those exculpatory results for the MacDonald trial. That's a Brady violation, and another irregularity.

There is a bit of legal waffle about all this from a 2013 MacDonald defense document:

vi. Unsourced Wool Fibers
The government introduced evidence of two purple cotton fibers found on one of the
murder weapons, an old wood board found by police outside the house. The Government
introduced expert testimony that the fibers on the club, which was believed to be one of the
weapons used during the crime, matched the fibers used to sew MacDonald’s pajama top.
(Tp. 3784) This is completely consistent with MacDonald’s account, as he said he had been
repeatedly struck by a club or clubs; his pajama fibers could have stuck to the club while he
was being attacked. However, the government suppressed the fact that FBI analysts in 1978
reexamined the fibers on the club, determining that in addition to the purple cotton fibers,
there were black wool fibers—fibers that did not match any fabric in the MacDonald home.17
Not only were these inexplicable black wool fibers found on the murder weapon, but similar
black wool fibers were found on Colette’s mouth and body. [Defense Exhibit 5027]
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 336 Filed 04/01/13 Page 41 of 121
This Court should consider the affidavit of Ellen Dannelly and the FBI Laboratory Notes 18
dated 17 October 1984 in connection with the discovery of the wool fibers and their import.
[Defense Exhibit 5101]
42
MacDonald has previously brought before this Court, through various affidavits and
lab notes, the fact that other lab notes discovered post-trial as part of a FOIA request
demonstrated that Government investigators had found “one black wool fiber and one white
wool fiber in the debris taken from the right biceps area of Colette’s pajama top, two black
wool fibers and one green wool fiber in the debris moved from the wooden club murder
weapon, and two black wool fibers in the debris removed from the mouth area of Colette,
none of which were matched to any known source in the MacDonald home.” See United
States v. MacDonald, 778 F. Supp. 1342 at 1347–1349 (E.D.N.C 1991). This evidence
indicates intruders were in the home and corroborates Stoeckley’s many confessions.
 
There is quite an amusing quote from the biased trial judge, Judge Dupree, in that MacDonald legal defense document which is on Google under the heading 'This Document is offered as a summary of the evidence...WRAL.c..' which has rather a complicated url.

Personally, I have always agreed with what one of MacDonald's military lawyers once in 1970, who said that he couldn't see why people thought that what MacDonald said happened didn't happen:

The district court’s observations about the evidence buttress this conclusion. At a bench conference, the district court observed:

THE COURT: Gentlemen, first off, and this is not why I got you up here but it is something that is
on my mind so I am going to tell you; all these experiments and all this examining and crossexamining
and so forth – it is interesting and it is technical and it may be going somewhere. But, for
whatever it is worth, I think this case is going to rise or fall on one thing and one thing alone and that
is whether or not the jury buys the Defendant’s story as to what happened. That is all there is in this
case. We have been here five weeks, and that is still all there is in this case. I just make that as an
observation.
 
My own opinion is that there were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon and that these mysterious fibers which Shirley Green, or Stombaugh, or Kathy Bond put into a slide, or pillbox, which JTF keeps mentioning, were "pajama-like" fibers. Whether they were Kathy Bond's handwritten notes, or Shirley Green's handwritten notes, as JTF keeps disputing, seems to be a matter for a forensic document examiner.

OMG you cannot be serious henri. IT IS FACT THAT PJ FIBERS WERE FOUND ON THE CLUB AND PLACED IN A PILL BOX. This is NOT something you get to make up an opinion about - it is FACT. IT IS ALSO FACT that Shirley Green is the one who found the pj fibers and moved them into a pillbox, describing her actions in her bench notes.

Murtagh arranged a reinvestigation of those hairs and fibers in February 1979 and the MacDonald defense were never informed of those exculpatory results for the MacDonald trial. That's a Brady violation, and another irregularity.

Excuse me what "hairs and fibers" did Murtagh arrange to have reinvestigated?

The defense brought allegations of Brady Violations forward and NO COURT FOUND ANY SUCH VIOLATIONS. Don't you get tired of making up your own arguments? Even the myriad defense attorney's don't believe the nonsense you spew forth....why must you do so? IF you truly believe inmate is innocent then why not use FACTS to argue your point rather than red herrings and slanted odd-ball beliefs related to items that have already been argued - res judicata - the thing has been judged.

you have no credibility and making these arguments now are not going to improve your position..... :boggled:
 
My own opinion is that there were no pajama fibers on the murder weapon and that these mysterious fibers which Shirley Green, or Stombaugh, or Kathy Bond put into a slide, or pillbox, which JTF keeps mentioning, were "pajama-like" fibers. Whether they were Kathy Bond's handwritten notes, or Shirley Green's handwritten notes, as JTF keeps disputing, seems to be a matter for a forensic document examiner.

Murtagh arranged a reinvestigation of those hairs and fibers in February 1979 and the MacDonald defense were never informed of those exculpatory results for the MacDonald trial.

That's a Brady violation, and another irregularity.

There is a bit of legal waffle about all this from a 2013 MacDonald defense document:

Which is pretty much worthless.

Which you aren't.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Everybody likes waffles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom