wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 17,585
Thank you, really. I believe everyone else feels the same. You said it well!
Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
Thank you, really. I believe everyone else feels the same. You said it well!
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Footprints and bloody cuff impressions on the blue bedsheet and blood on the reading glasses and substituted hairs in the hand, and Mitchell and Stoeckley probably courting on a bridge somewhere is very weak supporting, and even manufactured evidence.
The problem with these sensational and unusual cases is that an accused person can be convicted in the court of public opinion by tabloid journalists before any trial starts. That happened to Michael Jackson in about 2005 when he was eventually found not guilty. The same thing is happening to the Ramseys and Burke now with regard to CBS in the JonBenet case.
There is a bit about this matter on the internet with regard to the administration of justice in India:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law...of-trial-by-media-before-courts-law-essay.php
Last edited:
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
It's this sort of post that makes us realize how truly clueless you are about this case.
The circumstantial evidence (footprints/impressions/eyeglasses) were used to convict this heartless killer. It's what usually convicts them, even today.
The 'substituted hairs' exist only in your mind and macdonald's dreams. In fact, mac was claiming those hairs were those of the killer until DNA caught up with him and proved him right - they were his.
The comment about Mitchell and Stoeckley was sarcasm, meant to highlight the lack of ANY evidence that either were in the quarters that night and the myriad conflicting statements given by them - the only one of which that fit the evidence was that they weren't there that night.
In 1979, the perception of Macdonald was a poor, bereaved ex-Green Beret who had moved across the country and never remarried because of the trauma of hippies slaughtering his family. He wasn't in the 'tabloid press' because he wasn't that important. There was no "People" to take up his cause.
You don't understand this case or the evidence at all. Every statement you make proves my point. If it's not pro-man crush, it's wrong - and that's just not true. The totality of the evidence proves he did it. Man up, Henri and face the facts: nothing in Mac's story holds water, there were no intruders - except his wife, the two daughters and the coming son. They were the intruders to Mac and he slaughtered them in a fit of rage. He was telling his wife he was going to be unreachable in Russia for the month of the delivery when he was trying for leave to go visit an old girlfriend. And you're defending this POS. Sad. Pathetic.
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The point is that if you are accused of murder, by law you can only be convicted on facts and evidence, not on false evidence or opinions that you don't like the accused, or think he is a womaniser, or TV companies and tabloid journalists and Joe McGinniss who want to make plenty of money from the case with best sellers and TV ratings.
Personally, I believe MacDonald was telling the truth about that trip to Russia. I believe the boxing coach, who is now deceased, was told to lie and that he was coached by Murtagh about any conversation he had with MacDonald about a proposed trip to Russia.
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/pruett_kearns_interview.html
Last edited:
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
The fact that Macdonald was convicted on facts and evidence seems to elude you, making my point for me. You refuse to believe anything against your man crush, you've ignored the fact that the press LIKED and was PRO macdonald both at the time of the murders and the time of the trial.
The boxing team went to the USSR in 1969; Macdonald was NOT part of the company that went. The boxing team was going to .....New Jersey that summer. Since the trip had nothing to do with evidence that Mac was guilty, only that he was a lousy husband, it's just proof of mac's lack of common decency.
Common sense should tell you (oh, wait......never mind, forgot for a moment who I was addressing).
Time To Decide
The 4th Circuit Court took 10 months to put forth the decision that the case be remanded to Judge Fox for further inquiry. Despite not being required to hold an evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox knew that the Circuit Court's sole focus appeared to be the "evidence as a whole," so what better way to resolve this issue than to hold an evidentiary hearing?
After getting their collective butts kicked at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense was not surprised when Judge Fox denied MacDonald relief/new trial. The defense appealed and oral arguments were heard in late January 2017. That was a little over 10 months ago, so there is a good chance that a decision will come down in the next few weeks.
If the 4th Circuit Court abides by the standard of proof in this case (e.g., Court stated that the defense faced a "daunting" task), inmate will be out of viable legal options. Sure, he can appeal to the Supreme Court, but I doubt they would hear the case. It would appear that inmate's 36 year relationship with the correctional system will continue until he is worm food.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The 4th Circuit Court took 10 months to put forth the decision that the case be remanded to Judge Fox for further inquiry. Despite not being required to hold an evidentiary hearing, Judge Fox knew that the Circuit Court's sole focus appeared to be the "evidence as a whole," so what better way to resolve this issue than to hold an evidentiary hearing?
After getting their collective butts kicked at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense was not surprised when Judge Fox denied MacDonald relief/new trial. The defense appealed and oral arguments were heard in late January 2017. That was a little over 10 months ago, so there is a good chance that a decision will come down in the next few weeks.
If the 4th Circuit Court abides by the standard of proof in this case (e.g., Court stated that the defense faced a "daunting" task), inmate will be out of viable legal options. Sure, he can appeal to the Supreme Court, but I doubt they would hear the case. It would appear that inmate's 36 year relationship with the correctional system will continue until he is worm food.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There needs to be sufficient evidence in the MacDonald case. The real culprits need to be thoroughly and properly investigated, not just an opinion by silly old Judge Fox, along with the rubber stampers from the 4th Circuit judges. It's like this funny idea that being innocent is not a ground for appeal.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hate to break it to you, but the appellate courts don't decide guilt or innocence. Their job is to review the trials and determine if there's a reason for a retrial regarding the way the original trial was conducted.
They don't review verdicts.
Never have, never will.
Are you suggesting they should make an exception for MacDonald, or that everyone in jail should get to appeal on the basis that they are innocent?
(They all are, you know. At least, to hear them tell it).
MacDonald's not special in that regard. He claims he's innocent. So what?
Hank
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
There was sufficient evidence for a jury of his peers to find him guilty.
The evidence has held up through numerous appeals, up to the US Supreme Court.
Therefore, the real culprit HAS been thoroughly and properly investigated, in accordance with the law.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The way the original trial was conducted was a mistrial. It was not an excellent court and the federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed. The point is that if you were wrongly convicted and put in prison for thirty years you would probably go raving mad, as well as facing financial ruin. Something needs to be done about it.
There is a bit about this on a criminal defense lawyer website. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer. I appreciate that appeals are highly technical with things like time limits:
okay everyone pay attention - especially henri - the US Army Boxing Team DID NOT GO TO RUSSIA in 1969. Apparently some are forgetting that this was the HEIGHT of the Cold War. No US Military Entity would have gone (even if invited) to the USSR at that time. IF a boxing event between US Army and Soviet Army had been planned it would have occurred in NEUTRAL TERRITORY. The boxing team was SCHEDULED AND WENT to New Jersey. Inmate wanted to go so that he could screw one of his lovers (the same girl he left lingerie for the night of his wedding rehearsal).
I am still waiting for the troll to explain exactly how someone could have gotten a piece of inmate's body hair, exactly the same size and portion as the "mystery hair" and have it covered in Colette's blood without inmate knowing about it.....that is the only way a "switch" of hairs could have taken place......and since the troll always claims it was Brian Murtagh who switched the hairs I REALLY REALLY want him to explain how BM managed this magical feat without inmate being aware! Since inmate despised the LilVipr wouldn't he have reported him for something if he ever came close enough to his person to snatch a piece of body (arm or leg since it was limb hair) hair off his person? AND how did he do it while inmate was in prison but NOBODY ever saw this happen? (I mean they didn't see BM going to visit inmate NOR steal a limb hair from his body)
I am still waiting for the troll to explain exactly how someone could have gotten a piece of inmate's body hair, exactly the same size and portion as the "mystery hair" and have it covered in Colette's blood without inmate knowing about it.....that is the only way a "switch" of hairs could have taken place......and since the troll always claims it was Brian Murtagh who switched the hairs I REALLY REALLY want him to explain how BM managed this magical feat without inmate being aware! Since inmate despised the LilVipr wouldn't he have reported him for something if he ever came close enough to his person to snatch a piece of body (arm or leg since it was limb hair) hair off his person? AND how did he do it while inmate was in prison but NOBODY ever saw this happen? (I mean they didn't see BM going to visit inmate NOR steal a limb hair from his body)
Oh, don't be so silly, Byn - of COURSE the finding was manufactured to show it was the ice pick baby killer. Murtagh is all powerful and easily made that happen.
I didn't wear my hip-waders to the office today....roflmao!
No it was not. The original trial has withstood all of the peer reviews (ie Appeals including the 7 trips to the US Supreme Court). If it had been unfair, biased, or whatever you claim it to have been then it would have been proven as such during one of the many appeals that inmate lost.
inmate had his presumption of innocence, he had his trial by a jury of his peers. he was able to have witnesses cross-examined, he was able to have evidence reviewed by his own experts. the fact that Bernie et al waited, and only reviewed limited evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution. All evidence was made available, the Federal Rules of Prosecution and the Federal Rules of Evidence were followed meticulously. Judge Dupree kept the damage that Bernie Segal was doing to a minimum (Bernie was insulting to the jury and witnesses). The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted just over 6 weeks and the jury convicted him in just under 7 hours.
His conviction has withstood appeal after appeal include 7 trips to the US Supreme Court. It was a good trial, a fair trial, and inmate was rightfully convicted. Now it is long past time for him to stop tying up the legal system and serve the time that he was so justly sentenced to serve.
FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Murtagh was all powerful. Power corrupts. He has the judges in bed with the prosecution. He was able to coach the babysitter, Kalin, to change her mind by testifying there was an ice pick in the MacDonald apartment, and the same with Colette's mother with her perjury at trial. Murtagh also seemed able to get the boxing coach to deny he had a conversation with MacDonald about a proposed trip to Russia. It could all be an elaborate plan to frame MacDonald.
The FBI hair and fiber department has come under severe criticism in the past few years, including Malone, and nothing at all has been done about it. Al-Jazeera in English made a documentary about it a few years ago, but since then Al-Jazeera seems to have gone off the air in America and Britain.
The 4th Circuit judges have a ground for appeal in the clearly erroneous way Helena Stoeckley 's confessions were rejected and ignored by Judge Dupree at trial, and the way the psychiatric testimony was ignored because biased Judge Dupree didn't want a battle of the experts. Also fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald, or the blood evidence, was never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI lab.
The black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and her biceps were concealed from the jury at trial, as were the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers at the crime scene with no known source. You have to be a real expert to give an opinion in a courtroom, or else it's a mistrial.
As the prominent advocate Norman Birkett once said "Juries are notoriously uncertain, and what one jury might decide another jury on the same facts might decide differently to-morrow."
The FBI hair and fiber department has come under severe criticism in the past few years, including Malone, and nothing at all has been done about it. Al-Jazeera in English made a documentary about it a few years ago, but since then Al-Jazeera seems to have gone off the air in America and Britain.
The 4th Circuit judges have a ground for appeal in the clearly erroneous way Helena Stoeckley 's confessions were rejected and ignored by Judge Dupree at trial, and the way the psychiatric testimony was ignored because biased Judge Dupree didn't want a battle of the experts. Also fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald, or the blood evidence, was never the field of Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI lab.
The black wool fibers around the mouth of Colette and her biceps were concealed from the jury at trial, as were the blonde synthetic hair-like fibers at the crime scene with no known source. You have to be a real expert to give an opinion in a courtroom, or else it's a mistrial.
As the prominent advocate Norman Birkett once said "Juries are notoriously uncertain, and what one jury might decide another jury on the same facts might decide differently to-morrow."
seriously? so now Brian Murtagh is more powerful than even the Great Oz of Emerald City? The only person at trial who perjured himself was inmate.
The original trial has withstood all of the peer reviews (ie Appeals including the 7 trips to the US Supreme Court). If it had been unfair, biased, or whatever you claim it to have been then it would have been proven as such during one of the many appeals that inmate lost.
inmate had his presumption of innocence, he had his trial by a jury of his peers. he was able to have witnesses cross-examined, he was able to have evidence reviewed by his own experts. the fact that Bernie et al waited, and only reviewed limited evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution. All evidence was made available, the Federal Rules of Prosecution and the Federal Rules of Evidence were followed meticulously. Judge Dupree kept the damage that Bernie Segal was doing to a minimum (Bernie was insulting to the jury and witnesses). The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted just over 6 weeks and the jury convicted him in just under 7 hours.
His conviction has withstood appeal after appeal include 7 trips to the US Supreme Court. It was a good trial, a fair trial, and inmate was rightfully convicted. Now it is long past time for him to stop tying up the legal system and serve the time that he was so justly sentenced to serve.
The black wool fibers and the blonde synthetic wig hairs WERE UNSOURCED and therefore were, are, shall forever remain USELESS forensically speaking. The prosecution did not use those fibers against inmate. IF the defense believed they had any probative value then THE DEFENSE should have asked that they be entered as evidence. The fact that the DEFENSE didn't enter these items as evidence is further proof (although most sentient beings do not need it) that unsourced equals useless.
The Judges of the 4th Circuit Court DO NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE. The 4th Circuit Court decides if there is merit to any appeal. They have already said there are no grounds for further appeal in re: the DNA testing. The last Appeal hopefully will have a decision soon......
The original trial has withstood all of the peer reviews (ie Appeals including the 7 trips to the US Supreme Court). If it had been unfair, biased, or whatever you claim it to have been then it would have been proven as such during one of the many appeals that inmate lost.
inmate had his presumption of innocence, he had his trial by a jury of his peers. he was able to have witnesses cross-examined, he was able to have evidence reviewed by his own experts. the fact that Bernie et al waited, and only reviewed limited evidence is NOT the fault of the prosecution. All evidence was made available, the Federal Rules of Prosecution and the Federal Rules of Evidence were followed meticulously. Judge Dupree kept the damage that Bernie Segal was doing to a minimum (Bernie was insulting to the jury and witnesses). The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. The trial lasted just over 6 weeks and the jury convicted him in just under 7 hours.
His conviction has withstood appeal after appeal include 7 trips to the US Supreme Court. It was a good trial, a fair trial, and inmate was rightfully convicted. Now it is long past time for him to stop tying up the legal system and serve the time that he was so justly sentenced to serve.
The black wool fibers and the blonde synthetic wig hairs WERE UNSOURCED and therefore were, are, shall forever remain USELESS forensically speaking. The prosecution did not use those fibers against inmate. IF the defense believed they had any probative value then THE DEFENSE should have asked that they be entered as evidence. The fact that the DEFENSE didn't enter these items as evidence is further proof (although most sentient beings do not need it) that unsourced equals useless.
The Judges of the 4th Circuit Court DO NOT HAVE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE. The 4th Circuit Court decides if there is merit to any appeal. They have already said there are no grounds for further appeal in re: the DNA testing. The last Appeal hopefully will have a decision soon......
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I fully appreciate that most people who are prosecuted are guilty, and others are not completely innocent. The trouble is that mistakes are made, and serious ones, as happened in the MacDonald case and in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's a lack of vision which is why many people think there is more to the death of JFK than just Lee Harvey Oswald.
I have still not got over the fact that the father of the murdered little girl Riley Fox made a false confession to the police, and he was imprisoned, until the DNA of another man, the real culprit, was later found about a year later, and he was imprisoned.
The execution, or imprisonment of an innocent person is a crime committed by the state and it must be punished.
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
Yes, mistakes were made in the Macdonald case. But the mistake to rush to hold the Article 32 hearing before all the evidence was processed actually worked out in the favor of justice. Had Mac been tried for murdering the wife and kiddies in 1970, he'd have gotten maybe 20 years, it would have been sliced down by the review and the affirmed sentence would be something like a decade - if that. Unfortunately, the military did not take domestic violence seriously for nearly two decades after the captain slaughtered his wife, unborn son, and two daughters. So, in this case, the mistakes made worked out perfectly and he got as close to the sentence he deserves as legally possible.
JonBenet is derailing the thread. But since you brought it up, I feel sorry for Burke, since your track record is to back the killer and you're rooting for him.
Troll Soft Shoe
While the landlord soft shoes his way around the inculpatory evidence in this case, he continues to ignore the flip side of that pancake. Where is the trace evidence linking a member of the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven to the crime scene? DNA? Nope. Hairs? Nope. Prints? Nope. Fibers? Nope. Inmate is the lone perp. Case closed.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
While the landlord soft shoes his way around the inculpatory evidence in this case, he continues to ignore the flip side of that pancake. Where is the trace evidence linking a member of the New York Four or the Stoeckley Seven to the crime scene? DNA? Nope. Hairs? Nope. Prints? Nope. Fibers? Nope. Inmate is the lone perp. Case closed.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
HSienzant
Philosopher
Begging the question. Look it up.
Refresh my memory. Who was convicted in that case?
Sorry to burst your bubble, Oswald did it. And I find you employ many of the same tactics as conspiracy theorists.
And this has exactly -- nothing -- to do with MacDonald's conviction.
So now we put the jury in jail in McDonald's stead?
Sorry, that's just weird.
Hank
- Status