Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[HSienzant]

The way the original trial was conducted was a mistrial.

The judge, the jury, the defense, and the prosecution all would disagree with you on that.

It was not an excellent court

In the U.S., the accused has a right to a speedy trial, not to an excellent one.
Your argument reduces to not just McDonald, but everyone, is entitled to "an excellent court". Since by definition (whatever definition you choose to use) some courts will be above average, some average, and some below, you are claiming most accused don't have "an excellent court". So what?

...and the federal rules of evidence and procedure were not followed.

You would think if that was actually the case, he would have won on appeal at least once.

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.

About what? You're back to begging the question.

There is a bit about this ..

Relevance to the case under discussion? None.

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

The judge, the jury, the defense, and the prosecution all would disagree with you on that.

In the U.S., the accused has a right to a speedy trial, not to an excellent one.
Your argument reduces to not just McDonald, but everyone, is entitled to "an excellent court". Hank

You have tunnel vision. If a judge and prosecutor deliberately breaks the federal rules of evidence and procedure, and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense, then it's a mistrial. The same thing if a jury is proven to not be impartial, as in the Macdonald case.

Justice Marshall had a few words to say about the speedy trial matter in the MacDonald case at the Supreme Court in 1982:

www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/1/case.html

The Justice Department did not convene a grand jury until August, 1974, more than two years later. The Court of Appeals charged this delay to Government "indifference, negligence, or ineptitude." United States v. MacDonald, 531 F.2d 196, 207 (CA4 1976) (MacDonald I). On January 24, 1975, MacDonald was indicted by a civilian grand jury on three counts of murder, the same charges that the military authorities had dropped. Trial commenced in the summer of 1979.

Confronted with these facts, the majority reaches the facile conclusion that the speedy trial right is not implicated at all when the same sovereign initiates, drops, and then reinitiates criminal charges. That conclusion is not justified by the language of the Speedy Trial Clause or the teachings of our cases, and it is hopelessly at odds with any sensible understanding of speedy trial policies. I must dissent.

 

[desmirelle]

You have tunnel vision. If a judge and prosecutor deliberately breaks the federal rules of evidence and procedure, and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense, then it's a mistrial. The same thing if a jury is proven to not be impartial, as in the Macdonald case.<snip>

And when did the highlighted occur? (Apart from your dreams, that is.) When was PROVEN that the jury was not impartial?

 

[Henri McPhee]

And when did the highlighted occur? (Apart from your dreams, that is.) When was PROVEN that the jury was not impartial?

The MacDonald private investigator Shedlick obtained affidavits from three different witnesses in about 1987 indicating that the foreman of the jury at the MacDonald trial in 1979 was overheard saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the so-called impartial judge and jury trial had even started. This is one such affidavit:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1988-09-07_dclr_james.html

 

[desmirelle]

The MacDonald private investigator Shedlick obtained affidavits from three different witnesses in about 1987 indicating that the foreman of the jury at the MacDonald trial in 1979 was overheard saying he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the so-called impartial judge and jury trial had even started. <snip - again>

I seriously have to question your ability to understand the English language when I ask when was it proven (with the implications of a court involvement) and you reply with "obtained affidavits" as if that proved anything other than some person said something years later and either believed their memory was correct or was counting on no one calling them on a lie.

When was the court hearing that determined these "affidavits" were accepted in court as proof of jury bias or tampering? When was the jury foreman questioned in court and the jury verdict invalidated for this pre-existing determination? This would be 'proving' the jury was not impartial. Affidavits are useless for this unless accepted in a court. (Sorry for the multi-syllable words.)

 

[HSienzant]

You have tunnel vision. If a judge and prosecutor deliberately breaks the federal rules of evidence and procedure, and the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense, then it's a mistrial. The same thing if a jury is proven to not be impartial, as in the Macdonald case.

You still don't get the logical fallacy of Begging the Question, do you?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

More info at the link.

Justice Marshall had a few words to say about the speedy trial matter in the MacDonald case at the Supreme Court in 1982:

www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/1/case.html

Nor about the logical fallacy of a red herring.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

More info at the link.

In addition, all this was covered with you in the past and shown to be untrue (just check the thread). For example, here's my prior rebuttal to the Marshall argument.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11486359&postcount=2019

Going around another time doesn't mean your claims suddenly become more true.

Your repetition of the same points from months ago is known as a fringe reset.

Hank

 

[byn63]

Going around another time doesn't mean your claims suddenly become more true.

Your repetition of the same points from months ago is known as a fringe reset.

Hank

roflmao! many of us refer to henri's "lather, rinse, repeat" style of argument. It is ineffectual and annoying, plus completely predictable. When you can win an argument with one of your "fantasy narratives" move on to the next for a bit, when that fails move to the next, when you run out of them go back to the top and start over......

 

[Ygraine]

We also call it "SSDD" - Same "Stuff", Different Day.

 

[desmirelle]

"Final Vision" will air on ID channel on 10 December 2017. It's the story of the murder of the pregnant Colette Macdonald and her two daughters at the hands of her husband/their father and the subsequent battle to bring the story to the public through the eyes of Joe McGinnis - who was contracted by the killer to document the trial that ultimately found him guilty.

 

[byn63]

We also call it "SSDD" - Same "Stuff", Different Day.

LOL I like the quotes to indicate that we don't always use the most polite terms. How about "same meat, different gravy" to describe the nonsense?

 

[Ygraine]

 

[BStrong]

"Final Vision" will air on ID channel on 10 December 2017. It's the story of the murder of the pregnant Colette Macdonald and her two daughters at the hands of her husband/their father and the subsequent battle to bring the story to the public through the eyes of Joe McGinnis - who was contracted by the killer to document the trial that ultimately found him guilty.

When I saw the trailer my first thought was poor Henri, but then I laughed.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The American media are not much help. This is part of what Dr MacDonald once wrote about the American media in his case:

"Having now viewed the 10/14/98 "American Justice" segment on my case, I feel compelled to offer several comments...

Edited by TubbaBlubba: 

Rule 4: Do not copy/paste long tracts from other sources. Include a small exerpt and give link/source.

 

[BStrong]

The American media are not much help. snipped

Convicted murderer cries foul! If everybody just believed my line of ********* I wouldn't be in prison!

It's a story as old as man. Somebody is arrested and the story goes right to SODDI - Some Other Dude Did It. Why won't you believe ME! I told you what happened!

 

[Henri McPhee]

The point is that factual innocence should be a ground for appeal. Personally, I think it defies common sense for judges like Judge Fox to say it is not. There is a bit of legal waffle about this at this website:

Whilst the Court’s reluctance to interfere with the jury’s verdict does, undoubtedly, inhibit the Court from expanding this category of appeal, the RCCJ report highlighted the deficiencies of the Court’s review process in locating lurking doubts. One of the main reasons for the Court showing such deference for the jury verdict is because an appeal is not a re-hearing. Accordingly, the jury, which has seen the witnesses, is supposed to be in a better position to draw inferences than the Court who generally just read a transcript of the judge’s summing up at the leave stage and in preparation for the appeal. As the former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Frederick Lawton, has stated ‘reading a transcript of the evidence is not conducive to raising a lurking doubt.’ 21 This explains why very few lurking doubt appeals manage to get passed the leave filter and why very few of those that do are successful.

The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and Factual Innocence: Remedying Wrongful Convictions in the Court of Appeal (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...g_Wrongful_Convictions_in_the_Court_of_Appeal [accessed Nov 27 2017].

 

[desmirelle]

What does factual innocence have to do with the topic of this thread?

Macdonald isn't innocent; he's shown consciousness of guilt nor does his fairy tale account of the night's events fit the evidence.

And he's still lying about things, Henri. In 1998, he was no longer entitled to use M.D. as he no longer had a license. All he had was a degree. A BS degree......how appropriate.

 

[kookbreaker]

The American media are not much help. This is part of what Dr Wifemurder ChildMacStabber once wrote about the American media in his case:

FTFY.

 

[JTF]

Failed Talking Point

The landlord is regurgitating the same party line that has failed at every level in the past decade. In 2005, inmate attempted to win his lone parole hearing by trotting out the factual innocence card. Brian Murtagh made sure this attempt would be a spectacular failure by arguing that inmate was seeking a pardon, not parole.

Kathryn MacDonald didn't have the guts to admit authorship of a list of evidentiary arguments that Murtagh had no problem destroying bit by bit. These are the SAME arguments brought forth by the landlord in hundreds of posts in the past 13 years. The parole board didn't buy inmate's con game and denied him access to another parole hearing until the year 2020.

For the past 9 years, inmate's rotating band of lawyers has presented this SAME card to Judge Fox and the 4th Circuit Court. Judge Fox has seen right through this house of cards, but this particular 4th Circuit Court has always seemed to have a soft spot for the Ice Pick Baby Killer, so the legal beat goes on. Those interested in this case have now waited 10 months and 1 day for the 4th Circuit's decision on the "evidence as a whole."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

the trial of inmate was not held in the media, it was convened in a Court of Law. At his trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) over a period of about 6 weeks. The jury convicted inmate after deliberations that lasted about 7 hours. There were no television cameras in the Court room, Bernie Segal's histrionics DID NOT help inmate's case, the EVIDENCE was not refutable and was therefore not refuted and even when the defense attempted to refute evidence they made them selves look ridiculous with the "ham on the sled" experiment. Not only that but the DEFENSE experts agreed with large portions of the PROSECUTION expert's testimony.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The landlord is regurgitating the same party line that has failed at every level in the past decade. In 2005, inmate attempted to win his lone parole hearing by trotting out the factual innocence card. Brian Murtagh made sure this attempt would be a spectacular failure by arguing that inmate was seeking a pardon, not parole.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The Parole Commission in 2005 were the same sort of incompetent boobs and rubber stampers as the 4th Circuit judges and silly old Judge Fox. MacDonald is never going to admit he is guilty for the simple reason that he is innocent. Guilt or innocence is not decided by the media or social media. It's decided on the facts in court and not on opinions. Information is the lifeblood of any police investigation. Juries do not always have right judgement, and neither to judges.

This is the sort of ******** that is printed on social media:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/0-parole-denied_2005-06-16.html

And just as the courts found no merit to any of his appeals the parole commission found no merit to his claims.

What Jeffrey MacDonald could not have known or foreseen was the advent of the mass media capability of the Internet and its capabilities to provide worldwide viewing of the true facts of this case to potentially millions of heretofore uninformed persons. The capability of the Internet has publicly presented the facts of the MacDonald case, and in so doing has continued to destroy the often one-sided interpretations of the evidence as is frequently presented by Jeffrey MacDonald himself, or those who represent his interests.

This most certainly does not serve to demonstrate that MacDonald has abandoned or will abandon his attempts to secure release from prison. Neither does it serve to indicate that MacDonald and his supporters will cease to present misrepresentations of the facts and evidence to the public in an attempt to sway public opinion to his cause and ultimate freedom.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the "MacDonald Saga" is ended with the decision by the Parole Commission. It will continue until he dies and even then it will still be remembered. He is not a legend; he is a man who was convicted of the triple homicide of his pregnant wife and two defenseless small children. And as MacDonald and his supporters regroup to consider their few remaining alternatives in securing his release, we will continue as well.

Jeffrey MacDonald has repeatedly claimed that he will never admit to the murders for which he has been convicted, and at this point, I personally believe that he will hold to this statement. This steadfast position of Jeffrey MacDonald may change as he now progressively observes the last remaining years of his life pass away behind prison bars while his new wife waits on the outside.