• 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.

Cont: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. Part II

Reformed Offlian said:
Your brother visited and made a remark. *That's* your basis?!
Click to expand...

Judge Dupree and the rest of the North Carolina judges always said that a different jury would never come to a different conclusion if the exculpatory evidence had not been withheld. It's nonsense and Dupree made sure his pal Judge Fox took over the case when he died so that MacDonald was never released. The blonde synthetic saran fiber at the crime scene should never have been ignored by Dupree and Fox.

. I don't know about Dupree being anti-Semitic as I think many country clubs and tennis clubs prevented Jews from entering at the time, but Dupree has been quoted as saying unpleasant things about people of color, which I suppose may be true but not politically correct nowadays.

There is a bit about political right-wing violent prejudice in the MacDonald case on another forum from a few years ago:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/liestoppers_meeting/jeffrey-macdonald-case-t3355-s30.html

"Joan would you go to this guy for advice? You jumped to conclusions without looking at the case. You may or may not think he got a fair trial, but you conclude he is guilty, by what you saw, in the pictures of his dead wife and daughters. You believe a guy who is disbarred and disgraced, and has to post a disclaimer on his site for motivational speeches that he gives. The man you support is a felon and if you read up on the judge, Dupree, he was in bed with the prosecution and hated jews and especially the lawyer from Philadelphia Bernard Segal. This IMO was a case where the defendant was guilty until proven innocent, just like the Duke lacrosse case, with one exception, the Duke gentleman had a friendly Attorney General, MacDonald did not. The MacDonald case was a disgrace to our justice system."
 
Last edited:
It was silly for Dupree and Fox to believe the FBI fraudster Malone that the saran fibers at the crime scene came from dolls. It was explained by a wig expert in 1996 that saran fibers can come from certain types of wigs. I think MacDonald defense lawyer, Widenhouse should have made more of a fuss about that at the 2012 evidentiary hearing but he probably didn't understand it.
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
Judge Dupree and the rest of the North Carolina judges always said that a different jury would never come to a different conclusion if the exculpatory evidence had not been withheld. It's nonsense and Dupree made sure his pal Judge Fox took over the case when he died so that MacDonald was never released. The blonde synthetic saran fiber at the crime scene should never have been ignored by Dupree and Fox.

. I don't know about Dupree being anti-Semitic as I think many country clubs and tennis clubs prevented Jews from entering at the time, but Dupree has been quoted as saying unpleasant things about people of color, which I suppose may be true but not politically correct nowadays.

There is a bit about political right-wing violent prejudice in the MacDonald case on another forum from a few years ago:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/liestoppers_meeting/jeffrey-macdonald-case-t3355-s30.html

"Joan would you go to this guy for advice? You jumped to conclusions without looking at the case. You may or may not think he got a fair trial, but you conclude he is guilty, by what you saw, in the pictures of his dead wife and daughters. You believe a guy who is disbarred and disgraced, and has to post a disclaimer on his site for motivational speeches that he gives. The man you support is a felon and if you read up on the judge, Dupree, he was in bed with the prosecution and hated jews and especially the lawyer from Philadelphia Bernard Segal. This IMO was a case where the defendant was guilty until proven innocent, just like the Duke lacrosse case, with one exception, the Duke gentleman had a friendly Attorney General, MacDonald did not. The MacDonald case was a disgrace to our justice system."
Click to expand...

No, that is a bit of self-serving *claims* about right-wing prejudice. Try harder.
 
Henri McPhee said:
Detective Beasley always maintained that the documentation with regard to Mazerolle was forged or falsified and that he was out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. You should not just ignore and discredit good detectives:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1986-05-05_beasley_stmt.html
Click to expand...
Running away from the author of the MacDonald Was Framed narrative doesn't change the following facts. Allen Mazzerolle was arrested on January 28, 1970 for possession and transportation of 539 doses of LSD. He was jailed and remained incarcerated until March 10, 1970 making his presence at 544 Castle Drive on February 17th, a physical impossibility. Mazzerolle was questioned by the FBI in 1982 and cleared as a suspect. The FBI also obtained fingerprint exemplars from Mazzerolle and no match was found at the crime scene. In 1983, Mazzerolle was interviewed by Fayetteville Observer investigative reporters Steve Huettel and Pat Reese, and he denied any involvement in the murders. Mazzerolle labeled Stoeckley's statements as "ridiculous," adding that Stoeckley was "the one who fingered me to the narcotics agents." Fred Bost was confronted with the documented record at the 1984-1985 appellate hearings and he quickly admitted that he only made a cursory inspection of Mazzerolle's arrest in January 1970. After being embarrassed on the stand, Bost never again claimed that Mazzerolle was walking the streets on 2/17/70. You are currently the only human being on the planet who continues to put forth the fantasy that nefarious forces altered documentation pertaining to Mazzerolle's 1/28/70 arrest, and release from jail on 3/10/70.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
You are currently the only human being on the planet who continues to put forth the fantasy that nefarious forces altered documentation pertaining to Mazzerolle's 1/28/70 arrest, and release from jail on 3/10/70.

https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
Click to expand...

Detective Beasley was a good murder investigator and he saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. Helena thought he was involved in the murders. The documentation was forged. Mazerolle's case did not come up until a year after the murders after he had vanished. It's suspicious:

From Christina's website:

"Translation of the body of the document as I read it to be

The above defendant comes into open court on this 13th day of January, 1971 and is represented by his attorney William Geimer (?spelling).

The above defendant through his attorney and in his own proper person pleads "NOT GUILTY" in case number 70 CR 2215 charging Possession and transportation of L.S.D. whereupon the following jurors to wit..........:


are lawfully selected, sworn and impanelled to try this case.

During the evidence, the defendant through his attorney and in his own proper person withdrew his plea of "NOT GUILTY" and tenders to the Court a plea of "GUILTY" to possession of L.S.D.

SEE JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT

As to the transportation, the state rest. At the close of the states evidence, the attorney for the defendant makes a motion for non-suit, motion allowed.

This the 14th day of January 1971."
 
Last edited:
henri still does not seem to grasp that inmate is a FEDERAL prisoner. nor does he appear to grasp that inmate was tried by FEDERAL courts. The State of North Carolina is where inmate slaughtered his family and where his trial took place.

Inmate is guilty beyond all doubt. He does not deserve compassionate release.
 
Henri McPhee said:
There has been police corruption in the London UK police in the past which involved the Department of Public Prosecutions as well. It doesn't just happen in North Carolina with regard to the Jeffrey MacDonald case:

http://www.policecrimes.co.uk/
Click to expand...

Sorry, Henri, can you explain how police corruption in the UK establishes police corruption in North Carolina and what the two jurisdictions have to do with each other?

You could just as easily allege police corruption in Tokyo or Moscow or Beijing with what you cited about the UK. Why don't you do that? If your argument had any validity, it would apply to *everywhere in the world*. It doesn't have any validity, so it doesn't apply anywhere in the world except London, at best (granting for the sake of argument that the internet link you provide is accurate and correct. We both know you can't trust everything you read there).

In addition, you are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about corruption in North Carolina in regards to the MacDonald case. You need to establish the corruption in the USA, not just assert it's established, and then link to supposed corruption in London.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Sorry, Henri, can you explain how police corruption in the UK establishes police corruption in North Carolina and what the two jurisdictions have to do with each other?

You could just as easily allege police corruption in Tokyo or Moscow or Beijing with what you cited about the UK. Why don't you do that? If your argument had any validity, it would apply to *everywhere in the world*. It doesn't have any validity, so it doesn't apply anywhere in the world except London, at best (granting for the sake of argument that the internet link you provide is accurate and correct. We both know you can't trust everything you read there).

In addition, you are committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question about corruption in North Carolina in regards to the MacDonald case. You need to establish the corruption in the USA, not just assert it's established, and then link to supposed corruption in London.

Hank
Click to expand...

I don't want to unfairly blame the police. It will be a sad day when arson and pickpocketing and car theft is decriminalized along with rape and burglary. Many evil kinked people have been successfully detected and punished in the past, even though there are a large number of unsolved murders, including at least three in my own area. In the MacDonald case the police and judges accused the wrong man. A good policeman is one who lies through thick and thin.

There is nothing new about police corruption and that includes North Carolina. There were corruption scandals in the UK with regard to detectives in Victorian times. Direct cash bribery was not unknown in the 1930s and it was not unknown in America with regard to alcohol and drugs and prostitution.

It could well be that nothing can be done about it. I think the police in the UK became more careful when the Judges Rules came into force in about the 1920s:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...stitutions-infiltrated-criminals-9052617.html
 
HSienzant said:
Evidence the documentation was forged? Do you have any or is this simply the typical conspiracy theorist argument that it must be so because it conflicts with my beliefs?

Hank
Click to expand...

Detective Beasley thought the Mazerolle documentation was forged but the matter was never investigated. Beasley was accused of having some sort of brain disorder. I still think the surgical glove fragment should have been DNA tested which once happened in another murder investigation and provided crucial evidence:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1986-05-05_beasley_stmt.html
 
Henri McPhee said:
I don't want to unfairly blame the police. It will be a sad day when arson and pickpocketing and car theft is decriminalized along with rape and burglary. Many evil kinked people have been successfully detected and punished in the past, even though there are a large number of unsolved murders, including at least three in my own area. In the MacDonald case the police and judges accused the wrong man. A good policeman is one who lies through thick and thin.

There is nothing new about police corruption and that includes North Carolina. There were corruption scandals in the UK with regard to detectives in Victorian times. Direct cash bribery was not unknown in the 1930s and it was not unknown in America with regard to alcohol and drugs and prostitution.

It could well be that nothing can be done about it. I think the police in the UK became more careful when the Judges Rules came into force in about the 1920s:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...stitutions-infiltrated-criminals-9052617.html
Click to expand...

You didn't answer any of my questions and just cited more links from the UK. Again, how does that apply to North Carolina? You're just assuming it's the same everywhere, and that it took place during the MacDonald investigation as well.

Let me explain this to you: Your assumptions are not evidence, and don't mean anything.

Hank
 
Henri McPhee said:
Detective Beasley thought the Mazerolle documentation was forged but the matter was never investigated.
Click to expand...

Even granting for the sake of argument Beasley thought that, so what? That's not actionable evidence. It's a thought. It has no value as evidence. And idea why wasn't it investigated?


Henri McPhee said:
DBeasley was accused of having some sort of brain disorder.

Ah. Forget my above question. I think you just answered it.


Henri McPhee said:
I still think the surgical glove fragment should have been DNA tested which once happened in another murder investigation and provided crucial evidence:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1986-05-05_beasley_stmt.html
Click to expand...

The link you provide has nothing to do with the glove fragment or DNA, or another case. If there was a point you were trying to make, you didn't.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
HSienzant said:
Again, how does that apply to North Carolina? You're just assuming it's the same everywhere, and that it took place during the MacDonald investigation as well.

Let me explain this to you: Your assumptions are not evidence, and don't mean anything.

Hank
Click to expand...

The point is that there is no evidence against MacDonald. It was fabricated by Stombaugh of the FBI who testified he only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads, and that Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush! I can't see how internet posters can be so gullible. I hope in a way that you get falsely accused of murder by the corrupt North Carolina judiciary and so-called scientific experts so that you can find out what it feels like. The MacDonald trial was fixed.

This is a sensible opinion about all this from the internet:

https://graduateway.com/summary-of-the-case-of-dr-jeffrey-mcdonald/

"Since 1997, MacDonald is making efforts to get DNA analysis tests performed on the remaining physical evidence held by the prosecutors, but has failed in his efforts. It is very interesting to know that the former CID investigator turned Justice Department prosecutor is one and the same individual, Brain Murtagh!

Several possible witnesses in favor of MacDonad are threatened with dire consequences, if they ever dare to enter the witness box to testify. A MacDonald Defense Fund has been designed by the supporters of Jeffrey MacDonald to fight the wrongful conviction, as there are several unanswered questions related to the case. I firmly believe that then investigation was thoroughly mishandled and several improprieties have been committed."
 
Last edited:
Henri you are the gift that keeps on giving. It is so enjoyable to read your hysterical rants and evidence free crap.

Henri McPhee said:
The point is that there is no evidence against MacDonald. It was fabricated by Stombaugh of the FBI who testified he only said it could be and the same with the hairs and threads, and that Colette hit MacDonald with a hairbrush! I can't see how internet posters can be so gullible.
Click to expand...

So, so funny! You say there is no evidence then you say the evidence was fabricated for which you have zero evidence. Nothing except fantasy. Then you accuse Stombaugh of fabrication for which again you have no evidence. But that doesn't prevent you from asserting this like it is a fact. Nope! It is a fantasy.

As for gullible. That applies to anyone who accepts MacDonald's, very, dubious narrative of events.

I hope in a way that you get falsely accused of murder by the corrupt North Carolina judiciary and so-called scientific experts so that you can find out what it feels like. The MacDonald trial was fixed.
Click to expand...

A vile bit of revenge fantasizing against someone who disagrees with you. How hateful.

This is a sensible opinion about all this from the internet:

https://graduateway.com/summary-of-the-case-of-dr-jeffrey-mcdonald/

"Since 1997, MacDonald is making efforts to get DNA analysis tests performed on the remaining physical evidence held by the prosecutors, but has failed in his efforts. It is very interesting to know that the former CID investigator turned Justice Department prosecutor is one and the same individual, Brain Murtagh!

Several possible witnesses in favor of MacDonad are threatened with dire consequences, if they ever dare to enter the witness box to testify. A MacDonald Defense Fund has been designed by the supporters of Jeffrey MacDonald to fight the wrongful conviction, as there are several unanswered questions related to the case. I firmly believe that then investigation was thoroughly mishandled and several improprieties have been committed."
Click to expand...

The opinion is hilarious aside from being from essay manufacturing site. I note that since 1997 there has indeed been DNA analysis of evidence found at the crime. Sadly for MacDonald groupies it hurts not helps his case. The fact this essay doesn't know that makes it's analysis dubious.

Keep up the good work Henri. I do so enjoy nonsense.
 
Pacal said:
So, so funny! You say there is no evidence then you say the evidence was fabricated for which you have zero evidence. Nothing except fantasy. Then you accuse Stombaugh of fabrication for which again you have no evidence. But that doesn't prevent you from asserting this like it is a fact. Nope! It is a fantasy.

As for gullible. That applies to anyone who accepts MacDonald's, very, dubious narrative of events.
Click to expand...

MacDonald was convicted on manufactured evidence at which Murtagh and Blackburn are experts. It's only because lawyers and judges and journalists have sheer ignorance of the forensic facts that they can get away with it. Not all forensic scientists are impartial or honest. The only evidence against MacDonald was that he was at the crime scene, like the Ramseys in the JonBenet case, and he was accused of committing adultery

There is a bit about all this at this website:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence
 
Last edited:
This is what that website says about forensic fraud at the FBI which would include Stombaugh and Malone in the MacDonald case:

"FBI scandal Edit
In the 1990s, the fingerprint, DNA, and explosive units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory had written reports confirming local police department theories without actually performing the work.

Such laws and regulatory procedures stipulating the conditions under which evidence can be handled and manipulated fall under a body of due process statues called chain of custody rules. It is crucial for law enforcement agencies to scrupulously collect, handle and transfer evidence in order to avoid its falsification. In most jurisdictions, chain of evidence rules require that the transfer of criminal evidence be handled by as few persons as possible. To prevent error or improper tampering, chain of evidence rules also stipulate that those authorized to experiment with collected evidence document the nature, time, date and duration of their handling."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom