• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henri McPhee said:
You start off with half-suspicions and Dwight Smith and Pat Reese were suspicious. They were never really cleared. The focus was on the innocent MacDonald from the first minute.
Click to expand...

I stand by my comment.

The issue isn't with the conduct of the investigation and the trial(s) The issue is your expectations and opinions of how a criminal investigation is conducted is based on your fantasies, not fact.
 
Henri McPhee said:
You start off with half-suspicions and Dwight Smith and Pat Reese were suspicious. They were never really cleared. The focus was on the innocent MacDonald from the first minute.
Click to expand...

Quite apart from the part there was no "innocent MacDonald", the survivor is always the suspect in any homicide. It's common sense, especially when the survivor is the fittest and most trained of the victims.

An article 32 hearing (grand jury) decided not to proceed to court martial. While the case was still being investigated, but Macdonald wasn't restricted or under surveillance or anything you would expect if the Army thought he was a suspect. Macdonald asked for and received a voluntary discharge at time when doctors were needed in the military, based upon the trauma he'd been through - invaders slaughtering his family.

The more thorough re-investigation backed up what the article 32 posited: that there were no intruders. If Segal had been more experienced with military justice and not such a publicity hound, he'd have let it go to a general court martial and used his spectacular dismantling of the case there, where Mac would have been acquitted and this thread would be about how Mac got away with a triple murder (and whether or not it should have been quadruple).

We have Bernie Segal to thank for the conviction, as much as the murderer himself. Thanks, Segal, you did your bit for justice (however unintentionally).
 
desmirelle said:
We have Bernie Segal to thank for the conviction, as much as the murderer himself. Thanks, Segal, you did your bit for justice (however unintentionally).
Click to expand...

I agree that McDonald would never have been convicted in a civil court if he had been found not guilty at a Court Martial, under some kind of a double indemnity rule of procedure. That was not Segal's fault. He couldn't demand a Court Martial. Where Segal did go wrong was expecting that MacDonald would never be tried under the speedy trial rule, and that affected his careful preparation for the trial which came as a surprise to him later on. Segal did warn MacDonald early on that Kassab could be dangerous to him. That was the fault of the Supreme Court with their majority speedy trial judgment . Three Supreme Court justices agreed with Segal.

It was Kassab who took the credit for MacDonald's wrongful prosecution. Kassab was very sympathetic to MacDonald at first and wrote how caring MacDonald had been with regard to the difficult birth of his second child, and Kassab was quite funny and satirical at first about the credentials of Medlin of the Army CID and his fingerprint examination.

Then Kassab maintains he changed his mind after CID agent Kearns had told the Kassabs MacDonald had been seeing women at the time of the Article 32 proceeding, and after reading the Article 32 transcripts. There were some unpleasant phone calls between MacDonald and Kassab, and the Kassabs told MacDonald that if he took up his doctor's appointment in California that he would pay for it. Colette's mother perjured herself at the 1979 trial. Later Kassab became pals with that drunken Irish son of a bitch, and dour Irishman Joe McGinniss.

The Army CID are apt to jump to conclusion and decide who did it within the first minute. That's what the innocent Ramseys have suffered from in that case, and even in the Darlie Routier case.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/0-kassab-ltr_1970-12-05.html
 
Henri McPhee said:
It was Kassab who took the credit for MacDonald's wrongful prosecution.
Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when a parent takes offense to the murder of their daughter and grandkids?

Kassab put it together when your man crush took it upon himself to inform him that he and some green beanie buddies murdered the murderers. The fact is that your man crush murdered his family.

I've noted a recent phenomenon. Are you a graduate of Trump University?

"Innocent" JM sure sounds like "Crooked" Hillary to me and it's no more accurate in your usage than it is in Trump's.
 
Henri McPhee said:
I agree that McDonald would never have been convicted in a civil court if he had been found not guilty at a Court Martial, under some kind of a double indemnity rule of procedure. That was not Segal's fault. He couldn't demand a Court Martial. Where Segal did go wrong was expecting that MacDonald would never be tried under the speedy trial rule, and that affected his careful preparation for the trial which came as a surprise to him later on. Segal did warn MacDonald early on that Kassab could be dangerous to him. That was the fault of the Supreme Court with their majority speedy trial judgment . Three Supreme Court justices agreed with Segal.


The Army CID are apt to jump to conclusion and decide who did it within the first minute. That's what the innocent Ramseys have suffered from in that case, and even in the Darlie Routier case.
Click to expand...

First highlight: By closing down the Article 32 hearing and not letting the case go to trial Segal prevented the court martial that would have followed. How is that not his fault? Those were his deliberate actions, he and murdermac got the result they wanted and were proud of it until the strategy backfired. (Speedy trial, FYI, only applies if there is restriction on your actions or you are held without trial - doesn't apply to an unsolved case just because they looked at but did not try a suspect.)

Second highlight: The army CID had nothing to do with the Ramseys or Routier.
 
Come And Gone

Hard to believe that yesterday was the one year anniversary of the oral arguments session before the 4th Circuit Court. I can't even begin to read the tea leaves on this issue. Any thoughts?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
BStrong said:
Don't you just hate it when a parent takes offense to the murder of their daughter and grandkids?

Kassab put it together when your man crush took it upon himself to inform him that he and some green beanie buddies murdered the murderers. The fact is that your man crush murdered his family.
Click to expand...

I agree it was a mistake for Dr. MacDonald to tell Kassab he had shot one of the murderers. The Kassabs were very emotional people. There were never any suspicious murdered people to suggest the story was true. From a previous posting of mine on this forum about the matter:

My own opinion is that Colette's parents turned against Dr. MacDonald because they wanted him to stay with them and to be Colette's mother's doctor and for him to spend the rest of his life grieving for the victims. There was a female witness at the 1979 trial who witnessed similar conversations with the Kassabs when she was in the company of Dr. MacDonald.

I agree it was not good public relations to appear on the Dick Cavett show. It was a light entertainment show involving mainly celebrity gossip and not profound enough.

Dr. MacDonald admits it was a mistake to try to sooth the hysterical Fred Kassab by telling him one of the murderers had been bumped off. Segal had warned Dr. MacDonald early on that Fred Kassab could be dangerous. I reckon that could be where McGinniss got his crazy amphetamine psychosis theory from, in order to make his MacDonald case Fatal Vision book more sensational and sell more copies.

There is some background to this from an old Larry King TV show:

MACDONALD: ... and Alfred Kassab set up my interview on Dick Cavett. Years later, when Freddy changed his tack on this case and had become his...

KING: Obsessed with you.

MACDONALD: ... obsessed, and obsessed with publicity and being in front of the case -- and, very important you understand this, he was wined and dined very carefully by the CID agents.

KING: Why did they want you?

MACDONALD: I don't know that they wanted me, at first. I think once the investigation started, it becomes a team effort. I don't have major conspiracies in my head. I think it's...

KING: You don't?

MACDONALD: ... very simple. No. I think a bad cop made bad decisions that morning. Then they put me through the Article 32. Then I accused them on the Dick Cavett show of committing perjury under oath, which they did do.

KING: Your mistake was telling your father-in-law that you had the killers taken care of, right, to get him off your back? Is that correct?

MACDONALD: I did say that to him. What I was trying to do was give Mildred and Freddy a little closure. They had...

KING: No, I understand.

MACDONALD: ... shut up their house. They had turned off the lights, literally. They had a life-sized doll dressed in clothes from the kids. And I was trying to give them -- I said, Freddy, look, some of the Green Berets I know and I found this guy. We took care of it. And it was a really bad decision. I shouldn't have said that. But that is not what changed Alfred, Kassab.
Click to expand...
 
Freddy and Mildred Kassab had every right to be emotional! Their b@$t@rd son-in-law aka inmate brutally and savagely slaughtered their pregnant 26 year old daughter and the precious baby boy she was carrying, as well as, their 2 year old and 5 year old granddaughters. That is a damned fine reason to be emotional.

We are all relieved to hear that you agree inmate was wrong to tell Freddy the "me and my Green Beret buddies killed one of the alleged hippies". Although I am pretty sure you don't see the real harm in what he did, in the eyes of sentient beings it is a sign of consciousness of guilt.

I wonder what is taking the 4th Circuit Court so long to come back with the only possible decision (affirm Judge Fox). Judge Fox is an outstanding jurist and he followed the road map the 4th Circuit laid out to the letter, made sure every i was dotted and every t was crossed in his decision. Like the Honorable and Distinguished Judge Dupree who also followed the rule of law and the evidence. Isn't it funny how some people blame EVERYONE who is against inmate and cannot see what is staring them in the face? Every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate and ONLY inmate as the murderer. THAT IS FACT. In our Court system FACTS are what matter!
 
There is a bit about the so-called facts in the MacDonald case at this website:

http://educate-yourself.lege.net/jm/casefactsmacdonaldwebsite.shtml

A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts. Jeff MacDonald needed a competent attorney, and some good judicial lawyers.
 
byn63 said:
Freddy and Mildred Kassab had every right to be emotional! Their b@$t@rd son-in-law aka inmate brutally and savagely slaughtered their pregnant 26 year old daughter and the precious baby boy she was carrying, as well as, their 2 year old and 5 year old granddaughters. That is a damned fine reason to be emotional.

We are all relieved to hear that you agree inmate was wrong to tell Freddy the "me and my Green Beret buddies killed one of the alleged hippies". Although I am pretty sure you don't see the real harm in what he did, in the eyes of sentient beings it is a sign of consciousness of guilt.

I wonder what is taking the 4th Circuit Court so long to come back with the only possible decision (affirm Judge Fox). Judge Fox is an outstanding jurist and he followed the road map the 4th Circuit laid out to the letter, made sure every i was dotted and every t was crossed in his decision. Like the Honorable and Distinguished Judge Dupree who also followed the rule of law and the evidence. Isn't it funny how some people blame EVERYONE who is against inmate and cannot see what is staring them in the face? Every single sourced piece of evidence points to inmate and ONLY inmate as the murderer. THAT IS FACT. In our Court system FACTS are what matter!
Click to expand...

They have lurked this thread and love keeping a certain poster in suspense.
 
calebprime said:
Here's another tangent: MacDonald's guilt or innocence aside, what do people think of "statement analysis"?

Is it the same thing as "content analysis"?

What do people think of the "statement analysis" here?

(I read something somewhere about this, and this is what I eventually found on Google. If there is a better, more worthy example of such analysis, let's look at that instead.)

I'm a little skeptical of this kind of close reading, but maybe it has more validity than I know. How, where is it used?

http://www.statementanalysis.com/macdonald/

excerpt:
Click to expand...

Statement Analysis is basically pseudoscience. There is has far as I know no studies etc., that support the notion that it works. It is mainly used to "prove" that people you think are guilty are in fact guilty because of the way they describe / talk about stuff associated with the crime. It has as far as I know not been admitted into the Courtroom has evidence.

Statement analysis is based is basically on the notion that actually innocent people will answer questions etc., in a set "innocent" way. It is based on the same sort of logic that assumes that innocent people will act a certain way and guilty people another. And that thus you can tell a person is guilty or innocent by the way they behave. This has been shown to be bluntly near useless in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty. Statement analysis simply assumes, without proof, that guilty people answer questions one way and guilty people another, just like the idea that guilty people act different from innocent people.

AS I said before there is next to no studies showing that Statement Analysis works or has any validity. So it is basically junk science. So while it is amusing to read that MacDonald's statement is supposedly rife with indications of his guilt / deception; I would not set much store in such findings.

For example Statement Analysis supposedly "proved" that Amanda Knox was deceptive and probably a killer. Well it is virtually certain she is innocent regardless of Amanda Knox's failure to sound "innocent" according to Statement Analysis.

Statement Analysis functions has a post hoc tool for making those we think are guilty more guilty through something that sounds like Science but is not.

The evidence against MacDonald is massive and definitive in terms of his guilt. We don't need a pseudoscience to prove his guilt. So the Statement Analysis of MacDonald should be read for amusement purposes only.
 
JTF said:
Hard to believe that yesterday was the one year anniversary of the oral arguments session before the 4th Circuit Court. I can't even begin to read the tea leaves on this issue. Any thoughts?

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

I am frustrated and wondering WHY we have now passed a 1-year anniversary of the Oral Arguments. :boggled: What could possibly be taking so long? :mad: WHY are taxpayers still funding this process for a convicted guilty bastard?:confused:

Judge Fox followed the 4th Circuit Court directives on "evidence as a whole" etc and it is long past time that his decision be affirmed. How long ago was it that one of the Honorable Justices of the USSC stated that it is time that the case be considered closed? Yet, here we sit, still waiting for the 4th Circuit to issue the only reasonable, legal decision possible.....:(

So JTF those are my thoughts......
 
Pacal said:
The evidence against MacDonald is massive and definitive in terms of his guilt. We don't need a pseudoscience to prove his guilt. So the Statement Analysis of MacDonald should be read for amusement purposes only.
Click to expand...

What evidence and facts? It's fabricated out of whole cloth and opinions. It's manufactured evidence and Irish blarney by pseudo-experts.
 
The matter of pseudo-experts in the MacDonald case was discussed at the MacDonald trial in 1979:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1979-08-09-green-tt.html

B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, Ms. Green, although she probably is qualified based on her education and experience --

THE COURT: (Interposing) You did not undertake to qualify her --

MR. MURTAGH: (Interposing) No, sir.

THE COURT: -- as an expert in anything. You told what her educational qualifications were. But I was not asked for any ruling on that.

MR. MURTAGH: No, sir. And I merely asked her what she did and whether the photographs accurately depicted what she did. I asked her no opinions on anything.

MR. SEGAL: As a matter of fact, she said, Your Honor, "This is the way it could be on the body."

THE COURT: Let me ask you this now: just in all fairness, can't you ask your questions without interjecting stuff like "pseudo-expert" and "purported expert" and so forth? I don't think that is fair.
And let me tell you something else, too: I don't say this because I am trying to run your lawsuit -- I am not sure that you are helping your own case when you do that. This is just an observation from this Bench which you may or may not give any weight to at all.
But it just occurred to me that you can ask questions of a witness who is not qualified as an expert without incorporating that kind of language in your questions.

MR. SEGAL: I don't believe I referred to this lady in this regard, Your Honor. I must say the only time that I have said that was in reference to Mr. Stombaugh.

THE COURT: Well, you said -- you asked "purported."

MR. SEGAL: I don't think -- it may be ill chosen.

THE COURT: That is not as strong as "pseudo."

MR. SEGAL: I agree.

THE COURT: Both of them are improper in my opinion. And I don't want to have to hold you to account here before this jury, because I don't want your client to be prejudiced by anything that I do and even what you do. Do you understand?

MR. SEGAL: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, could we merely have for the clarification of the record that Ms. Green has not been qualified as an expert and has merely testified as to what she did?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Evidence and Facts:
1. Colette's blood on inmate's pj top BEFORE it was torn - FACT
2. 6" full thickness soaking stain of Kimmie's blood on floor of Master bedroom.
3. Kimmie's blood on inmate's pj top
4. Inmate's pj top fibers IN Kimmie's bed
5. inmate's pj fibers under the headboard below the bloody word PIGS.
6. torn surgical gloves with Colette's blood on them in the MB bedding
7. inmate's bloody footprints EXITING Kristen's room
8. Colette's blood on the wall above Kristen's body and bed
9. Colette's blood making up inmate's footprints exiting Kristen's room (no other Type A blood on the floor of the room).
10. No pj fibers or splinters in the living room where inmate alleged he'd been attacked.
11. No finger prints on the phones.
12. No fingerprints found on the knife inmate claimed to have removed from Colette's chest.
13. The knife inmate claimed to have removed from Colette's chest was never in her chest.
14. Kristen's blood on inmate's glasses
15. No wet or muddy footprints in the apartment and no wipe marks to show someone having cleaned them away.....
16. No identifiable prints of any viable suspects
17. None of the "hippies" matched the description as given by inmate.
18. inmate lied about the extent of his injuries (and still does today)
19. murder weapons all came from the apartment
20. murder weapons all found just outside the apartment when MPs searched.
21. inmate's wounds are self-inflicted.......

these are just the first few of the FACTS.......just because you don't LIKE the FACTS henri doesn't mean they should be dismissed out of hand. FACTS inmate lied.....no way in hell he attempted to revive his family, in fact, what he did was wait until he knew they were beyond all help prior to calling for the MPs....
 
henri your post on "psuedo" experts simple shows Judge Dupree taking Bernie Segal to task for his improper behavior. Since the prosecution didn't attempt to have Shirley Green declared an expert and she ONLY testified to what she herself had done it was even more glaring that Bernie Segal was wrong and out of line. You make yourself look foolish when you try to bolster your nonsensical beliefs on your man crush's lawyer being chastised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom