Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[kookbreaker]

There is no firm evidence that any bodies were moved apart from made up and fabricated and manufactured evidence by FBI hair and fiber men. MacDonald was screwed.

a) Not what I said, but you are wrong anyway.
b) No evidence of yoru claim.

The intruders came into the house equipped with ice picks and knives and possibly wearing surgical gloves because Helena Stoeckley worked in a hospital at the time.

a) No evidence the weapons were from outside the house. Lots of evidence they were in the house.
b) Gloves are not magic. You will leave physical evidence. Have you ever tried using surgical gloves? Do you know how easily they tear?!

MacDonald put up a strong fight, but he was hit on the head, possibly with a baseball bat by a hard cookie black man, probably Dwight Smith.

And yet while the wife and children are horribly mutilated the 'murderous hippies' they ignore the largest threat in the room: and adult male Green Beret.

The intruders left behind unsourced fibers.

Unsourced fibers by definition are unsourced and not evidence of anything.

What do you expect them to leave. Their identity cards?

I'd expect 3-4 drug crazed to not exactly be scrupulous in their antics. Look at the phsyical evidence left at the Tate-Labianca murders, and compare it. Given that your only explanation is 'they wore gloves' and referring to a tiny, tiny number of fibers I would laugh at you even with my minimal levle of forensic evidence knowledge. A real forensic scientist would laugh his lungs out at your claims.

Stoeckley was chanting gibberish holding a candle which was nothing to do with Hollywood castings.

a) Stoeckley wasn't chanting anything, she wasn't there. Maybe she was chanting that night at home or something but I don't think that matters.

b) "Acid is Groovy, Kill the Pigs" - is what I'd expect some 'square' thinks murderous hippies would chant having read about the Tate-Labianca murders and seen hollywood movies.

It was a poor investigation. Numerous confessions by the real culprits were rejected and ignored. That was clearly erroneous. The forensics were illegally withheld from the defense. By law people are put in prison, or executed, based on facts and evidence, not on beliefs and opinions and con artist lawyers and tabloid journalists.

Blah, blah, blah. Still nothing at all to support your 'murderous hippies' narrative. Again you claim that magic hippies, wearing magic, invincible evidence stopping gloves came to the house without weapons, barely did anything to MacDonald but decided to brutally murder & mutiliate his wife and children.

Sure.

 

[Henri McPhee]

a) a) No evidence the weapons were from outside the house. Lots of evidence they were in the house.
b) Gloves are not magic. You will leave physical evidence. Have you ever tried using surgical gloves? Do you know how easily they tear?!

Can't you get it into your thick head that some of these definitely bad murderers with an evil kink try to pin the blame on others by leaving them alive at a crime scene? The murderer Sells, who was executed in Texas in about 2014, boasted before he died that there were several people in prison now which were the result of his own many murders.

There is a bit about the weapons being from outside the house at this website which does not seem to link to this forum:

Despite extensive efforts, neither knife found was traced to the MacDonald house.

The CID thought they had a witness, a baby sitter who had seen the bent, dull Geneva Forge Knife in the MacDonald apartment, but she was misunderstood. Her mother accused the CID of trying to manipulate her.
At the Army Article 32 hearing, when the baby sitter testified, the prosecution didn't question her about the weapons. Later when the CID interviewed her again she denied ever seeing knives, the club or ice pick in the MacDonald house.

At the Grand Jury investigation she testified that she had not seen the Geneva Forge knife, but the Old Hickory knife. On the stand however, she surprised the prosecutor when she refused to confirm seeing the knife. Later that day, she took the stand to claim she did now remember using an ice pick in the MacDonald home.

Five years later she again told the same story to the trial jury.

 

[Henri McPhee]

a) b) Gloves are not magic. You will leave physical evidence. Have you ever tried using surgical gloves? Do you know how easily they tear?!

Dr. Guinn at the 1979 trial testified that the glove fragment found did not come from MacDonald surgical gloves:

R E D I R E C T E X A M I N A T I O N 3:50 p.m.

BY MR. SMITH:
Q Dr. Guinn, the name "Perry-brand" or "Perry-Pure" latex gloves as has been used by Mr. Murtagh, do you know which was Perry-Pure rubber glove samples -- that is, exemplar or evidence?
A Those were the exemplar samples and were stated to be from that particular -- they came out of the packages and they had that brand name on them; yes.
Q All right, it was stated to you then that the --
A (Interposing) The evidence ones, I, have no idea, obviously, what brand they are.
Q All right, sir. Were you informed as to where in the MacDonald household the Perry-Pure rubber gloves came from?
A I was informed they were found in packages stored somewhere in the kitchen of the house.
Q Were you informed as to where the evidence samples were found in the MacDonald household?
A They were found, I believe, in the master bedroom.
Q So, as far as you knew, you were comparing pieces of material found in the master bedroom with pieces of material found in the kitchen -- all of which came from the MacDonald household; is that correct?
A That is correct. [/quote]

 

[byn63]

The testimony does not at all say that the torn glove fragments and the gloves found in the kitchen came from different sources. In other testimony it was shown definitively that the surgical gloves came from the same source, in other words were of the same chemical composition and came from the same "manufacturing run". HOWEVER none of your comments about the gloves addresses the FACT that kookbreaker is correct - surgical gloves do not magically keep one from leaving evidence behind AND they tear/rip easily.

 

[byn63]

Can't you get it into your thick head that some of these definitely bad murderers with an evil kink try to pin the blame on others by leaving them alive at a crime scene?

who are you to call someone else on this board thick-headed? you are the one who chooses to ignore the FACTS and the EVIDENCE and believe that you can argue with your unsupported and unsubstantiated opinion.

However, and more to the point, if a bunch of drugged out hippies HAD invaded the home it would be obvious, for the following reasons and more:

(1) hippies would have left the bodies where the fell
(2) hippies would not have left the syringes and drugs behind in the closet.
(3) they would have come armed
(4) they would have left EVIDENCE of their existence
(5) they would have brutalized EVERYONE in the apartment.

There is a bit about the weapons being from outside the house at this website which does not seem to link to this forum:

the EVIDENCE has long ago proven that the weapons came from INSIDE THE APARTMENT. Just because you don't like the FACTS doesn't mean you are allowed to ignore them.

 

[Henri McPhee]

(1) hippies would have left the bodies where the fell
(2) hippies would not have left the syringes and drugs behind in the closet.
(3) they would have come armed
(4) they would have left EVIDENCE of their existence
(5) they would have brutalized EVERYONE in the apartment.


the EVIDENCE has long ago proven that the weapons came from INSIDE THE APARTMENT. Just because you don't like the FACTS doesn't mean you are allowed to ignore them.

There is no EVIDENCE that the weapons came from inside the apartment. apart from perjury by Colette's mother and the babysitter at the 1979 trial.

The intruders were never short of syringes and drugs, and they didn't need any of Dr, MacDonald's medical supplies. The intruders did come armed. Stoeckley laughed and joked at Detective Beasley later on while she was waving an ice pick at him. There were fibers with no explanation around the mouth and biceps of Colette and on the wooden club murder weapon. That's suspicious and it can't be disregarded by saying it's household debris, or JTF saying the black wool fibers were of different chemical composition.

There is some legal waffle abut all this at this website. I can't guarantee the accuracy of this website but it makes sense to me:

www.dvusd.org/cms/lib011/AZ01901092/Centricity/Domain/4490/Jeffery MacDonald.pdf

The Weapons

The heavy, splintery stick, used as a club, belonged to the MacDonald household, without a doubt. But there are questions as to if it was kept indoors or outside. Colette used it in the backyard when she painted Kimberly’s bed.
The club, knife and ice pick, initially found in the yard, were handled so poorly by CID investigators, the investigators actually returned the weapons to the yard, for photographs during a staged, second "official finding" according to overwhelming evidence.

Under oath, Military Policemen testified the weapons were first discovered and reported at 5:00 am. However, the weapons were not photographed, at that time, as they should have been. A medic’s statement suggests the weapons evidence was carelessly handled. The Fort Bragg CID leader gave confirming testimony that he was shown the weapons at 5 am. Yet, under oath, the 2 lead detectives swore the weapons were found shortly before 7 am, at first light. Records prove that neither the Medic nor the Military Policemen, who testified they saw the weapons at 5:00 am, were at the murder scene when lead investigators insist the weapons were found. How is this possible?

Another mystery is the knife MacDonald pulled out of his wife’s chest and threw on the floor in the bedroom. No finger prints were found on the knife. MacDonald’s prints should have been on the knife
.
Three witnesses saw the bloody knife next to the dresser.
CID Chief Grebner and MP’s Mica and Trevere documented they saw blood on the knife blade and handle. Trevere told the Grand Jury there was blood on the knife.

Yet CID lab techs reported only a minuscule trace of blood on the blade and none on the handle. Clearly, someone had to wipe the knife clean, but why?
MacDonald had already been taken to the hospital, yet almost all of the blood disappeared.

 

[desmirelle]

<snip of out and out lie>

The intruders were never short of syringes and drugs, and they didn't need any of Dr, MacDonald's medical supplies. <snip of delusional ranting>

<snip of nonsense>

No drug addict leaves syringes and drugs. It's part and parcel of being an addict. They don't "need" the drugs they're addicted to, for that matter, except to avoid withdrawal. Obviously, you have never known an addict. I have, my friend's daughter. They would have taken not only the drugs and syringes, they would have ransacked the house for valuables to sell, even with the bodies lying around. They'd have pulled Colette's wedding ring off her body. You show a remarkable lack of understanding of criminal behavior with your drivel about the intruders and your defense of Macdonald.

 

[Henri McPhee]

You show a remarkable lack of understanding of criminal behavior with your drivel about the intruders and your defense of Macdonald.

That's just your opinion. It isn't facts or evidence.

Part of the trouble is that the MacDonald defense arguments went over the heads of any average jury, as in the prosecution arguments of the OJ case, and particularly a jury with biases, and where the exculpatory evidence was deliberately covered up by the prosecution.

It was too technical for a jury. They didn't understand what was going on, and they didn't want to know what was going on. It was also too technical for the 4th Circuit judges, and most of the Supreme Court judges. The 4th Circuit judges need to get a thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case and not just be rubber stampers as in the past. The MacDonald prosecution understood the concept of simple minds and how to con them with manufactured evidence, and disregarding leads and suspects.

 

[Border Reiver]

That's just your opinion. It isn't facts or evidence.

Like much of what you say.

However, desmirelle is correct - you do show a poor understanding of how people actually behave, particularly criminals.

Part of the trouble is that the MacDonald defense arguments went over the heads of any average jury, as in the prosecution arguments of the OJ case, and particularly a jury with biases, and where the exculpatory evidence was deliberately covered up by the prosecution.

There was no cover-up of exculpatory evidence. You simiply choose to ignore the inculpatory evidence - and the lack of evidence for Macdonald's story.

It was too technical for a jury. They didn't understand what was going on, and they didn't want to know what was going on. It was also too technical for the 4th Circuit judges, and most of the Supreme Court judges. The 4th Circuit judges need to get a thorough grasp of the subject of the MacDonald case and not just be rubber stampers as in the past. The MacDonald prosecution understood the concept of simple minds and how to con them with manufactured evidence, and disregarding leads and suspects.

If by disregarding leads you mean examining the statements of these suspects and determining that:

a. The individual was in jail the night of the murder; or
b. The suspect's testimony clearly establishes them as an unreliable witness; and
c. There was an absence of physical evidence corroborating the presence of these witnesses.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is no inculpatory evidence against MacDonald, apart from the fact that he was in the apartment when it happened. You don't investigate a horrible murder with tunnel vision, and just decide who did it, and then 'find' the evidence after. You do a complete investigation which never happened in the MacDonald case. I still think that Mazerolle and Dwight Smith, and others who may still be alive, are as guilty as hell.

 

[Border Reiver]

There is no inculpatory evidence against MacDonald, apart from the fact that he was in the apartment when it happened. You don't investigate a horrible murder with tunnel vision, and just decide who did it, and then 'find' the evidence after. You do a complete investigation which never happened in the MacDonald case. I still think that Mazerolle and Dwight Smith, and others who may still be alive, are as guilty as hell.

Dude, Mazerolle has been proven to have been in jail the day of the murders. YOU have a better chance of being the killer then he does.

There were over one thousand pieces of evidence presented at trial - and their presentation resulted in a conviction - that makes ALL of the evidence presented "inculpatory". Your personal disbelief does not make that go away.

 

[byn63]

Dude, Mazerolle has been proven to have been in jail the day of the murders. YOU have a better chance of being the killer then he does.

There were over one thousand pieces of evidence presented at trial - and their presentation resulted in a conviction - that makes ALL of the evidence presented "inculpatory". Your personal disbelief does not make that go away.

I bet you had the biggest urge to add: "this is a recording.....BEEP!" to the end of your post.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Dude, Mazerolle has been proven to have been in jail the day of the murders. YOU have a better chance of being the killer then he does.

There were over one thousand pieces of evidence presented at trial - and their presentation resulted in a conviction - that makes ALL of the evidence presented "inculpatory". Your personal disbelief does not make that go away.

There may have been a thousand pieces of evidence, but none of it was inculpatory, or even relevant. It was mostly a lot of stuff about where the blood was found, which shocked the simple -minded jury and 4th Circuit judges.

The thing that convicted MacDonald was Stombaugh's manufactured evidence about fabric impressions supposedly, and wrongly, proving moving of bodies, and with Shirley Green the conceptually unsound pajama folding experiment, and a juror saying that that there were no pajama fibers in the living room or where he fell, which is patently untrue. Then Blackburn in his closing argument saying there were pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon, which is also patently untrue. Shaw thought Colette murdered one of the little girls which is ludicrously unsatisfactory.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Dude, Mazerolle has been proven to have been in jail the day of the murders. YOU have a better chance of being the killer then he does.

Detective Beasley thought Mazerolle was out of jail on the night of the MacDonald murders. I think this is exactly what happened.

I know Mazorelle was not in jail 2/16-17/70 because I arrested him in January 1970 and recall that the trial was set for Mazorelle the day of 2/17/70. If Mazorelle had been in Jail that date (2/16-17/70) he would have been available for trial on 2/17/70, and I would have appeared in court as a witness. John De Carter of the Sheriff's office was with me in the arrest of Rizzo and Mazorelle and he would have also had to appear in court 2/17/70. I specifically recall that I did not appear in court on any case at the Cumberland County Court House on 2/17/70. I was on the street all day looking for suspects on the MacDonald murders.

I don't recall that Mazorelle was out on bail, but I believe he was, or he would have appeared 1n court 2/17/70. Since he didn't appear I believe he jumped ba1l, which means a bench warrant would have been issued for him. I recall he was subsequently arrested in Waycross Georgia for burglary, but I have been informed through my sources in law enforcement that the Waycross arrest records are also missing.

Edited by Agatha: 

Trimmed for rule 4. Will you please remember to limit your copypasta to a MAXIMUM of two paragraphs, and provide a link

 

[desmirelle]

I don't recall that Mazorelle was out on bail, PEB quote

So......your entire premise is flushed right down the ol' toilet, right then and there....Beasley is saying he doesn't know. He THINKS he was, but HE DOESN'T KNOW.

Of course, there are all sorts of reason why trials don't take place when they're originally scheduled.....or the sufferer of inorganic brain disease (Beasley) was 'improvising' because his brain wasn't working right when he vomited the above.

And that brings me back to: Helena also said she watched her lover (your man crush, Macdonald) kill his family. Why do you cherry pick from her confessions? I mean, that one is at least (apart from any evidence she was in the quarters) supported by the evidence.....

 

[JTF]

Hilarious

CLAIM: There may have been a thousand pieces of evidence, but none of it was inculpatory, or even relevant.

RESPONSE: There is no debate here. The prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items at trial. The jury determined that this mass of evidence inculpated inmate. The only thing that lacks relevance is your penchant for rinsing and repeating previously debunked claims.

CLAIM: It was mostly a lot of stuff about where the blood was found, which shocked the simple -minded jury and 4th Circuit judges.

RESPONSE: Ah, no. Simple-Minded, eh? Pot, meet kettle.

CLAIM: The thing that convicted MacDonald was Stombaugh's manufactured evidence about fabric impressions.

RESPONSE: If one were to follow your bouncing ball of contradictions, your boy John Thornton must have been "in on it" with Stombaugh for he agreed with Stombaugh's conclusions regarding bloody fabric impressions found on 3 areas of the blue bedsheet.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

I agree that Helena didn't always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That doesn't mean she should have been disregarded and ignored as some kind of fruitloop.

The crooked prosecutor Blackburn with his 'will to win' at any cost attitude said that Dr. Thornton wanted to examine the forensics in California, and the prosecution and Judge Dupree would never allow that unless he obtained a court order. Blackburn blamed MacDonald for having a slack attorney and never raising the matter. That isn't true because MacDonald did raise the matter at the 1992 appeal, and Judge Dupree just replied that he thought Segal was an astute lawyer.

There is more about Blackburn's attitude to the MacDonald case in an interview at :

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/misc2/1996-02-10_rigsby-blackburn.html

SIDE TWO OF TAPE ONE

Jim B: The upshot of it is people are not perfect. People in law enforcement, and this is the scary thing, if you're going into law enforcement to watch out for.

RR: I've seen some scary things.

Jim B: If it ... you think that (garbled) people these crimes, if we want it to be that way so therefore you do something to make it be that way. I think that ... you can't do that ... you cannot do that. Did that happen in the MacDonald case? I don't know.

RR: So that's why my big argument ... You know the justice system is to make America a safer place and have justice for all.

Edited by Agatha: 

Trimmed for rule 4

 

[Agatha]

Will all participants of this thread please ensure that they limit their copy&paste to a maximum of two paragraphs, and to provide a link to the source material.

Will all participants also endeavour to use the quote function correctly.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[BStrong]

There is no firm evidence that any bodies were moved apart from made up and fabricated and manufactured evidence by FBI hair and fiber men. MacDonald was screwed.

snipped other nonsense

It was good enough to convict your murdering man crush.

Justice was served.

Inmate is exactly where he should be. No screwing involved.

 

[BStrong]

I agree that Helena didn't always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That doesn't mean she should have been disregarded and ignored as some kind of fruitloop.

snipped additional nonsense

It's exactly what it means in the courtroom or in an investigation. Sources are judged by credibility - the term "reliable source: exists for a reason. Someone who can not be depended on to tell the truth can not be relied upon as a source.