Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The commonest mistake made by those inexperienced in weighing evidence is to reject the whole of a story because the witness who told it has made mistakes, or even lied, as to part. MacDonald was convicted on manufactured evidence, and bad and possibly corrupt police work by the military police. It was never a complete investigation and the prosecution never proved their case. The prosecution were dishonest. All that stuff from Shaw about bodies being moved and Colette murdering one of the little girls was a load of bull, and it should have been squashed by the 4th Circuit judges.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I'm a retired cop, and a stipulated expert witness in my field of experience and training.
If I was a proven liar, as the witnesses you wish to rely on, I'd have been out of a job.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nuff Said
In the spirit of critical thought...
In comparing audiotapes of Helena Stoeckley's interviews with Ted Gunderson to the typed transcripts, the government concluded that "it became apparent that these were not transcripts of recorded interviews but rather questions and answers which had been extracted from the tapes, arranged in a sequence designed to delete conflicting responses by Stoeckley and blended into a transcript like statement, which Stoeckley later initialed." The government also states that during certain audiotapes, "Stoeckley had come perilously close to contradicting her previous whereabouts."
The following note to his secretary made it clear that Gunderson was concerned about Stoeckley's disjointed statements.
"June, this is all we're going to record on this tape. I'm going back and try to pick up the mistakes that I made on the other tapes. So, in order to avoid confusion, that's the end of this tape. Don't type anything more off of it."
The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the government's 91-page report to the 4th Circuit Court:
"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
In the spirit of critical thought...
In comparing audiotapes of Helena Stoeckley's interviews with Ted Gunderson to the typed transcripts, the government concluded that "it became apparent that these were not transcripts of recorded interviews but rather questions and answers which had been extracted from the tapes, arranged in a sequence designed to delete conflicting responses by Stoeckley and blended into a transcript like statement, which Stoeckley later initialed." The government also states that during certain audiotapes, "Stoeckley had come perilously close to contradicting her previous whereabouts."
The following note to his secretary made it clear that Gunderson was concerned about Stoeckley's disjointed statements.
"June, this is all we're going to record on this tape. I'm going back and try to pick up the mistakes that I made on the other tapes. So, in order to avoid confusion, that's the end of this tape. Don't type anything more off of it."
The following synopsis of Stoeckley was included in the government's 91-page report to the 4th Circuit Court:
"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
Last edited:
Is it just me or has anyone else notice that Henri has NEVER replied to any of the numerous requests for an explanation on why he chooses to believe the nonsensical Helena confessions and he never ever at any time has considered her more logical confession? Of course, the I watched him kill his family confession would upset his prejudices but that is the only one of Helena's confessions that at least comes close to matching the evidence.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
To reply in two short paragraphs an expert in court can't give his opinions unless he is a real expert. Fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald were never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI, and Shaw was never an expert about Colette murdering one little girl, or bodies being moved. Malone of the FBI is a proven total liar and he was never out of a job, or has been convicted or punished, or sued.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There were numerous confessions by Greg Mitchell, and by Stoeckley, but those confessions became confused and circumspect when she was asked to confess officially, for obvious reasons. The Nashville cop Gaddis told Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial that he would have investigated further after what Helena told him about the MacDonald murders. You would care if you had an abstract sense of justice. More Gaddis testimony:
www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/trial2/1979-08-21_trial_gaddis.html
Last edited:
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
DO NOT hold your breath or place a plastic bag over your head while waiting, Ygraine. Please, for me, as a personal favor.
henri doesn't seem to grasp the VERY simple concept of being approved as an EXPERT witness. The PRESIDING JUDGE makes that determination. some conspiracy theorist from the UK (if that is really where henri is from) doesn't get to decide that AN EXPERT AS DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE is not an expert.
Paul Stombaugh was an expert in his field - among other proofs of that is the fact that the DEFENSE Expert Thorton agreed with major portions of Stombaugh's testimony.
Paul Stombaugh was an expert in his field - among other proofs of that is the fact that the DEFENSE Expert Thorton agreed with major portions of Stombaugh's testimony.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Stombaugh of the FBI had never testified about fabric impressions in any deadly place like a courtroom before the MacDonald case. There are serologists, or blood experts, in the FBI but none attended the MacDonald trial. Stombaugh was never a blood expert.
I'm not thoroughly acquainted with the expert witness matter in America. I find it surprising that people like the so-called blood expert Judith Bunker were allowed to pontificate in American courts when they were clearly lacking in credentials. Similarly, the so-called handwriting expert Cina Wong in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's against the rules of evidence and procedure and the 4th Circuit judges should put their foot down about it.
In the UK the medical evidence is argued in court by medically qualified doctors. They would never allow an unqualified cop like Wambaugh to say that MacDonald was a sociopath. In a fatal road cash court case you have to be a real expert before you gave an opinion in court about the cause of death.
Segal had a bit to say about Stombaugh being unqualified in his 1979 closing speech. It's patently untrue to say that Dr. Thornton agreed with Stombaugh, except for one or two not relevant aspects:
I'm not thoroughly acquainted with the expert witness matter in America. I find it surprising that people like the so-called blood expert Judith Bunker were allowed to pontificate in American courts when they were clearly lacking in credentials. Similarly, the so-called handwriting expert Cina Wong in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's against the rules of evidence and procedure and the 4th Circuit judges should put their foot down about it.
In the UK the medical evidence is argued in court by medically qualified doctors. They would never allow an unqualified cop like Wambaugh to say that MacDonald was a sociopath. In a fatal road cash court case you have to be a real expert before you gave an opinion in court about the cause of death.
Segal had a bit to say about Stombaugh being unqualified in his 1979 closing speech. It's patently untrue to say that Dr. Thornton agreed with Stombaugh, except for one or two not relevant aspects:
Last edited:
Ahem - Paul Stombaugh WAS DEEMED AN EXPERT BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. What you believe or what Segal stated outside court was and is absolutely irrelevant. ALSO, Dr. Thorton agreed with much of Stombaugh's fabric impression testimony so obviously the DEFENSE expert felt he was an expert.
Paul Stombaugh was also deemed an expert at numerous other trials and hearings including the Warren Commission.
Paul Stombaugh was also deemed an expert at numerous other trials and hearings including the Warren Commission.
Facts. A Trolls Worst Nightmare
Paul Stombaugh retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976. Stombaugh testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. In terms of this case, not one, but two DEFENSE experts (e.g., Thornton and Osterburg) agreed with significant portions of his forensic analysis. In the real world, this is an admission that specific evidentiary items in this case inculpated inmate.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Paul Stombaugh retired as the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the FBI laboratory in 1976. Stombaugh testified as a forensics expert in over 300 cases, he lectured at Quantico, and he appeared as an expert witness before the Warren Commission. In terms of this case, not one, but two DEFENSE experts (e.g., Thornton and Osterburg) agreed with significant portions of his forensic analysis. In the real world, this is an admission that specific evidentiary items in this case inculpated inmate.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Inculpatory
The MacDonald defense team hired two respected forensics experts. John Thornton and Charles Morton both looked at specific impressions on the blue bedsheet. Their conclusions were as follows:
•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.
•Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.
•Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bedding_evidence.html
During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal asked forensics expert James Osterburg his thoughts on the Pajama Top Theory. Osterburg was impressed with Stombaugh's analysis, stating "Holy Christmas, this is like a fingerprint." In essence, Osterburg was referring to the fact that the matching hole pattern on inmate's pajama top was akin to a fingerprint being matched to a known suspect. The Landlord of MacFantasy Island will respond with rinse and repeat arguments, but the opinions of experts (e.g., Stombaugh, Green, Thornton, and Osterburg) greatly outweigh the rambling narratives of a layman.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The MacDonald defense team hired two respected forensics experts. John Thornton and Charles Morton both looked at specific impressions on the blue bedsheet. Their conclusions were as follows:
•Thornton agreed with Stombaugh on Areas A, B, and F.
•Thornton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and the shoulder impression located in Area E. Thornton theorized that the impressions in Areas C and D were the result of direct bleeding.
•Thornton never studied the impressions found in Areas E and G.
•Morton disagreed with Stombaugh on Areas C, D, and G. Morton admitted to Brian Murtagh at trial that Area G matched the morphology of Colette's right pajama cuff, but insisted that the impression was a bloody palm print. The morphology of a fabric impression involves its shape, dimensions, and general size.
•Morton never studied Areas A, B, E, F.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bedding_evidence.html
During the 1979 trial, Bernie Segal asked forensics expert James Osterburg his thoughts on the Pajama Top Theory. Osterburg was impressed with Stombaugh's analysis, stating "Holy Christmas, this is like a fingerprint." In essence, Osterburg was referring to the fact that the matching hole pattern on inmate's pajama top was akin to a fingerprint being matched to a known suspect. The Landlord of MacFantasy Island will respond with rinse and repeat arguments, but the opinions of experts (e.g., Stombaugh, Green, Thornton, and Osterburg) greatly outweigh the rambling narratives of a layman.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I could make the observation that projection of one's shortcomings onto others is a common manifestation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
"Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]"
Your assertions of fraud etc. haven't stood up through how many years of internet blathering? JM is guilty. He's staying exactly where he is and no matter how many times you assert the contrary, he's guilty.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
DO NOT hold your breath or place a plastic bag over your head while waiting, Ygraine. Please, for me, as a personal favor.
The reading of HM's posts is what makes someone reach for the plastic bag.
End Run
The common theme among MacDonald advocates is to be selective about case issues AND the data used to debate their point of view. Several journalists have commented on how Fred Bost, Harvey Silverglate, and Errol Morris have ignored the more "ominous" evidentiary items presented by the government. Several case researchers have also pointed out that these individuals not only cherry pick data, they rely on "old" data to formulate their arguments. For example, in order to make end runs around inculpatory data from 1971-1974, Bost relied heavily on data presented at the Article 32 Hearing.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The common theme among MacDonald advocates is to be selective about case issues AND the data used to debate their point of view. Several journalists have commented on how Fred Bost, Harvey Silverglate, and Errol Morris have ignored the more "ominous" evidentiary items presented by the government. Several case researchers have also pointed out that these individuals not only cherry pick data, they rely on "old" data to formulate their arguments. For example, in order to make end runs around inculpatory data from 1971-1974, Bost relied heavily on data presented at the Article 32 Hearing.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
You can't just ignore the data presented at the Article 32 hearing in 1970.
There was about a twenty minute segment on an old repeat of the MacDonald case from that Unsolved Mysteries American TV show yesterday. It started off with a clip of Helena Stoeckley saying that if the FBI checked it out they would find MacDonald innocent, and that she did say "acid is groovy kill the pigs" and she did see Greg Mitchell sitting on Colette. That seemed to be from an old BBC documentary on the MacDonald case.
Blackburn was then interviewed and he said that in his opinion MacDonald is guilty, and then Ivory whose image was blacked out for some reason. Then the commentator blandly said the knives came from inside the apartment, which has never been proven, and which is denied by MacDonald and his lawyers. The military policeman Mica was then interviewed, who said that the front door was opened to the ambulance men who contaminated the crime scene with their gurney. Friar was interviewed about his wrong number to MacDonald and about the voices in the background, which has been confirmed in the past by Stoeckley. Detective Beasley was mentioned.
Segal and Silverglate were then interviewed which made sense to me. MacDonald's story is plausible and it makes sense to me. The MacDonald case was bad police work, and opinions, and I believe MacDonald rather than the opinions of Blackburn and Ivory.
There was about a twenty minute segment on an old repeat of the MacDonald case from that Unsolved Mysteries American TV show yesterday. It started off with a clip of Helena Stoeckley saying that if the FBI checked it out they would find MacDonald innocent, and that she did say "acid is groovy kill the pigs" and she did see Greg Mitchell sitting on Colette. That seemed to be from an old BBC documentary on the MacDonald case.
Blackburn was then interviewed and he said that in his opinion MacDonald is guilty, and then Ivory whose image was blacked out for some reason. Then the commentator blandly said the knives came from inside the apartment, which has never been proven, and which is denied by MacDonald and his lawyers. The military policeman Mica was then interviewed, who said that the front door was opened to the ambulance men who contaminated the crime scene with their gurney. Friar was interviewed about his wrong number to MacDonald and about the voices in the background, which has been confirmed in the past by Stoeckley. Detective Beasley was mentioned.
Segal and Silverglate were then interviewed which made sense to me. MacDonald's story is plausible and it makes sense to me. The MacDonald case was bad police work, and opinions, and I believe MacDonald rather than the opinions of Blackburn and Ivory.
The problem with most of the MacFantasy people is that they cannot seem to grasp some very obvious FACTS. Chief amongst the "lets pretend we don't know" is the fact that the Article 32 was BEFORE the majority of the evidence was analyzed thus it has been OBE (over taken by events) such as the Re-Investigation, the Grand Jury, AND the TRIAL at which the government presented over 1,100 pieces of physical evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The jury convicted inmate. He is guilty, anyone with even the most basic critical thinking skills KNOWS he is guilty, and he will remain in prison where he belongs.
- Status