OneWhoCares
Student
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 27
If anyone would like a copy of Judge Boyle's order, please send me a PM with your email address.
Cont: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Personally, I never held out much hope that MacDonald would get any compassionate release from any North Carolina judge. Judge Fox was always cruel and callous towards MacDonald appeals. He used to issue his denials of MacDonald appeals, and probably other innocent people, around Christmas time at the season of good will when other people, and People Magazine, had their minds on other things.
I don't know if the low opinion and lack of discipline of the police and gross miscarriages of justice by the judges in America will eventually lead to civil war, but there is certainly a lack of a healthy public opinion in America. It's the same with the Assange case in the UK. You can't just disregard international law forever.
The court of public opinion and the Press got it wrong in the JonBenet Ramsey case, and even the Madeleine McCann case, and in the MacDonald murders case.
There is a bit about this sort of thing in that English Justice book published in 1932 by an anonymous police court solicitor:
"When one considers the immense number of cases heard, the innumerable mistakes which must necessarily be made, and the effect of those unremedied mistakes, it is obvious that the present state of things is wrong."
I don't know if the low opinion and lack of discipline of the police and gross miscarriages of justice by the judges in America will eventually lead to civil war, but there is certainly a lack of a healthy public opinion in America. It's the same with the Assange case in the UK. You can't just disregard international law forever.
The court of public opinion and the Press got it wrong in the JonBenet Ramsey case, and even the Madeleine McCann case, and in the MacDonald murders case.
There is a bit about this sort of thing in that English Justice book published in 1932 by an anonymous police court solicitor:
"When one considers the immense number of cases heard, the innumerable mistakes which must necessarily be made, and the effect of those unremedied mistakes, it is obvious that the present state of things is wrong."
Last edited:
You can continue to run the daily operations of MacFantasy Island, but the documented record ain't going anywhere. Again, inmate is 0 for 10 in his attempts to wash away the evidence that forever casts him as one of the most infamous family annihilators of the 20th century.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The so-called evidence to be washed away is basically that he was proved to be at the crime scene when he was knocked unconscious and his family murdered and that there were supposed to be some pajama-like fibers on the murder weapon and specks of blood found on the pajama pocket. It's quite ludicrously unsatisfactory. Stombaugh only said it could be that the moon is made of green cheese
In the past murders were solved by asking questions and information received. Nowadays there is more DNA and video and even bugging evidence to prevent questionable accuracy. I accept that murders were solved in the past, often where the murderer got careless, but I still maintain mistakes were made and serious ones. Perhaps you think people don't care and it doesn't matter if the innocent are convicted?
The situation is far form perfect in the UK either. There is a bit of legal waffle about the matter at this website:
http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/criminal-justice-system-still-failing-the-innocent
"This places a substantial burden on alleged miscarriage of justice victims seeking another chance of an appeal through the CCRC. Often with little or no resources, they have to undertake the substantial task of investigating their own cases and seek fresh evidence or arguments to present to the CCRC. Rather than being assisted by the CCRC in this arduous process, they are faced with the additional hurdle of trying to convince the CCRC of the significance of the evidence and how it could render their convictions unsafe."
Last edited:
Inmate's long standing residency at multiple correctional facilities is based on over 1,000 inculpatory evidentiary items collected at the crime scene. This evidence convinced 12 jurors, 2 District Court judges, and 9 Circuit Court judges that inmate annihilated his family on 2/17/70. This evidence consisted of inculpatory DNA, blood, fiber, hair, bloody footprint, bloody fabric impression, bloody non-fabric impression, and fabric damage evidence. If one adds inmate's behavior before and after he annihilated his family to the case discussion, his ever-dwindling band of wide-eyed advocates tend to take refuge on MacFantasy Island.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
MacDonald was convicted on evidence fabricated out of whole cloth. He should be a free man. McGinniss only did it for the Bank of New England. Talk about being wide-eyed and gullible. Some people can't see further than their noses with their violent prejudices. It's like being a load of polio vaccinator killers.
More smear and nonsensical commentary
The overwhelming physical evidence left by McMurderer as he slaughtered his wife and children is responsible for him being in prison, and he should never be released.
Continually smearing other people, and the never ending diatribe of baseless and nonsensical gobbledygook will not prevail.
Still guilty & in a cage where he belongs.
The overwhelming physical evidence left by McMurderer as he slaughtered his wife and children is responsible for him being in prison, and he should never be released.
Continually smearing other people, and the never ending diatribe of baseless and nonsensical gobbledygook will not prevail.
Still guilty & in a cage where he belongs.
Henri you never cease to be entertaining!
Lets go through the projection and living in la-la land absurdity.
1), Fabricated evidence. Isn't it interesting that certain investigators like Gunderson manipulated Helena into giving testimony they wanted to hear and deceptively edited the resulting interview. Or how about a person showing up years after the murders with stories of a phone call to the MacDonald during the murders? Then there is Bernie's comment to the Judge, Dupree, about what Helena had told him, which she had not during a Voir Dire. And then we have Britt's lying Affidavits about Helena which he came out with just after the 25 year period after which the transportation records would be destroyed. Sadly for Britt they were not.
2), McGinnis only doing it for the money. Are you serious?! Do you believe Morris' absurd contention that McGinnis wrote the book and said MacDonald was guilty because he thought he would sell more books that way?! Yeah McGinnis would really think that a book saying MacDonald was guilty would sell better that one claiming he was an innocent railroaded by the system. If you believe that I have 100 hectares to sell to you 100 miles east of Miami.
3), Has for being gullible. Well believing Macdonald's absurd narrative and Helena's highly unreliable testimony without anything approaching reasonable corroboration is gullibility personified.
4), And finally we have this comment from Henri, "Some people can't see further than their noses with their violent prejudices". Considering your violent attacks on the Judges and Prosecutors in this case along with your repeated accusations of various types of malfeasance, including murder on their part. Lets just say my Irony Meter exploded.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
In the McGinniss v MacDonald trial in 1987 MacDonald's attorney, Gary Bostwick, proved that McGinniss was in financial trouble and that he only did it for the Bank of New England. MacDonald would have completely won the case if one female juror had not insisted that animal rights were included. In the end the McGinniss insurance company settled and McGinniss went on a round the world cruise as a result of his best selling MacDonald case book.
This is what MacDonald himself thought about the matter:
"In my view, the real issue was extremely simple: was "Fatal Vision" a novel, or was it non-fiction, as McG claimed it to be? And, was I the monster portrayed by McG? It was my strong belief that for any good to come out of the civil trial, I had to prove "F.V." was a novel, and I had to prove McG created his monster out of whole cloth, to fulfill some need in McG himself, as well as to sell books and television movies."
Helena Stoeckley was a very reliable police informant according to Ofiicer Gaddis of Nashville who later said she was a guilty as hell,and by Detective Beasley who was later unfairly discredited by Murtagh for health reasons.
As far as being wide eyed and gullible do you agree with Norma Lane when she recounted that Greg Mitchell, Helena's boyfriend at the time, had told her he had done something terrible and she assumed it was something to do with Vietnam?
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The dour Irish attorney McNamara who was wrongly convinced of Macdonald guilt was well aware of the prosecution weaknesses in 1973 and how evidence had to be fabricated by the FBI:
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/misc/1973-06-26_EDNC_mcnamara_memo.html
"My First Assistant, Weldon Hollowell, evaluates this case on the basis of a 50-50 chance of getting to the jury and does not care to speculate on what a jury would do after hearing all the evidence. I am sure that all these persons who thoroughly review this case will not agree on its chance for success. I place a 20-30 percent chance for conviction, but yet, if we were to get a reasonably intelligent jury, they may be convinced by all the scientific evidence, lab studies, etc., that the Government now has, which were not presented at the Article 32 Hearing. There is no doubt that the additional lab studies, such as the F.B.I. report showing MacDonald's pajama shirt had some of his wife's blood on it before it was torn, would help our case. The Government could present a more scientific approach to showing that MacDonald committed these crimes than was done at the Article 32 Hearing. This may be enough to convince a jury, but yet, this evidence may be more than that which they can comprehend."
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
This is what MacDonald thought about McGinniss:
https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac-civil-trial.html
https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/mac-civil-trial.html
Henri, your a riot. What MacDonald has to say about anything is not worth taking any notice of. It should be flushed down the toilet among with the rest of the crap.
And again why are you evading my point? If McGinnis had truly wanted to really make money it is painfully obvious that writing a book portraying MacDonald has an innocent railroaded by the system would have brought more loot to McGinnis. Morris' notion that a book saying MacDonald was guilty would bring in more money for McGinnis is bottom dwelling stupid. So if McGinnis was indeed doing it entirely for the money he would have written MacDonald has a tortured innocent not a killer.
Oh and your portrayal of what jury hung up over is nonsense. What they hung up over was whether or not MacDonald had broken the agreement by not telling the truth to McGinnis. (The Judge excluded from the Juries consideration McGinnis' contract with MacDonald.)
You of course forget that the Kassabs sued MacDonald after the settlement and got a chunk of change from him. That along with Lawyers fees helped ensure that MacDonald got less than he would have if he had not sued. Just Desserts!! But of course you are relying on Malcolm's book about the case, even though she never attended the trial and relied on MacDonald's lawyer for the case. Which may explain her absurd view of the trial.
As for gullibility. You have to be gullible to accept MacDonald's version of events without corroboration. Has for Helena. Well... Let us see. Helena claimed she was having an affair with MacDonald. She said, in one of her versions of events that she and her friends went to MacDonald to get drugs and the whole thing exploded when he would not give drugs to them. And one could go on and on. She also said, over and over again, she was there, was not there, was too drugged out to remember what happened that night. Further every version she talked about being there massively contradicts MacDonald's version(s) of events. (So who is reliable?) Helena's reliability without corroboration is minimal for this event.
Oh and I don't take seriously any of the alleged Mitchel confessions, "remembered" years and years after the alleged confessions.
Last edited:
This is not a reply to my point which is that the defence can easily be accused of "Fabrication".
At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, McGinniss stated that although Fatal Vision was a success, it would have been far more successful if he had portrayed inmate as being a tortured innocent. McGinniss called this the "man bites dog" narrative.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I know that's what McGinniss said at the 2012 evidentiary hearing but I don't think it's the pure unadulterated historical truth. There have been numerous miscarriages of justice in murder trials. How many of those cases have resulted in a moneymaking machine of bestsellers and TV movies on behalf of the victim?
In the JonBenet Ramsey case and the Madeleine McCann case there were lucrative bestseller books.Both of those books have subsequently proved to be inaccurate. For McGinniss to be able to falsely write that the handsome Green Beret MacDonald was a convicted murderer was sensational and unusual and likely to attract an audience.
The TV movie producer did a deal with Kassab for Fred Kassab's story and McGinniss established a close business relationship with Kassab. All MacDonald could do about it was to say that Kassab drank too much. The wife of McGinniss said that the MacDonald defense shrugged off too much evidence, which may be partly true as the defense were never provided with the exculpatory evidence by the prosecution and North Carolina judges.
The screenwriter for the McGinniss TV movie testified in 1987 that he contacted Blackburn and Murtagh and Wade Smith for his research but not Segal or Shedlick or Gunderson and all he really knew about the case was that he thought it was something to do with diet pills:
https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1-1987-08-04-gay.html
Last edited:
If you were already aware of McGinniss' testimony at the 2012 evidentiary hearing, why all the posturing, hemming, and hawing about an issue that had literally nothing to do with inmate's conviction? Speaking of inmate's conviction, those who embrace critical thinking and true justice are celebrating his 40th year in prison.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I hate to say McGinniss was lying but there can be no doubt at all that a book purporting MacDonald guilt would attract a bigger audience and money than a book about a tragic miscarriage of justice. This is the McGinniss testimony from the 2012 evidentiary hearing:
https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/downloads/2012-09-24-transcripts.pdf
Q. WOULD YOU HAVE MADE JUST AS MUCH PROFIT IF YOU HAD
18 PROCLAIMED JEFFREY MACDONALD'S INNOCENCE?
19 A. FAR MORE. THE STORY WOULD HAVE BEEN -- THE EXCITING
20 STORY WOULD BE THIS POOR MAN WAS FALSELY ACCUSED AND THEN
21 WRONGLY CONVICTED AND HERE'S THE STORY THAT PROVES HE'S NOT
22 GUILTY, THE WHOLE THING'S BEEN A TRAGIC MISTAKE. THAT'S THE
23 STORY PEOPLE REALLY WOULD HAVE WANTED TO READ.
24 THE STORY THAT I TOLD WAS SIMPLY THAT A MAN WAS
25 ACCUSED OF A CRIME, HE WENT ON TRIAL, HE WAS CONVICTED, AND
Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 322 Filed 11/21/12 Page 4 of 182McGinniss/Redirect Page 1063
September 24, 2012
1 HE'S GUILTY. THAT'S NOT A VERY EXCITING STORY. THAT'S JUST
2 MATTER OF FACT. THAT'S JUST DOG BITES MAN. THE OTHER WAY IS
3 MAN BITES DOG.
Last edited:
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 326
Utter nonsense. The latter, had there been an existent miscarriage, would have generated far more readership.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
McGinniss was right about one thing. He predicted that all MacDonald appeals would be denied by 2018 by which time most of the lawyers and witnesses in the case would be dead. His books and TV movies affected the court of public opinion and gave MacDonald an impossible burden to prove his innocence. Hardly any internet forums or newspapers now care if there was a miscarriage of justice. It's like Burma.
The jury was swayed by false and flawed evidence. I seem to remember that the jury were given a pamphlet which outlined the prosecution case. The defense were never given a similar opportunity. That's bias.
There is a bit about this sort of thing and the frequent Bench Conferences in the MacDonald trial in that English Justice book published in 1932 by an anonymous solicitor involved in police court work:
"A thing which is sometimes unfair to the accused is the way in which the question of whether or not evidence is admissible is settled....... The inevitable result, whether the evidence is admitted or not, is that the jury think the defence have tried to shut out something which might tell in favour of the prosecution."
The jury was swayed by false and flawed evidence. I seem to remember that the jury were given a pamphlet which outlined the prosecution case. The defense were never given a similar opportunity. That's bias.
There is a bit about this sort of thing and the frequent Bench Conferences in the MacDonald trial in that English Justice book published in 1932 by an anonymous solicitor involved in police court work:
"A thing which is sometimes unfair to the accused is the way in which the question of whether or not evidence is admissible is settled....... The inevitable result, whether the evidence is admitted or not, is that the jury think the defence have tried to shut out something which might tell in favour of the prosecution."
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 326
The books and TV movies came out starting 4 years after the 1979 trial. Therefore they did not affect the "court of public opinion" - which is not wherein MacDonald was convicted anyway. And no such "impossible burden of proving one's innocence" was ever imposed upon MacDonald or any other U.S. criminal defendant.
Really? Who stopped the defense from handing out their own pamphlet?