Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[HSienzant]

Please produce the evidence that Beasley's recollections and suppositions are correct. Otherwise they are just that: recollections and suppositions, not supported by the evidence, and something we should give little credence to.

Beasley's daughter once posted on the internet that her father knew what happened in the MacDonald case but he was not believed.

I asked for *evidence* Henri. Not hearsay. Beasley's daughter's opinion is not evidence.

The problem with all this is that the documentation has vanished

Or it never existed in the first place. In either case, this is an admission by you that you don't have any evidence you can produce to support the claim you made.

I believe by Murtagh and Blackburn.

Your belief system troubles me not in the least. You already admitted you have no evidence.

Mazerolle was due to appear in court at the time of the MacDonald murders but he never did appear.

Sorry, repeating the assertion you can't prove doesn't make it more true. You already admitted you have no evidence of this.

That should raise alarm bells even with amateur lawyers.

That you post unproven assertions? No, I'm pretty much inured to that by now.

By the way, most people in America think JFK was bumped off by the CIA.

Actually, that's just another false claim by you. I'd invite you to the JFK forum on this board to debate that, and ask you to post your evidence, but we both know you won't, because you have no evidence of that.

And of course, it goes without saying that you're just trying to change the subject because you cannot provide any evidence to establish your claim.

This is some hard evidence that Detective Beasley was due to testify in court at the time of the MacDonald murders but he never did, and you can't say that he did :

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/1970/1970-02-10_subpoena_beasley.html

This establishes that Mazerolle was in custody, doesn't it? What's the point of requiring Beasley to appear and testify against the defendant if the defendant isn't in custody and able to appear in court to hear the testimony against him and mount a defense?

So you lose. You just provided evidence that your chief suspect was in custody on the day of the murders.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Mazerolle was actually sentenced about a year after the murders which is very odd. That was 1971, not 1970 when the murders took place...

More to the point, it appears Mazerolle was released on bond on March 10th, 1970. That means he was in jail on the night of the murders.

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/misc/1970-03-10_mazerolle_appearance_bond.html

Thanks for the link.

Hank

 

[byn63]

roflmao! talk about Cuckoo in the Cuckoo's Nest henri....BRIAN IS NOT JTF's name, never has been his name......

I don't recall ever seeing a point by point salient rebuttal by Ken Adachi! JTF did I miss it?

 

[JTF]

Fake Bravado

BYN: Adachi never answered BRIAN'S point by point destruction of Gunderson's conspiracy narrative. Since the documented record is at odds with 90 percent of Gunderson's long-winded report, Adachi was relegated to hurling grade school insults at BRIAN and engaging in hollow boasting.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

BYN: Adachi never answered BRIAN'S point by point destruction of Gunderson's conspiracy narrative. Since the documented record is at odds with 90 percent of Gunderson's long-winded report, Adachi was relegated to hurling grade school insults at BRIAN and engaging in hollow boasting.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

That is what I figured. The FACTS are on the side of those of us who can make salient, well thought out argument and not on the side of the ridiculous "used to be a document on the internet" and "I think/feel" irrational trains of thought types......

 

[Henri McPhee]

BYN: Adachi never answered BRIAN'S point by point destruction of Gunderson's conspiracy narrative. Since the documented record is at odds with 90 percent of Gunderson's long-winded report, Adachi was relegated to hurling grade school insults at BRIAN and engaging in hollow boasting.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Brian sounds like JTF to me. I suppose he could have been JTF's father but it's the same sort of writing style.

Mazerolle says he was in jail until March 10th 1970, but there is no documentation to back that up apart from that silly little piece of forged paper that appears on the internet. All the court records and police records, and most of the jail records, have vanished.

Detective Beasley thought he was out of jail on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders, and Helena Stoeckley certainly thought that as well. That gave Mazerolle the perfect false alibi. Mazerolle never appeared in court when he was due to appear in court at the time of the MacDonald murders, but he did appear in court about a year later to face the initial drug charges after the heat had died down, and the focus was then only on MacDonald.

Surely there must have been witnesses to back up Mazerolle's story that he was in jail till March 10th 1970? The judges are being absurdly credulous about this matter.

This is what Ken Adachi thought about the MacDonald case. He mentions a timeline of the case as well, which JTF keeps harping on about:

No individual in the history of this country has been more thoroughly abused by judicial misconduct than Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. The American public must come to know the true facts surrounding this case and realize the gravity of the crime perpetuated against him by those responsible for his railroading. The man is INNOCENT and always has been. A chronology of the events surrounding the MacDonald case can see seen at this link: http://educate-yourself.org/jm/macdonaldcasetimeline.shtml

 

[byn63]

since JTF HAS A WEBSITE that discusses THIS CASE and he openly uses his own name on that website, even someone with as limited research and comprehension skills as yourself henri, should be able to determine that JTF IS NOT BRIAN. perhaps you think they sound alike because they point out the same facts that YOU and Ken Adachi ignore?

When it comes to this case Ken Adachi obviously does not know a thing about this case since inmate is guilty, and has been PROVED GUILTY by a court of law.

 

[byn63]

In henri world, certified true copies of the paperwork associated with being "bonded out" is silly and can be ignored. IN THE REAL WORLD THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES ARE PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT ALLEN M. WAS IN JAIL UNTIL MARCH 10 AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS.

Of course, also in the real world even inmate, Mrs. Inmate, and the rotating band of lawyers have all conceded that Allen M was in jail on 2/17/70 and that he is not a suspect.

 

[HSienzant]

Question:

In this TV documentary, at the 17:40 mark, there's an image of Freddie and Mildred Kassab sitting on a bed holding a life-sized child's doll that appears to be about the size of a two or three year old child.

https://www.investigationdiscoverygo.com/people-magazine-investigates/jeffrey-macdonald-the-accused/

That doll has blonde hair.

So,
1. Was this doll owned by the MacDonald family and was it in their home during or before the murders?

2. Could this doll have contributed the blonde fiber that elsewhere in the documentary Dr. Cyril Wecht claims came from a blonde wig?

3. Has any attempt by the defense or prosecution ever been made to track down an identical doll from the same manufacturer and determine if the fibers from the doll match the fiber retrieved from the MacDonald household?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Mazerolle says he was in jail until March 10th 1970, but there is no documentation to back that up apart from that silly little piece of forged paper that appears on the internet.

Wait, what? You mean the silly piece of paper to which YOU gave me the link in this post?

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/1970/1970-02-10_subpoena_beasley.html

Sorry, I'm not impressed by arguments that links are okay when you cite them but invalid and forgeries when I cite them.

In addition, you level the claim that the document is forged. Can you cite for that claim? Where and when was that established?

Or is this just another assertion by you of things you believe but cannot prove?

Detective Beasley thought he was out of jail on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders

Asked and answered. We've established the paperwork shows otherwise, and what Beasley recalled years later doesn't make a difference.

Surely there must have been witnesses to back up Mazerolle's story that he was in jail till March 10th 1970?

Huh? The case has been tried and MacDonald has been found guilty. No one needs to disprove your arguments by finding witnesses to Mazerolle being in jail until March 10th, 1970. That's what the documentation says. You need to establish the documentation is a forgery. You've already claimed it, now you just need to post the evidence supporting it.

Hint: Recollections by a detective years after the fact and by a drug-addled hippie aren't going to overturn the documentation. Show the forgery.

This is what Ken Adachi thought about the MacDonald case.

Dude! I've pointed out before nobody cares about your thoughts on the matter. What's pertinent is what the evidence indicates. Nobody cares about what some post named Ken Adachi thinks about the case either.

He mentions a timeline of the case as well, which JTF keeps harping on about:

Although I don't want to speak for JTF, I'm pretty sure JTF means a timeline of the night of the murders, and explanations for things like how MacDonald's bloody footprints appear where they do, not a timeline that covers the night of the murders in this fashion:

February 17, 1970 --- Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen are murdered in the family apartment.

See here: http://educate-yourself.org/jm/macdonaldcasetimeline.shtml

That's not exactly a lot of detail.

Hank

 

[JTF]

Prosaic Explanation

HS: A few months after the conclusion of the Article 32 Hearing, MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items and all but one of the dolls owned by Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. The large doll in the photograph was the lone existing doll exemplar in this case. The photograph was taken in 1990, and included in a People Magazine article on the case.

The issue of the synthetic fibers was first broached in 1989, by the MacDonald Defense Team. They filed multiple briefs to Judge Dupree and argued that the source of the blonde fibers was a cosmetic wig once owned by Helena Stoeckley. The defense knew that Stoeckley claimed she had burned her wig in 1970, but that didn't deter them from making this evidentiary claim.

In 1990, the FBI compared hairs from the lone doll exemplar to 5 blonde fibers found in two hairbrushes. None of the 5 fibers matched hairs from that doll, but 2 of the 5 fibers were sourced to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald. Two dark synthetic hairs found in one of the two hairbrushes were unsourced, but even the defense agreed that the likely source was a dark wig once owned by Mildred Kassab.

That left the 3 blonde saran fibers found in a hairbrush in the dining room. One of the fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection and 1 of the 3 fibers differed in chemical composition. This indicated two separate sources for the three fibers. The defense has never argued that two home invaders wore cosmetic wigs, so they were forced to remain laser focused on the tenuous connection to Stoeckley.

Since 1989, the defense has attempted to prove that at the time of the murders, cosmetic saran wigs were manufactured in the United States. The best they could come up with was a dark saran wig used on exhibits in a museum in New Mexico. This type of evidence did not come close to passing muster with Judge Dupree and/or the 4th Circuit Court.

The most likely explanation for the three unsourced blonde fibers was Kimmie and/or Kristen brushing two separate dolls with their mother's hairbrush. In the 1990 People Magazine article, Freddy Kassab pointed out the fact that the MacDonald children owned over 20 dolls. He added that this prosaic explanation made far more sense than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the commission of a triple homicide.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/defense_claims.html

 

[HSienzant]

HS: A few months after the conclusion of the Article 32 Hearing, MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items and all but one of the dolls owned by Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen. The large doll in the photograph was the lone existing doll exemplar in this case. The photograph was taken in 1990, and included in a People Magazine article on the case.

The issue of the synthetic fibers was first broached in 1989, by the MacDonald Defense Team. They filed multiple briefs to Judge Dupree and argued that the source of the blonde fibers was a cosmetic wig once owned by Helena Stoeckley. The defense knew that Stoeckley claimed she had burned her wig in 1970, but that didn't deter them from making this evidentiary claim.

In 1990, the FBI compared hairs from the lone doll exemplar to 5 blonde fibers found in two hairbrushes. None of the 5 fibers matched hairs from that doll, but 2 of the 5 fibers were sourced to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald. Two dark synthetic hairs found in one of the two hairbrushes were unsourced, but even the defense agreed that the likely source was a dark wig once owned by Mildred Kassab.

That left the 3 blonde saran fibers found in a hairbrush in the dining room. One of the fibers matched doll hair from the FBI's exemplar collection and 1 of the 3 fibers differed in chemical composition. This indicated two separate sources for the three fibers. The defense has never argued that two home invaders wore cosmetic wigs, so they were forced to remain laser focused on the tenuous connection to Stoeckley.

Since 1989, the defense has attempted to prove that at the time of the murders, cosmetic saran wigs were manufactured in the United States. The best they could come up with was a dark saran wig used on exhibits in a museum in New Mexico. This type of evidence did not come close to passing muster with Judge Dupree and/or the 4th Circuit Court.

The most likely explanation for the three unsourced blonde fibers was Kimmie and/or Kristen brushing two separate dolls with their mother's hairbrush. In the 1990 People Magazine article, Freddy Kassab pointed out the fact that the MacDonald children owned over 20 dolls. He added that this prosaic explanation made far more sense than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the commission of a triple homicide.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/defense_claims.html

Thanks much!

 

[BStrong]

Brian sounds like JTF to me. I suppose he could have been JTF's father but it's the same sort of writing style.

Snipped

A functioning adult would apologize to JTF for making the false assertion.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who's life seems to revolve around defending a scumbag that murdered his wife and kids wouldn't have the character to apologize to someone they've wronged.

 

[byn63]

Question:

In this TV documentary, at the 17:40 mark, there's an image of Freddie and Mildred Kassab sitting on a bed holding a life-sized child's doll that appears to be about the size of a two or three year old child.

https://www.investigationdiscoverygo.com/people-magazine-investigates/jeffrey-macdonald-the-accused/

That doll has blonde hair.

So,
1. Was this doll owned by the MacDonald family and was it in their home during or before the murders?

Yes

2. Could this doll have contributed the blonde fiber that elsewhere in the documentary Dr. Cyril Wecht claims came from a blonde wig?

The blonde fibers do not match this particular doll wig. However, as much as Dr. Wecht's claims allowed the defense to muddy the waters, he is technically correct that it came from a wig, a doll wig, but a wig nonetheless. I do not know if it is still common, but in the 1970s doll hair was called "the wig" and I had numerous dolls then and loved finding out about them.

3. Has any attempt by the defense or prosecution ever been made to track down an identical doll from the same manufacturer and determine if the fibers from the doll match the fiber retrieved from the MacDonald household?
Hank

There are numerous dolls that were available in the 1970s that had wigs made with Saran fibers. The Revlon Sweet Sue doll was one that had Saran fibers and was available in the 1960s.

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/sarannet/en/dollhair.html

nice info on saran doll hair

As for use in cosmetic wigs, I personally don't believe they used saran in 1960s/1970s for them because you could not make a tow fiber which was essential in the manufacture of cosmetic wigs in that era. the mannequin wig the defense found in Mexico was not cosmetic, was not meant to be washed and restyled and also as far as I am aware did not have a tow fiber. I doubt many would realize there is a distinct difference between mannequin wigs, costume wigs, doll wigs, and cosmetic wigs. From experience I can say they are NOT interchangeable....

 

[Henri McPhee]

Question:

3. Has any attempt by the defense or prosecution ever been made to track down an identical doll from the same manufacturer and determine if the fibers from the doll match the fiber retrieved from the MacDonald household?

Hank

That was forensic fraud by Malone of the FBI lab whose integrity has been questioned in the past in other murder cases. Malone said the mystery blonde synthetic hair-like fibers with no known source came from MacDonald dolls when in fact they came from Helena Stoeckley's wig. Similarly Malone said the black wool fibers with no known source on the wooden club murder weapon murder weapon and around Colette's mouth and on her biceps came from household debris. That's ridiculous. All this was illegally withheld from the defense and the jury at the 1979 trial by Murtagh.

It's possible wig hairs manufactured in America do not have similar qualities but those wigs worn by Helena now come from the Far East, or Mexico.

This is a quote from the internet about the matter:

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-jeffrey-macdonald-murder-case

Earlier, evidence came to light that a FBI forensic examiner mislead the jury about synthetic hair evidence. MacDonald claimed the hairs were from the wig of one of the murders, but the forensic examiner incorrectly claimed they were from one of the children’s dolls.

 

[JTF]

Same Old Song

The "forensic fraud" ploy is an old chestnut that the landlord has used for the past 13 years on multiple true crime forums. Considering that the ploy is fantasy driven, I'll stick to the errors contained in the landlord's weak rebuttal to several recent posts.

- The 4th Circuit Court concluded that defense claims regarding Malone's hair/fiber analysis IN THIS CASE lacked merit.

- Malone did NOT conclude that the 3 saran fibers were sourced to a doll(s) owned by the MacDonald family.

- This would have been an impossible task for all but 1 of the 20 plus dolls owned by the MacDonald family were discarded by inmate in 1970.

- Malone simply used side by side microscopic comparisons to PROVE that the 24 inch saran fiber matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

- The defense never challenged this microscopic comparison and attempted an end run around this DEFINITIVE conclusion by arguing that the fiber was too long to have come from a doll.

- It is not a "fact" that the source of the saran fibers was a wig owned by Stoeckley. The defense couldn't even prove that Stoeckley owned a wig as evidenced by the FACT that Stoeckley's description of the wig varied and that it was entirely possible that the wig in question was actually owned by Stoeckley roommate Kathy Smith.

- The landlord either doesn't understand or hates the word "sourced" for it undercuts ALL of his hair/fiber arguments. It is impossible to source a hair/fiber/fingerprint/fabric impression without an existing exemplar or a "known" to compare it to.

- The 4th Circuit Court ruled that the government did not knowingly withhold evidence in this case. This includes unsourced fiber evidence that the defense clings to for dear life. The government has pointed out in several briefs that the 1979 jury heard about a number of unsourced evidentiary items, yet still voted to convict inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Just because Malone of the FBI lab says those
unsourced blonde synthetic came from dolls is not evidence.
He needs to present that theory without facts evidence to a court and have it checked by a reputable forensic lab.

This is what Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree said about the matter with regard to the 1991/2 appeal and it's bullcrap:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/778/1342/1605241/

Here, it is undisputed that MacDonald was given unfettered access to the physical evidence. Pursuant to a June 19, 1979 order of this court, all of the government's physical evidence was made available to Dr. John Thornton, a forensic expert retained by MacDonald. Thornton made no *1354 effort to examine the hair and fiber evidence currently at issue, choosing instead to concentrate on MacDonald's pajama top, the sheets from the master bedroom, floor boards containing a bloody footprint, and cuttings from the surgical rubber glove fragments. Affidavit of Murtagh at 25. MacDonald now argues that Thornton would have had no reason to look at the fiber evidence since its significance was hidden by the suppression of the lab notes and the fact that the box containing the blond synthetic fibers from the clear-handled hairbrush was labeled "black, black & grey [illegible] synthetic hairs." However, the fact remains that Thornton, for whatever reason, chose not to examine any of the fiber evidence, despite being given an opportunity to do so.

 

[Border Reiver]

Your unevidenced assertion is irrelevant to the discussion.

And the quote you selected goes a long way to demonstrating that you have NOTHING but unevidenced assertions.

 

[HSienzant]

...Malone of the FBI lab ... said the mystery blonde synthetic hair-like fibers with no known source came from MacDonald dolls when in fact they came from Helena Stoeckley's wig.

So the FBI expert who testified in court said it came from doll's hair ('Malone of the FBI lab ... said the mystery blonde synthetic hair-like fibers ... came from MacDonald dolls...').

Your basis for saying otherwise (...'in fact they came from Helena Stoeckley's wig') is whose expert opinion?

Especially since you contradict yourself and say it had 'no known source'.

Or are you just making assertions with no basis in fact?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Just because Malone of the FBI lab says those unsourced blonde synthetic came from dolls is not evidence.

Actually it is.

All expert testimony is evidence. And in fact, experts are the only people allowed by law to express an opinion in a court case.

Eyewitnesses are restricted to testifying only about what they personally observed and are restricted from testifying about the conclusions they drew or what others said they saw (hearsay rule).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702

So Malone's testimony is evidence. Evidence you are ignoring.

Hank