Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[byn63]

Comparisons against the FBI Exemplar Collection does indeed prove that the synthetic "saran" fiber was from a doll. Perhaps the landlord doesn't understand what an exemplar collection is and/or how it is used. In this instance, every toy/doll maker in the US (and likely from many other countries) submits an example of doll wigs. So, when they created Chatty Kathy (for example) the make up of her wig was standardized and then a "swatch" or "sample" was made-up and attached to an identification card with the manufacturer, doll name, creation date, chemical make-up, color or colors it is made in, and I believe in some instances it might list whether it is single loop, double loop, removable or growing.....

and yes, Chatty Kathy was my first doll so I fondly remember her name.....

 

[JTF]

Fantasy World

In the landlord's fantasy world, the forensic analysis of an expert witness is only viable if that witness agrees with his layman's interpretation of that evidence. In essence, he creates an alternate universe where opinion trumps fact and the documented record takes a backseat to unproven conspiracy theories.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[JTF]

KISS

The late, great Peter Kearns was a proponent of the KISS philosophy. He applied it to every aspect of this case. In terms of the saran fiber issue, I will keep it simple stupid.

During the 1990 and 1992 appellate process, Jeffrey MacDonald's lawyers argued that three saran fibers found at the crime scene was evidence of a wig-wearing intruder. Intruder suspect Helena Stoeckley made several post-trial statements claiming that she wore her wig to 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. Stoeckley, however, testified under oath at the 1979 trial that she wasn't wearing her wig on the night of the murders.

The three saran fibers were 24, 22, and nine inches in length. All three fibers were found in a clear-handled hairbrush located in the dining room next to Colette's purse. In 1974, Paul Stombaugh analyzed these three fibers, and labeled them as FBI Exhibits Q46 and Q49. Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc."

In 1990, FBI Special Agent Robert Webb analyzed the fibers and concluded that the 24-inch and nine-inch saran fibers differed in chemical composition to the 22-inch saran fiber. This indicated that the three saran fibers came from two different source materials. In terms of dolls being the source material for the three saran fibers, Kristen MacDonald had 20 dolls in her collection, and Kimberley had several dolls of her own.

In 1990, hair and fiber expert Michael Malone matched the 24-inch saran fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection and none of the saran fibers matched any wig exemplar in the FBI's reference collection. There were also two platinum-colored synthetic hairs found in hairbrushes at the crime scene and Malone matched these synthetic hairs to a fall owned by Colette MacDonald.

In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a post-argument letter to MacDonald's defense team. In regards to Malone's fiber analysis, the government stated that "Examiner Malone added that standard references that he had consulted do not reflect the use of saran fibers in human cosmetic wigs." The letter also addressed the claim that the 22-inch and the 24-inch saran fibers were too long to be doll hair. The government stated that "doll hair is doubled or looped when placed in the skull of a doll. A 22-inch fiber, therefore, is consistent with an 11-inch hair strand on a doll. Appellant has never attempted to rebut this explanation."

Unfortunately, there were no doll exemplars available for comparison purposes due to the fact that Kristen's and Kimberley's doll collections were discarded after the Article 32 hearings. In a 1990 People magazine article, Freddy Kassab addressed this issue and stated that Kimberley or Kristen brushing their dolls hair with the clear-handled hairbrush was a far more logical scenario than Stoeckley brushing her wig during the course of a home invasion.

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

 

[Henri McPhee]

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.

Hank

I know that. The point is that neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were qualified to testify on fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald. You can't just take the word for it from Malone that those blonde synthetic hair like fibers came from dolls. He could have been making it up. It's not scientifically reliable. There needs to be supporting evidence.

This is some background information about Malone from the New York Post:

Justice Department and FBI officials didn’t answer questions from The Post about how many background checks Malone performed or why he was re-hired.

Although he was never disciplined and got to retire with a pension, Malone’s criminal forensics work has come under heavy scrutiny by investigators – including his involvement in a case that sent former DC resident Donald Gates to prison for 28 years for a murder he didn’t commit.

“Malone’s faulty analysis and scientifically unsupportable testimony contributed to the conviction of an innocent defendant” and at least five other convictions that were later reversed, the IG wrote in its report, released last week.
Malone testified at trial that one of Gates’ hairs scientifically matched one found on the body of Georgetown University student Catherine Schilling, 21. DNA evidence later proved him to be wrong
.
His testimony before a judicial inquiry of Florida federal Judge Alcee Hastings was also found to be off base. Malone testified that he conducted a “tensile” test on a piece of evidence – a purse strap. It was later revealed he didn’t do the test.

Independent scientists found 96 percent of Malone’s caseload to be “problematic” for reasons such as making statements that “had no scientific basis.” Contrary to normal standards, Malone produced lab notes that were “in pencil and not dated.”

The prior IG investigation found Malone testified “outside his expertise and inaccurately” and cited him for misconduct.
Malone denied any wrongdoing.

 

[byn63]

I know that. The point is that neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were qualified to testify on fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald.

THE POINT IS henri that YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE IF SOMEONE WAS QUALIFIED. JUDGE DUPREE ACCEPTED STOMBAUGH AS AN EXPERT THUS HE WAS QUALIFIED. NOT TO MENTION THAT THE DEFENSE EXPERT Thorton AGREED WITH STOMBAUGH'S CONCLUSIONS IN LARGE PART. So, using YOUR reasoning Thorton was not qualified either.....

You can't just take the word for it from Malone that those blonde synthetic hair like fibers came from dolls. He could have been making it up. It's not scientifically reliable. There needs to be supporting evidence.

Actually, Malone's conclusion in re "the saran fibers" is scientifically reliable. Malone compared the fibers to the exemplars in the FBI collection. That means he MATCHED the fiber to fibers that were in/at the FBI Lab. It is obvious that you do not understand what an exemplar collection is and that you ignored my post explaining it. It is safe to say that you are not qualified to discuss this case because you routinely ignore the most basic factually information and substitute your fallible inane ridiculous unsupportable conclusions.

 

[BStrong]

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

It's far better evidence than your "I read this on the internet" school of evidentiary presentation.

You just make up your "evidence" as you go along. At least Malone had actual training in the field

 

[JTF]

Case Closed

At the time he was assigned to this case, Michael Malone was considered to be the best hair/fiber expert in the United States. He microscopically compared the longest of the saran fibers to doll hair in the FBI's massive exemplar collection. Photographs were taken of the comparisons and he determined that they matched. The defense has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER challenged Malone's conclusion.

Similar to the blood stain analysis (e.g., pajama top pocket) put forth by Terry Laber at the 1979 trial, the defense team's silence regarding Malone's microscopic fiber comparisons speaks volumes.

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

As I stated in a prior post, 16 years prior to Malone's microscopic analysis of the saran fibers, Paul Stombaugh listed the fibers as "synthetic filament yellow, type used on dolls, Halloween costumes, etc." In 1974, Stombaugh was considered to be the best hair/fiber expert in the United States and despite being aware of Stombaugh's conclusions, the defense DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT question his analysis of the unsourced saran fibers.

The FACT that the 22 inch saran fiber differed in chemical composition to the 24 and nine inch saran fiber indicates the 22 inch fiber came from a separate source. The defense has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER claimed that there were two wig-wearing hippie home invaders.

In its totality, the evidence points to one conclusion and one conclusion only. Kimmie and/or Kristen used their mother's hairbrush to brush the hair of two dolls from their respective collections. This makes far more sense than two-wig wearing home invaders deciding to brush their wigs as the target of their home invasion is being attacked in the next room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[desmirelle]

I know that. The point is that neither Stombaugh or Shirley Green of the FBI were qualified to testify on fabric impressions, which convicted MacDonald. <snip>:

Uh, I realize this might be above your pay grade, but evidence is simply presented - the jury does the conviction based upon the evidence. And the judge decides whether or not a person is qualified to testify, not you. You repeating your ill-informed opinion that people are not qualified is irrelevant to the nth degree.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a bit about expert witnesses at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

The expert has a great responsibility, and especially in penal trials, and perjury by an expert is a severely punished crime in most countries.

The use of expert witnesses is sometimes criticized in the United States because in civil trials, they are often used by both sides to advocate differing positions, and it is left up to a jury to decide which expert witness to believe.

Although experts are legally prohibited from expressing their opinion of submitted evidence until after they are hired, sometimes a party can surmise beforehand, because of reputation or prior cases, that the testimony will be favorable regardless of any basis in the submitted data; such experts are commonly disparaged as "hired guns."

Has any judge ever weighed or examined Malone's so-called evidence that the blonde synthetic hair like fibers came from dolls, or was Malone making it up as usual? Malone has been described in another murder case by a defense lawyer as a total liar.

Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree had no right to allow Stombaugh and Shirley Green to testify at the trial in a field which was outside their field of expertise. In sport if you break the rules of evidence and procedure you can be severely punished. In law a mistrial is declared, except by the goons in the 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court.

 

[byn63]

Once again henri totally ignores the facts and tries to re-repeat the same nonsensical comments. Malone was an expert in fiber analysis, he examined the fibers and compared them to exemplars in the FBI collection and found a match. HOWEVER, as accurate as THAT FACT IS, the FACT REMAINS that the 3 fibers came from TWO SEPARATE SOURCES. Thus the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT Kimmie or Kristy brushed their dolls hair with their mother's hairbrush. Try and understand these simple facts henri:
1. 2 separate sources for the saran fibers
2. nobody has ever claimed there were 2 wig wearing intruders
3. it is beyond illogical to think that ANY wig wearing intruder would have stopped to brush their wig with a hairbrush found in the home

it really is the most simple thing.....unsourced equals useless forensically speaking and ALL THE SOURCED EVIDENCE POINTS TO INMATE AS THE SOLE PERP, PERIOD!

 

[Henri McPhee]

Similar to the blood stain analysis (e.g., pajama top pocket) put forth by Terry Laber at the 1979 trial, the defense team's silence regarding Malone's microscopic fiber comparisons speaks volumes.

It's simply not true to say that the pajama pocket and footprints, or even the blood evidence, have never been contested by MacDonald lawyers.
This was all mentioned in a legal document by MacDonald's then lawyers in about 2005 who I think was Tim Junkin.

There is a bit about the pajama pocket in Fred Bost's short study:

The loose pocket could have been kicked around easily.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/fbost-short-study.html

 

[byn63]

The blood on the pj pocket was not contested AT TRIAL, which is when and where it would need to be contested to have any validity. what an idiot author who wrote a poorly researched and extremely boring defense supported piece of drek is NOT an authority. Since the pj pocket was found on an upturned corner of a throw rug in the master bedroom there is nothing to support the possibility of it "being kicked around easily"......you seem to miss the point over and over again henri...the footprint, blood analysis, in fact ANY evidence is discussed AT TRIAL. IF the defense doesn't question anyone about the conclusions they present it is usually because THEY CANNOT COUNTER THE FACTS AS PRESENTED. Terry Laber was not cross-examined so his conclusions and information was not challenged. It really is that simple.

 

[JTF]

Uncontested

The landlord has studiously ignored and/or minimized the inculpatory nature of the following evidentiary items. None of these items were rebutted by the defense in a court of law.

1) The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette on top of the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom. The pocket was stained in six locations with Colette MacDonald's Type A blood. CID chemist Terry Laber analyzed the six Type A blood stains on the pocket.

At the 1979 trial, Laber stated that "the pajama top was soaked with blood over the entire area where the pocket had been." In contrast to the pajama top, the pocket was lightly stained with blood, and all six stains were located on the outside or face of the pocket. None of the stains, however, soaked through the double-layered fabric.

Laber also labeled each blood stain found the pocket with a number designation. The following are the blood stains that Laber identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial:

•Area 1: Light smearing stain on the pocket
•Area 2: Smear and spatter stains along the beading
•Area 3: Soaking stain along the pocket's edge
•Area 4: Soaking stain
•Area 5: Soaking stain
•Area 6: Soaking stain

Laber concluded that the totality of the evidence indicated that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood before the pocket was torn from the jacket. Bernie Segal decided not to cross-examine Laber at trial.

2) At trial, Segal also decided not to cross-examine Paul Stombaugh in regards to his fiber analysis. Stombaugh determined that the composition of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top is 65 percent polyester Dacron and 35 percent cotton. The yarns from the pajama top are a blend, while the sewing threads are composed of cotton. The color of the sewing threads is purple in most of the seams and blue-black in certain areas beneath the seam and in the piping on the sleeves. The sleeves of the pajama top are loose fitting and there are no buttons on the cuffs. The pajama top had been extensively laundered which weakened the sewing threads and removed a good portion of the dye from the threads.

The pajama top was ripped down the left front seam, left shoulder, and left sleeve down to the cuff. Stombaugh concluded that someone grabbed the pajama top in the V-neck section and pulled down as Jeffrey MacDonald spun to his right. Jeffrey MacDonald has consistently claimed that the pajama top was pulled over his head by intruders and that it ended up around his wrists.

The tear down the left front seam and left sleeve of Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top resulted in a proliferation of pajama threads and yarns in the master bedroom. The tear was over 72 inches in length which led Stombaugh to conclude that "when a garment is torn as the pajama top is torn, the bulk of the broken yarns and threads will become dislodged and fall off in the immediate area [where] the damage occurs." MacDonald insisted that the immediate area where the damage to the pajama top occurred was in the living room, but no threads or yarns from the pajama top were found in the living room.

3) In terms of the 3 saran fibers found at the crime scene, the defense did not formulate a rebuttal to Michael Malone's conclusion that one of the fibers matched doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection.

4) In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a post-argument letter to MacDonald's defense team. In regards to Malone's fiber analysis, the government stated that "Examiner Malone added that standard references that he had consulted do not reflect the use of saran fibers in human cosmetic wigs." The letter also addressed the claim that the 22-inch and the 24-inch saran fibers were too long to be doll hair. The government stated that "doll hair is doubled or looped when placed in the skull of a doll. A 22-inch fiber, therefore, is consistent with an 11-inch hair strand on a doll. Appellant has never attempted to rebut this explanation."

5) At trial, the defense did not rebut the prosecution's assertion that the club came from inside 544 Castle Drive.

6) At trial, the defense did not rebut the prosecution's assertion that the ice pick/Old Hickory knife were wiped off on the bathmat found on Colette's abdomen.

7) At trial, the defense did not rebut the prosecution's assertion that 3 bloody fabric impressions were sourced to the pajama sleeves of both Jeffrey/Colette MacDonald.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Part of the trouble with this forensics business is that lawyers and judges don't understand what is going on. It's not their field. It's true that Segal and Wade Smith didn't cross-examine Laber at the trial and that was a mistake by them. If Eisman had been there he would have asked pointed questions, like why did serologist Glisson of the Army CID lab disagree with Laber.

Segal certainly did cross-examine the co-called then inexperienced Army CID lab blood man Craig Chamberlain. The Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree then told Segal to tone it down because it became so heated. I still say that Stombaugh and Shirley Green were not qualified to give their so-called opinions about the fabric impressions and that's against the rules of evidence and procedure. They were making it up like Malone.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publ...90901_066-justice_on_trial_the_case_of_dr.pdf

The evidence

Much of the forensic evidence collected by the Army at the time of the incident is called into question, by sloppy laboratory procedures.

Questionable assumptions were made on blood and urine typing, all to the disadvantage of Dr. MacDonald. Certain vital evidence such as tissues samples found under Mrs. MacDonald's fingernails, and clothing worn by Dr. MacDonald on the night of the murder, mysteriously disappeared.

Only a partial analysis of fingerprints found on the scene was accomplished. Blood tests made by the Army were later disputed by the FBI, but evidence of the disagreement was not made available to the defense, although it would have materially affected the prosecution case.

Evidence has now been uncovered showing that fiber samples supposed to have come from MacDonald's own pajamas may actually have been of wool rather than silk, substantiating the presence of outsiders.

 

[byn63]

henri you are so full of it....Bernie Segal was the lead attorney for inmate; NO OTHER LAWYER would have questioned anyone without his go-ahead. The OBVIOUS REASON that no cross was done with Terry Laber on the pocket is because reiterating his findings would have EMPHASIZED THE POINT THAT INMATE'S STORY WAS PURE BULL. Judges may not be forensic experts but they are EXPERTS IN THE LAW and they know how to determine if someone is an expert in their field. Segal's experts agreed with Government Expert Paul Stombaugh on large portions of his testimony. Also, Segal's cross examination of Stombaugh on the blood stains ended up emphasizing further that inmate's story was pure BULL. See the real problem is that you cannot disprove the evidence AND your man crush is guilty beyond all doubt. That is the real problem.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The landlord has studiously ignored and/or minimized the inculpatory nature of the following evidentiary items. None of these items were rebutted by the defense in a court of law.

1) The pocket from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top was found at the feet of Colette on top of the flipped-up portion of a throw rug in the master bedroom. The pocket was stained in six locations with Colette MacDonald's Type A blood. CID chemist Terry Laber analyzed the six Type A blood stains on the pocket.

At the 1979 trial, Laber stated that "the pajama top was soaked with blood over the entire area where the pocket had been." In contrast to the pajama top, the pocket was lightly stained with blood, and all six stains were located on the outside or face of the pocket. None of the stains, however, soaked through the double-layered fabric.

Laber also labeled each blood stain found the pocket with a number designation. The following are the blood stains that Laber identified, marked, and testified to at the 1979 trial:

•Area 1: Light smearing stain on the pocket
•Area 2: Smear and spatter stains along the beading
•Area 3: Soaking stain along the pocket's edge
•Area 4: Soaking stain
•Area 5: Soaking stain
•Area 6: Soaking stain

Laber concluded that the totality of the evidence indicated that the pocket was stained with Colette's blood before the pocket was torn from the jacket. Bernie Segal decided not to cross-examine Laber at trial.

[/url]

Gisson at the army CID lab was in disagreement about when the pajama pocket was detached. The prosecution tried to maintain that the way the pajama pocket was detached indicated a violent argument. Colonel Rock rebutted that prosecution argument in 1970, even if Segal and Wade Smith never made it clear to the jury in 1979. If you scroll half way down on this website the text becomes legible:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/rock-report-1970.html

It is unknown when the pajama top was torn or when the pocket was ripped off the garment.
It seems more logical for this action to have occurred in the couch area of the living room. With the garment wrapped around the accused's arms, the fibers and pocket may have, in some manner, remained with the garment until it was dropped in the east bedroom or when it was opened up to be spread across the chest of Colette.

 

[JTF]

Gift That Just Keeps On Giving

I've spoken to Janice Glisson and she was NOT the designated serologist for the pajama top pocket. It's clear that the landlord is conflating Stombaugh's blood stain analysis on the pajama top jacket with Laber's analysis of the dislodged pocket. Glisson disagreed with Stombaugh's conclusions regarding the 4 bisected blood stains on the jacket, but she did NOT analyze the 6 blood stains found on the face of the pocket.

Brian Murtagh and James Blackburn presented the following analysis during their closing arguments at the 1979 trial:

Murtagh: From the photograph, you can see that the rug is turned up and that we appear to have the pocket upside down. I also ask you to recall, you have seen this rug and that there is no blood found on this piece of rug. Now, you may recall the testimony of Mr. Laber, the chemist from the CID lab in 1970, as to the testimony concerning the pocket from the pajama top. Mr. Laber, I believe, testified to not only the blood type of the 6 stains which was Type A, the same type as Colette, and I would ask you to find that it is Colette's blood on the pocket, but also that the stains were of two types —that there was smear on Area Two which is white beading and that the larger stains were contact or soaking stains. From that, I would ask you to find that Colette's blood was on the pocket before it was torn because as you recall, the stains do not penetrate the double layers of the fabric by the seams.

Blackburn: We know that the pocket was on the floor. I asked him about that and he said that he could think of a number of ways that it could be kicked over there and torn off when the pajama top was torn. Well, okay, but it is upside down and it has got Type A blood coming from the outside in and it is not spatter —it is contact. How did that happen? You recall Terry Laber's saying that in his opinion, that Type A blood got on there prior to the pocket being torn off and yet it didn't bleed from the inside out, but it bled from the outside in.

Case closed.

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

 

[Henri McPhee]

Blackburn and Murtagh are not forensic experts or specialists though they are both good conmen and good at forensic fraud. Both the pajama pocket and the footprints are very weak evidence and the prosecution was making it up. MacDonald never denied the footprints could be his for a start. it doesn't PROVE anything.

This is what I said about the matter in 2012:

 

[Henri McPhee]

Actually it was on Topix forum in 2012 that I wrote this:

Segal made a big deal about the accuracy of the blood typing, which made no headway with the jury at all. In a way I think Segal had a point. There had been cases previously where the Army CID lab and and the FBI lab were in disagreement about blood typing at crime scenes, and some of the Army CID blood men were very inexperienced who had never been to a crime scene before.

I think Segal would have done better to concentrate on the blood and fibers where Dr, MacDonald fell, and on blood supposedly being on the pajama top and pocket before it was torn. That's what interested the jury. I suppose over-presentation of a case is bad advocacy, but the jury were a bit dim.

There were unseemly wrangles and disagreements about practically all of Stombaugh's testimony at the 1979 MacDonald trial, from Dr. Thornton and from Dr Morton. Stombaugh was only a hair and fiber man, and not a blood stain serologist.

The only thing Dr. Thornton agreed with Stombaugh was pajama cuff impressions which could easily have been caused when the military police moved the pajama top around causing blood fabric contamination when they first arrived.

Janice Glisson was in disagreement with Stombaugh about the fabric impressions which was what convicted Dr. MacDonald. Even if Bunker agreed with Stombaugh, Glisson did the original blood stain examination. She was a qualified serologist involved in blood stains. Bunker may not have been given the lab notes, as Thornton wasn't, or Stombaugh might have tampered with the blood stains later on:

"Regarding the blood stains that bisect the tear, Bost states on page 148 of the hardcopy edition that Janice Glisson, years earlier, "had explored the same bloodstain theory and had come to a different conclusion. She had determined that the stain edges on either side of the rips did not intersect, that the pajama top was, therefore, stained after it was ripped, not before."

 

[Henri McPhee]

Dr. Thornton and his own blood experts should have been allowed to examine that pajama pocket and give their opinion to the jury and appeal court if it is supposed to be of such crucial evidence, as JTF insists. I believe there would be a difference of opinion and lurking doubts about the matter.