Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[byn63]

Hi Stawberry - if you noticed in henri's replies he made up a bunch of nonsense again! He thinks if he stamps his feet and makes himself even more of a nuisance then he already is/was it will make the over 1,100 pieces of evidence go away. He totally ingores the FACT that the evidence against inmate is even stronger now than at trial because the DNA testing did not help him in any shape, manner, or form.

Also notice that he doesn't grasp the subtlety of the comments that "Acid is Groovy, kill the pigs" is a tell tale sign that a non-hippy had made the statements not a true flower child. henri doesn't grasp that while the word groovy was being used during parts of the 1960s, the hippies were not using it in the context to which inmate ascribed it. I was a child (a little more than a year older than Kimmie) and the "cool kids" and true hippies had long since stopped using Groovy in a context related to drug use. On many of these forums people who were actually part of the drug using counter culture at the time of the murders have said that "acid is groovy...." comment set off their BS meter too. Naturally, henri ignores them....he really hates when we insist on clouding the issues with FACTS. Welcome to the discussions and the "fun" of dealing with henri, albie, artie, etc etc etc

 

[Strawberry]

Hi Stawberry - if you noticed in henri's replies he made up a bunch of nonsense again! He thinks if he stamps his feet and makes himself even more of a nuisance then he already is/was it will make the over 1,100 pieces of evidence go away. He totally ingores the FACT that the evidence against inmate is even stronger now than at trial because the DNA testing did not help him in any shape, manner, or form.

Also notice that he doesn't grasp the subtlety of the comments that "Acid is Groovy, kill the pigs" is a tell tale sign that a non-hippy had made the statements not a true flower child. henri doesn't grasp that while the word groovy was being used during parts of the 1960s, the hippies were not using it in the context to which inmate ascribed it. I was a child (a little more than a year older than Kimmie) and the "cool kids" and true hippies had long since stopped using Groovy in a context related to drug use. On many of these forums people who were actually part of the drug using counter culture at the time of the murders have said that "acid is groovy...." comment set off their BS meter too. Naturally, henri ignores them....he really hates when we insist on clouding the issues with FACTS. Welcome to the discussions and the "fun" of dealing with henri, albie, artie, etc etc etc

Thank you.

Yes, you're right its not the word groovy which sets my BS meter off its the quote in its entirety. No hippy ever anywhere, including those who used the word groovy, ever chanted "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." Ever. That's something MacDonald probably picked up from reading about the Manson family, not something he ever heard anybody say.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Thank you.

Yes, you're right its not the word groovy which sets my BS meter off its the quote in its entirety. No hippy ever anywhere, including those who used the word groovy, ever chanted "acid is groovy, kill the pigs." Ever. That's something MacDonald probably picked up from reading about the Manson family, not something he ever heard anybody say.

That's just your opinion. It isn't a fact or evidence. Witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts. You need to try to become judicially minded.

 

[byn63]

the point of a trial that henri seems to miss is that OPINION is not EVIDENCE. in this case every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders. that is FACT.

it is also FACT that inmate did not get convicted because of his BS "acid is groovy..." comment, but that comment made investigators begin to take notice that something was rotten (and it was inmate) because drugged-out hippies would not have made that comment, as has been pointed out previously by people who were drug using hippies in 1970.

 

[Henri McPhee]

the point of a trial that henri seems to miss is that OPINION is not EVIDENCE. in this case every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders. that is FACT.

Black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source, and pajama fibers found by the CID at the exact spot in the hallway where Jeff MacDonald said he fell unconscious does not point to MacDonald as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders. Even a novitiate judge and juror could work that out for himself. Numerous confessions by Mitchell and Stoeckley were just rejected and ignored. Judge Dupree and Judge Fox were clearly erroneous. They were inexperienced in weighing evidence. It was obviously an unsafe verdict.

 

[JTF]

Education

From now on, rather than respond to the landlord directly, I will rebut his claims in order to educate any visitors to this thread who may only have a cursory knowledge of the facts in this case.

CLAIM: Black wool fibers on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source...

REBUTTAL: In most cases, the FBI deems unsourced trace evidence to be "forensically insignificant." In past appellate briefs, the government has labeled unsourced trace evidence as "household debris." What is most significant about unsourced trace evidence in this case is that not a single hair or fiber was sourced to a known intruder suspect.

CLAIM: ... pajama fibers found by the CID at the exact spot in the hallway where Jeff MacDonald said he fell unconscious does not point to MacDonald as the sole criminal actor in these horrific murders.

REBUTTAL: CID agent Robert Shaw was the only individual who saw multiple blue fibers on the hallway floor, but even in that best case scenario for the defense, that number pales in comparison to the number of blue fibers (e.g., over 100) found in the 3 bedrooms. It's important to remember that inmate claims he took his pajama top off in the master bedroom, but fibers from that garment were found under Colette's body, under the children's blankets, and even under a pillow in Kimmie's room.

CLAIM: Numerous confessions by Mitchell and Stoeckley were just rejected and ignored.

REBUTTAL: The claim that Mitchell confessed lacks merit and Stoeckley's unreliability is the main reason why her confessions were not taken seriously by Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court. Getting back to Mitchell, he denied involvement in this crime not once, but twice. He was interviewed by the CID in 1971, and by the FBI in 1981. He passed a CID administered polygraph exam, none of his prints and/or head hairs were found at the crime scene, and none of the 29 DNA exhibits matched his DNA profile.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

unsourced equals forensically useless in the world that MOST of us live in because most of us realize that the Theory of Locard is correct. We all carry hairs and fibers and other debris on our person as we go about our daily lives. WE pick up a fiber somewhere and shed it somewhere else. EVERYONE of us would have "unsourced" items in our homes if they were to be processed like a crime scene.

 

[Henri McPhee]

REBUTTAL: The claim that Mitchell confessed lacks merit and Stoeckley's unreliability is the main reason why her confessions were not taken seriously by Judge Dupree, Judge Fox, and the 4th Circuit Court. Getting back to Mitchell, he denied involvement in this crime not once, but twice. He was interviewed by the CID in 1971, and by the FBI in 1981. He passed a CID administered polygraph exam, none of his prints and/or head hairs were found at the crime scene, and none of the 29 DNA exhibits matched his DNA profile.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Greg Mitchell was a suspicious character and so was Stoeckley and Mazerolle. The Army CID and FBI should have had half-suspicions about those characters from the start. The SBI, or North Carolina Bureau of Investigation, were on to Dwight Smith and Pat Reese almost immediately and talked to them.

A CID administered polygraph exam is not evidence. Some murderers are good at categorically denying everything. The fact that he probably wore surgical gloves at the crime scene is not proof of innocence. One witness was quoted as saying that Greg Mitchell had told her that all children under ten should be exterminated. That's a bit odd.

Biased Judge Dupree made the silly remark at the 1985 appeal that Mitchell and Stoeckley were probably courting on a bridge somewhere. That's not evidence either. It's pure speculation. There needs to be INVESTIGATING. It affects confidence in the administration of justice.

There is some background to this from People Magazine in January 2017:

[

Greg Mitchell, too, repeatedly confessed up until his death in June 1982. Ann Sutton Cannady, who ran a rehab facility for drug addicts in Fayetteville in 1971, said Mitchell was briefly a patient there. Sutton*claimed she saw Mitchell running out of a farmhouse owned by the rehab facility, on which the words,*“I killed MacDonald’s wife and children,” were written on a wall in red paint.

Long after MacDonald’s 1979 conviction, three of Mitchell’s friends contacted Kathryn MacDonald saying he had confessed to them as well. Those three people gave affidavits that are now part of MacDonald’s*appeal.


Greg Mitchell (third from left) in Vietnam
Courtesy USA v MacDonald

In September 2012, after reading about an evidentiary hearing in MacDonald’s case in The Charlotte Observer, local couple John and Chris Griffin came forward with a similar tale of an alcohol-fueled, tear-filled confession from*Mitchell, who was doing some electrical work in their Lake Wylie, North Carolina home in 1980 or 1981.

“He said, ‘You read about Jeffrey MacDonald? I’m the one. It was me. I killed them. Oh those children,’ ” says John, who says Mitchell was full of remorse. “He said he’d done something so horrible God wouldn’t forgive him.”
Adds Chris: “It scared us half to death. He just had wild eyes.”

According to Chris, Mitchell picked up the phone at one point and tried to call Helena, but he couldn’t reach her.

 

[Henri McPhee]

unsourced equals forensically useless in the world that MOST of us live in because most of us realize that the Theory of Locard is correct. We all carry hairs and fibers and other debris on our person as we go about our daily lives. WE pick up a fiber somewhere and shed it somewhere else. EVERYONE of us would have "unsourced" items in our homes if they were to be processed like a crime scene.

That's a lack of logical thought. I agree that applies to pajama fibers which the prosecution and JTF are so interested in. You talk like corrupt bias Judge Dupree and Judge Fox. I don't get it how people can be so stupid. There were black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source, apart from Murtagh saying there were photos of Colette once wearing a black dress! Those black wool fibers remain unexplained. That information was illegally withheld and covered up by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial in 1979. Any average jury, or competent 4th Circuit judge, would be interested in that information. That information indicates intruders.

 

[byn63]

a lack of logical thought is what your posts show henri, not MINE. It is perfectly logical to state that something UNSOURCED is of no forensic value. TRY AND GRASP THIS SIMPLE FACT henri....

if a CSI team entered your home and processed it TODAY they would find all sorts of debris such as threads, other fibers, hair, hair fragments, skin cells, dust, dirt, etc. A great deal of that miscellany would be of no use in an investigation. Hair fragments that cannot be sourced are of no use. Fibers that cannot be traced to anyone specific have no value forensically. This is a FACT.

Also a FACT is that the The Theory of Locard is as valid today as when first stated.

In Forensic science, Locard's exchange principle holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence. Dr. Edmond Locard (13 December 1877 – 4 May 1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the Sherlock Holmes of France.[1] He formulated the basic principle of forensic science as: "Every contact leaves a trace". Paul L. Kirk[2] expressed the principle as follows:

"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."

 

[JTF]

No Evidence Of Intruders

CLAIM: ... corrupt bias Judge Dupree and Judge Fox.

REBUTTAL: The 4th Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court disagree with that slanderous statement.

CLAIM: There were black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and on her biceps and on the wooden club murder weapon with no known source, apart from Murtagh saying there were photos of Colette once wearing a black dress!"

REBUTTAL: The unsourced woolen fibers were not the same color nor were they from the same source materials. The FACT that the MacDonald family once owned dark clothing was first posed by the Kassabs. Freddy Kassab took color home movies of the family wearing dark wool hats and dark clothing. The government also used color photographs of Colette and her children wearing dark wool hats and dark clothing to provide a viable explanation for the source of the 5 dark woolen fibers.

CLAIM: Those black wool fibers remain unexplained. That information was illegally withheld and covered up by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial in 1979.

REBUTTAL: Judge Dupree and the 4th Circuit Court disagree with that slanderous statement.

CLAIM: That information indicates intruders.

REBUTTAL: The only information that would indicate intruders would include SOURCED prints, hairs, and fibers. Logic dictates that if Stoeckley or Mitchell took part in this murder, at least one sourced print/hair/fiber would have been found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

CLAIM: Those black wool fibers remain unexplained. That information was illegally withheld and covered up by Murtagh from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial in 1979.

REBUTTAL: Judge Dupree and the 4th Circuit Court disagree with that slanderous statement.

CLAIM: That information indicates intruders.

REBUTTAL: The only information that would indicate intruders would include SOURCED prints, hairs, and fibers. Logic dictates that if Stoeckley or Mitchell took part in this murder, at least one sourced print/hair/fiber would have been found at the crime scene.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Logic dictates that those black wool fibers are unexplained and that they could have come from Stoeckley or Mitchell and Mazerolle if there had been INVESTIGATING. Their clothes were never tested. The army CID and FBI are incapable of solving a difficult murder. Criticism of judges is not slander. It's just that the Justice Department in Britain and America are trying to close down any media outlets or social media which are not establishment journalists. There should be an independent judiciary and freedom of speech.

This is what Logan said about the matter on a Google group in 1999:

Black wool fibers were found on Colette's mouth, on her shoulder, her biceps ,and on the murder club found out back.

In 1970 the army said the black wool fibers on the murder club were blue
fibers from Jeff's pajama top. Brian Murtagh had some of the evidence
re-examined shortly before trial. Along with other evidence the supposed
"pajama fibers" on the club were also re-examined. The FBI agent concluded
that these "pajama fibers" were in fact Black wool fibers that were similar
to the fibers found on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps. He concluded
that these fibers did not match Jeff's pajama top. The FBI tried to match
these fibers to anything they could find in the home but came up empty.
In closing arguments of the trial lead prosecutor Jim Blackburn waved the
club and the pajama top in front of the jury. He told the jury that two
fibers from Jeff's pajama top were found on the club. He told the jury that
they could ignore all of the other evidence because the two pajama fibers on
the club were enough to convict MacDonald.

They presented known false evidence to a jury.

When the defense found out about this in 1989 thru FOIA documents they filed
an appeal based on these fibers and based on the wig fibers that had been
withheld from the defense. Michael Malone re-examined these fibers in 1990
and also concluded that the fibers were in fact black wool and not pajama
fibers. The FBI again tried to match these black wool fibers to anything
found in the home but came up with no match again. Malone then stated under
oath that these black wool fibers were simply "household debris" and were not
forensically significant.

MacDonald lived at the apartment. He wore the pajama top that night and it
was ripped that night and fibers were found on the floor in different places.
His pants were also ripped. The club has been proven to have come from the
MacDonald home. When two supposed pajama fibers are found on the club that is the most important evidence against MacDonald but when it turns out that the fibers are not pajama fibers and are in fact black wool that matches black wool on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and biceps the fibers are simply household debris.

I just can't understand this reasoning or how anybody could believe it.
Any comment Mirse? Anybody?

 

[Border Reiver]

Logic dictates that those black wool fibers are unexplained and that they could have come from Stoeckley or Mitchell and Mazerolle if there had been INVESTIGATING.

They also could have come from YOU and your clothing. However, since there is no evidence of an intruder/intruders that evening such as fingerprints, there isn't a whole lot of point in pursuing people who could not have been there.

Their clothes were never tested.

No need to test Mazerolle's clothing - he was in jail at the time.

There was no requirement to test Stoeckley's either - there is no evidence that ties her to the crime.

The army CID and FBI are incapable of solving a difficult murder.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Criticism of judges is not slander.

Criticism is one thing - you are spouting baseless accusations of criminal activities in complete defiance to any facts.

It's just that the Justice Department in Britain and America are trying to close down any media outlets or social media which are not establishment journalists.

Evidence? Other then the upsurge in alternative media sources, their increased access to places like the White House, and their increased acceptance by people that is.

There should be an independent judiciary and freedom of speech.

Yes there should be.

An independent judiciary means that the legal system can determine that the inmate is guilty based on the weight of evidence, and not have to consider if some people think that maybe he's not.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

 

[byn63]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

I am in absolutely 100% agreement!

 

[Henri McPhee]

Criticism is one thing - you are spouting baseless accusations of criminal activities in complete defiance to any facts.

Without suggesting that Judge Dupree's former son-in-law Proctor was ever involved in CIA drug smuggling activities, Errol Morris has suggested that "would being the former boss and father-in-law of the assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict" and that there are lawyers who think it was a conflict of interest, which affects the reputation of the judiciary.

MacDonald's former military lawyer, Malley, had a bit to say about this matter:

Eventually Jeff’s case went to trial in the Eastern District of North Carolina, presided over by Franklin Dupree, a most unsympathetic judge whose dislike for MacDonald and his lawyers, and whose bias toward the government’s case and lawyers, were palpable. The trial resulted in Jeff’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment on charges of killing his wife, Colette, and his two daughters Kim and Kristen. Many appeals followed, most of which resulted in not much. Jeff remains in prison today, and probably will for life..........

In repeated proceedings over the years, new forensic evidence and testimony has been presented to challenge the government’s evidence at trial. But the North Carolina District Court has uniformly rejected all these arguments and evidence. Occasionally the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals—having been slapped down twice by the Supreme Court after ruling in Jeff’s favor— would issue a somewhat sympathetic opinion requiring the District Court to take a “second look.” But invariably the District Court simply dismissed the proffered new evidence as of little consequence.

After Dupree died, one of his best friends, Judge James C. Fox, now a senior judge in the North Carolina District Court, took up the cudgel to ensure that his predecessor’s rulings against Jeff and for the government survived further appellate inquiry. The latest (and perhaps last) battle to get the jury judgment of guilty set aside or a new trial, was the subject of a hearing before Judge Fox in September 2013, after the Fourth Circuit ordered him to take another look to see if there was a basis to Jeff’s claims that he has persistently been denied a fair trial. Fox reluctantly held the hearing, after delaying it for a year or so, and then took nearly another year before finally issuing a written opinion. (Nothing happens in less than a year in this case.)

Fox’s decision pretty much tracks and summarizes the government’s point of view. He held that all of the ambiguities, uncertainties, missteps, and simple contradictions which Jeff’s lawyers have pointed out over the years don’t actually prove by clear and convincing evidence Jeff’s innocence, after the jury found him guilty. Fox noted that post-conviction, it is the defendant’s obligation to prove his innocence, and not the government’s duty to prove his guilt.

 

[JTF]

Old News

CLAIM: Without suggesting that Judge Dupree's former son-in-law Proctor was ever involved in CIA drug smuggling activities, Errol Morris has suggested that "would being the former boss and father-in-law of the assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict" and that there are lawyers who think it was a conflict of interest, which affects the reputation of the judiciary.

RESPONSE: This issue was addressed in the early 80's, and the 4th Circuit Court found that the Proctor/Dupree relationship did not result in a qualifying conflict. Morris is not a lawyer nor judging by the hammering doled out by those who covered this case, is he considered to be an investigative journalist.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

I can't quite see how Mazerolle was in jail during the MacDonald murders if he never turned up in court the day after the MacDonald murders for his appointed time for his case to be heard. And not until a year later after he had been on the run. That little piece of information has never been explained by the prosecution, or by the CID and FBI, or by the 4th Circuit judges.

Judge Dupree was definitely biased, and so is Judge Fox. It was obviously a mistrial. Errol Morris says what he thinks about the matter in his book about the MacDonald case. This is part of it from a review of the Morris book:

Morris’ most critical point, however, is that there was evidence the judge, Franklin T. DuPree, was biased.* At the very least, according to him, DuPree should have recused himself, since one of the early investigators, Assistant US Attorney James C. Proctor, was both his former employee and son-in-law. And on this point, he makes his strongest case.

Judges would not be human if they did not have an opinion after hearing the same evidence that the jurors heard. After speaking to a few judges (none of whom wished to be quoted), I wonder whether Morris is right.* According to Dimitry Bam, writing for the Brigham Young University Law Review, “In the United States, judges are required to recuse themselves—that is, remove themselves from participating in a case—not only when they are biased, but even when they may appear biased to a neutral observer. This nominally strict, appearance-based recusal standard is intended to ensure the judge’s impartiality in resolving disputes and to protect the judiciary’s reputation”. He then presents a compelling argument for even stricter rules.

The first canon under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges currently covers this same issue for federal judges, although, incidentally, not for those on the Supreme Court.* Under the Code, judges in effect self police themselves and are supposed to step aside when they have a conflict. Would being the former boss and father-in law of the Assistant US Attorney be a qualifying conflict?

Of course, lawyers defend the guilty all the time—that’s their job.* But judges are different—they are supposed to ensure that defendants get a fair—not necessarily “perfect”—trial.* The book cites many examples of rulings by Judge DuPree that, to be charitable, appear questionable.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Don't you think a judge should disclose if he holds rail company shares if he is dealing with some kind of rail company legal dispute, or similarly if he holds aviation company shares in litigation from some angry client, or similarly in these fracking legal disputes?

The matter is briefly mentioned in that English Justice book published in 1932 and written by a solicitor:

Many things are said in private, often truthfully enough, that would be indignantly denied in public. I doubt whether anyone, in whatever privacy or whatever class of society, has ever heard a suggestion of corruption made against any judge, whether of the High Court or the County Court. Occasionally some member of the Labour Party has ventured to remark on some obvious fact, such as the strong feeling of the judiciary against the immunity from legal proceedings conferred upon Trade Unions. He has usually been howled down as if for blasphemy, even by his own party, and not only in the House of Commons, where it is out of order to criticise the judges except upon a definite resolution moved for that purpose.

 

[JTF]

Conspiracy Nut

CLAIM: I can't quite see how Mazerolle was in jail during the MacDonald murders if he never turned up in court the day after the MacDonald murders for his appointed time for his case to be heard.

RESPONSE: You can't, can you? Avoiding the documented record, the same record used to prove beyond all doubt that Mazzerolle was in jail on 2/17/70, will only encourage you to live in a fantasy world.

CLAIM: Judge Dupree was definitely biased, and so is Judge Fox. It was obviously a mistrial.

RESPONSE: As mentioned in dozens of posts, the 4th Circuit Court disagrees with your fantasy narrative.

CLAIM: Errol Morris says what he thinks about the matter in his book about the MacDonald case.

RESPONSE: I repeat, Morris is not a lawyer and judging by the hammering he received by those who covered this case, he is not an investigative journalist.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

[SNIP]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

Errol Morris has written that mistakes were made in the MacDonald case, and serious ones. That's right judgement.

The whole problem in the MacDonald case from the start is that it was a mistrial by the biased criminal trial judge Dupree. He was in charge of the MacDonald appeals with his biased colleague 'in bed with the prosecution' Judge Fox, and their colleagues in the 4th Circuit judges and the Supreme Court. MacDonald should have had an impartial judge. It's ludicrous and scandalous and unreported, and not investigated by the mainstream media. There should be government by the rule of law. It's Nazi justice.

It's no good also for that stupid cop author Wambaugh saying MacDonald is a sociopath. Psychiatrists disagree with him about that. How would Wambaugh like it if he was charged with murder by the CID and FBI and his appeals were conducted by Judge Dupree? I suppose he would say he could afford expensive counsel.