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

[HSienzant]

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!

You're just recycling old disproven claims. It was your claims about Stombaugh that I initially disputed in this thread. They were wrong then, they are wrong now, they will be wrong the next time you bring them up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?p=11259392&highlight=Stombaugh#post11259392

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.

I'd ask you to cite evidence the evidence for the fixing but we both know you have none.

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

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

Hilarious! You are citing a paid-essay site. They will write anything for money.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Summary of the Case of Dr. Jeffrey McDonald:
Just from $13,9/Page​

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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...."

What year was MacDonald's trial again? Why are you citing this? To merely confuse the issue?

What was Stombaugh's expertise again -- wasn't it hair and fiber? Why are you referencing problems with the fingerprint, DNA, and explosive units of the FBI and pretending this has anything to do with Stombaugh? To merely confuse the issue?

Paul Stombaugh retired from the FBI in 1976, well before any problems were found in the FBI labs.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/g...ry.aspx?n=paul-morgan-stombaugh&pid=140885634
Why are you citing the problems in the 1990s? To merely confuse the issue?

You haven't touched Stombaugh's testimony with the citation above. We'll await your actual evidence against Stombaugh. But you are clearly desperate to take something out of context like the above and try to smear Stombaugh with it.

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

You haven't touched Stombaugh's testimony with the citation above. We'll await your actual evidence against Stombaugh. But you are clearly desperate to take something out of context like the above and try to smear Stombaugh with it.

Hank

Bernie Segal went into detail at the trial about Stombaugh's lack of qualifications and credentials with regard to fabric impressions and blood evidence and bloodstains. This made no impression at all on the foreman of the jury who had been heard to say publicly before the trial that he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald.

At least one real expert at the FBI has said he was not at all happy about what Stombaugh said about the MacDonald case and that it didn't ring true. It's like the kind of justice they have in Afghanistan or Burma:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/misc2/1988-08-11_gunderson_rpt_serology.html

"On 7/18/88 Mr. Rene Bidez, 14 Cheverly Circle, MD, 20785 advised he was Chief of Serology, FBI Laboratory from 1950 to 1975 when he retired. He was not directly involved in the MacDonald case but he remembers it well because of the publicity and the controversy. He states he "was not the least bit happy with what he heard" and he "was not the least bit happy with the case from the time it came in until it went out." He said he had "no basis for this except it didn't ring true." He said when it was going through the laboratory he "had a funny feeling about it." He stated he will not say any more than this.

Mr. Bidez recalls that Stombaugh handled a majority of the work. Stombaugh analyzed the blood stains, figured out who was where when the murders occurred and all that "fun and games business." Whether or not Stombaugh's analysis was "on the nose" is not for Mr. Bidez to say as he did not personally examine the evidence and testify.

Mr. Bidez stated of the cases he can recall in the FBI this one stands out of all of them. He doesn't recall who conducted the serology examination for the FBI but he knows that there were some tests. He has no knowledge of possible conflict between FBI and CID serology tests. He doesn't recall when these tests were conducted other than the fact the examinations took place before he retired. Mr. Bidez stated the above is all he can furnish at this time and he prefers not to discuss further his "gut" feelings about the case."

 

[Henri McPhee]

It was a North Carolina cock up, not really federal apart perhaps from the wrong judgments of the Supreme Court, and I do have my doubts and very little confidence in that Eastburn case in North Carolina.

 

[HSienzant]

Bernie Segal went into detail at the trial about Stombaugh's lack of qualifications and credentials with regard to fabric impressions and blood evidence and bloodstains.

In American jurisprudence, the defense does *not* get to rule on what expert testimony is heard by the jury. That's the responsibility of the judge trying the case. It's curious you would think Bernie Segal's opinion would have any value here.

This made no impression at all on the foreman of the jury who had been heard to say publicly before the trial that he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald.

How many decades after the trial did this hearsay claim first surface?

At least one real expert at the FBI has said he was not at all happy about what Stombaugh said about the MacDonald case and that it didn't ring true.

Not according to the quotes you provide.

It's like the kind of justice they have in Afghanistan or Burma:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/misc2/1988-08-11_gunderson_rpt_serology.html

"On 7/18/88 Mr. Rene Bidez, 14 Cheverly Circle, MD, 20785 advised he was Chief of Serology, FBI Laboratory from 1950 to 1975 when he retired. He was not directly involved in the MacDonald case but he remembers it well because of the publicity and the controversy. He states he "was not the least bit happy with what he heard" and he "was not the least bit happy with the case from the time it came in until it went out." He said he had "no basis for this except it didn't ring true." He said when it was going through the laboratory he "had a funny feeling about it." He stated he will not say any more than this.

Nothing in the above mentions Stombaugh. Maybe Bidez wasn't happy with the defense's claims.

Mr. Bidez recalls that Stombaugh handled a majority of the work. Stombaugh analyzed the blood stains, figured out who was where when the murders occurred and all that "fun and games business." Whether or not Stombaugh's analysis was "on the nose" is not for Mr. Bidez to say as he did not personally examine the evidence and testify.

So Bidez wasn't critical of Stombaugh at all. And never examined the evidence at all. You have nothing here. I trust you understand that now that it has been pointed out to you and won't be bringing this up again.

Mr. Bidez stated of the cases he can recall in the FBI this one stands out of all of them. He doesn't recall who conducted the serology examination for the FBI but he knows that there were some tests. He has no knowledge of possible conflict between FBI and CID serology tests. He doesn't recall when these tests were conducted other than the fact the examinations took place before he retired. Mr. Bidez stated the above is all he can furnish at this time and he prefers not to discuss further his "gut" feelings about the case."

His "gut feelings about the case" are not admissible evidence. But here you are, trying to use innuendo to smear Stombaugh when the above quotes from Bidez say nothing negative about Stombaugh or the work Stombaugh did whatsoever.

I guess when you don't have a lifeboat, any flotsam will do. Here you are, grasping at whatever you can, trying to stay afloat.

Hank

 

[Pacal]

How many decades after the trial did this hearsay claim first surface?

Henri has tried this before. He is referring to a series of Affidavits collected by the Defence in which various people claimed to have heard the man who became Foreman of the Jury in the MacDonald case say before the trial that he would convict MacDonald.

You are right this "evidence" surfaced many years after the trial and in one case the persons Memory was "refreshed" by watching the miniseries Fatal Vision of TV c. 1984, about something the Jury foreman said c. 1970!!!! In another case the guy didn't go to the police etc., because of his wife. In several of the Affidavits it appears that the soon to be Jury Foreman knew he would be on the Jury before hand according to the Affidavit.

Of course in actuality there was no way the Jury Foreman could know ahead of Jury Selection that he would be on the Jury for that trial, let alone be Foreman. So any statements regarding the Foreman being out to convict MacDonald since he would be on the Jury before trial are absurd. Ahead of Jury Selection all the prospective Juror would only know was he / she was a possible juror he / she would not know what particular case he / she could be a Juror on or whether or not they would even become part of any Jury, let alone Foreman.

Just how much faith the Defence had in this "evidence" is shown by the fact it wasn't used very much if at all. Further it appears that the Defence either did an investigation of the Jurors and found no evidence of pressure, undue influence by the Foreman or thought so little of this "evidence" that they didn't do an investigation to begin with.

 

[HSienzant]

Henri has tried this before. ... You are right this "evidence" surfaced many years after the trial...

My forte is the Kennedy assassination, and I know how the conspiracy theorists operate. JFK CTs are notorious for rejecting the hard evidence that points to Oswald and taking some witnesses at their word who came out of the woodwork to make some claim decades later.

I knew nothing about the claim Henri was making, but since I had seen him operate in a similar manner as JFK CTs elsewhere (rejecting the hard evidence for self-serving accounts by the defendant, for example), I figured he was operating in a similar manner with the claim about the jury foreman.

I'm not surprised it's a meaningless claim that surfaced years after the trial.

It's like the JFK assassination is the training ground for whatever story someone wants to put forward. Just copy how JFK conspiracy theorists operate and you can support any nonsense.

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

How many decades after the trial did this hearsay claim first surface?

Hank

There were at least two other witnesses, unknown to each other, who said the same sort of thing about the foreman of the jury. It would be grounds for a mistrial in the UK despite several years having past but was rejected by corrupt Judge Dupree, like the newly found Greg Mitchell confessions. The temptations are very great for judges and police and post-industrial journalists when drugs are involved:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1988-09-07_dclr_james.html

 

[Henri McPhee]

So Bidez wasn't critical of Stombaugh at all. And never examined the evidence at all. You have nothing here. I trust you understand that now that it has been pointed out to you and won't be bringing this up again.

Hank

Bidez was critical of the FBI investigation in the MacDonald case which he said was mainly handled by Stombaugh. He was just careful what he said about the matter. Bernie Segal went into detail at the trial about Stombaugh's qualifications and training and employment history and it was not impressive. Judge Dupree was in too deep to halt the trial at that point. You can't give an opinion in a courtroom unless you are a real expert:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/trial/1979-08-07_trial_stombaugh.html.

 

[Henri McPhee]

This is part of the information Bernie Segal elicited from Stombaugh and it doesn't fill you with confidence about his opinions on the MacDonald case:

Q You weren't trained in, say, doing any types of blood analysis.
A No, sir; the Serology Unit did the blood work in the FBI Laboratory.
Q You weren't trained in any kind of fingerprint identification.
A No, sir.
Q These are the only areas, as far as you can recall, that you studied during your year of training.
A That is correct.

 

[HSienzant]

There were at least two other witnesses, unknown to each other, who said the same sort of thing about the foreman of the jury. It would be grounds for a mistrial in the UK despite several years having past but was rejected by corrupt Judge Dupree, like the newly found Greg Mitchell confessions. The temptations are very great for judges and police and post-industrial journalists when drugs are involved:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1988-09-07_dclr_james.html

That wasn't the question I asked. Can you answer the question I did ask?
How many decades after the fact did this first surface?

Thanks,
Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

That wasn't the question I asked. Can you answer the question I did ask?
How many decades after the fact did this first surface?

Thanks,
Hank

It looks like it surfaced about ten years after the trial when MacDonald investigator Shedlick was collecting evidence for the 1992 MacDonald appeal which was denied as usual by corrupt Judge Dupree. The judge's argument as usual was that this information would not have made any difference if there was a different jury or 'reasonable fact finder' which is ridiculous.

It looks to me as though Hoover just declared Stombaugh an expert. I dread to think if the same thing happened in medicine or dentistry. You have to be properly qualified in those fields. I suppose there are some fields like wealth management or film technicians or even acting when you just have to be good at it.

Does this seem to be an expert scientific background to you? Stombaugh trial testimony August 7th 1979:

Q Now, after you graduated from Furman University, what was your employment, sir?
A Immediately upon graduation -- going back a good many years, sir -- I believe I sold insurance, after which time I signed a contract and played professional football, after which time I returned to Greenville to Commercial Credit, after which time I went with the FBI. I was appointed a Special Agent then.
Q And what year was it that you went to the FBI, sir?
A 1951.
Q Now, I gather that you were a field agent during the first nine years that you were at the FBI?
A Yes, sir. Upon graduation from Special Agent School, I was assigned to various field offices.
Q Did you have any specialty in the nine years that you were a field agent?
A What would you term "specialty," sir?
Q Well, bank robbery detail, interstate shipments, theft detail, any of those sub-units that exist in many of the larger field offices?
A Well, the first field offices I went to as a new agent, I investigated mostly car cases and fugitives. When I arrived in St. Louis, I was there for about six years. I was assigned to bank robbery and kidnapping and extortion squad, the major case units, and also to the crime scene search team.

 

[HSienzant]

Bidez was critical of the FBI investigation in the MacDonald case which he said was mainly handled by Stombaugh.

Not in anything you quoted. He was very circumspect in what he said, and that makes it very unclear that he was critical of the FBI investigation.

He was just careful what he said about the matter.

So careful in fact that you can't quote anything negative he said about the investigation or Stombaugh whatsoever. You have to tell us what you think he meant, not what he said. What you think he meant is not evidence.

Bernie Segal went into detail at the trial about Stombaugh's qualifications and training and employment history and it was not impressive.

In your opinion. Your opinion doesn't mean doodley-squat. You weren't the presiding judge. Stombaugh was a more-than-qualified expert who had testified in 48 states. The voir dire process is when Segal had an opportunity to prevent Stombaugh's opinions from being heard by the jury. What happened then? Did the judge rule Stombaugh was not qualified as an expert?

Judge Dupree was in too deep to halt the trial at that point.

Begged Question is Begged. You need to prove your assertions - not just make them and hope they pass by without a challenge.

You can't give an opinion in a courtroom unless you are a real expert:

http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/trial/1979-08-07_trial_stombaugh.html.

Which Stombaugh was, having served in the FBI's hair and fiber unit for over a decade. The judge ruled he was qualified (about halfway down in your link) and told the defense to come up with a better expert who disagreed and added, "If you come [up] with a man who completely overshadows him and shows what he said is worthy of no belief whatsoever, then congratulations to you. If you fail to do so, then too bad."

Did the defense put any qualifying expert on the stand to counter Stombaugh's testimony?

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

That wasn't the question I asked. Can you answer the question I did ask?
How many decades after the fact did this first surface?

Thanks,
Hank

The reason those witnesses of the jury foreman came forward ten years after the trial is that they didn't think it was important. There are people now who don't know what is going on in Afghanistan and they don't want to know:

https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dclr_1988-09-23_jbowden.html

 

[Henri McPhee]

Not in anything you quoted. He was very circumspect in what he said, and that makes it very unclear that he was critical of the FBI investigation.

Hank

Bidez explained in words of one syllable what he thought of the FBI investigation in the MacDonald case which he said quite plainly was handled mainly by Stombaugh and he was not happy about it. You are putting words into his mouth:

"He states he "was not the least bit happy with what he heard" and he "was not the least bit happy with the case from the time it came in until it went out." He said he had "no basis for this except it didn't ring true." He said when it was going through the laboratory he "had a funny feeling about it." He stated he will not say any more than this."

 

[HSienzant]

It looks like it surfaced about ten years after the trial...

Thanks. That wasn't too hard. How reliable is decade-old recollections?
How much credibility does it have?

It looks to me as though Hoover just declared Stombaugh an expert.

Nobody cares what it looks like to you. Stombaugh testified that he was an FBI field agent for most of a decade before he moved to the FBI laboratory in 1960. There, he said, he worked for a year learning about hair and fibers from the FBI experts in those fields. After about a year of this intensive training, he was deemed by those experts to be qualified to work on his own as an expert. It is their opinion that matters, not yours.

I dread to think if the same thing happened in medicine or dentistry. You have to be properly qualified in those fields.

You don't know what you're talking about.

My daughter has a DMD. She graduated with a degree in biology from MIT, then had four years of dental school. From my discussions with her, and as her patient when she was in school, how Stombaugh learned is essentially how dentists learn. They take courses taught by dentists, and they work side-by-side with dentists on patients until they are judged qualified to practice on their own.

That's essentially how the FBI Lab worked with new trainees.

It's also probably how most skills - like learning to drive or carpentry or plumbing or piloting a plane - are learned. Do you have a better methodology? Let's hear it.

Does this seem to be an expert scientific background to you? Stombaugh trial testimony August 7th 1979:

Q Now, after you graduated from Furman University, what was your employment, sir?
A Immediately upon graduation -- going back a good many years, sir -- I believe I sold insurance, after which time I signed a contract and played professional football, after which time I returned to Greenville to Commercial Credit, after which time I went with the FBI. I was appointed a Special Agent then.
Q And what year was it that you went to the FBI, sir?
A 1951.
Q Now, I gather that you were a field agent during the first nine years that you were at the FBI?
A Yes, sir. Upon graduation from Special Agent School, I was assigned to various field offices.
Q Did you have any specialty in the nine years that you were a field agent?
A What would you term "specialty," sir?
Q Well, bank robbery detail, interstate shipments, theft detail, any of those sub-units that exist in many of the larger field offices?
A Well, the first field offices I went to as a new agent, I investigated mostly car cases and fugitives. When I arrived in St. Louis, I was there for about six years. I was assigned to bank robbery and kidnapping and extortion squad, the major case units, and also to the crime scene search team.

You didn't bother to quote any of his background in hair and fiber in the FBI lab, which is where he got extensive training from other experts in those fields and where he qualified as an expert.

That's funny. Hilarious even.

Just because you ignore his actual qualifications in making your case doesn't mean we're obligated to ignore them as well.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Bidez explained in words of one syllable what he thought of the FBI investigation in the MacDonald case which he said quite plainly was handled mainly by Stombaugh and he was not happy about it.

I counted a lot of polysyllabic words in your quote.

You are putting words into his mouth:

No, you are.

"He states he "was not the least bit happy with what he heard"

So hearsay. No actual involvement in the examinations or conclusions. How is he then qualified to judge?

...and he "was not the least bit happy with the case from the time it came in until it went out." He said he had "no basis for this except it didn't ring true."

So, his non-expert opinion based on nothing except ... feelings?
Would his non-expert feelings be allowed as testimony at trial?
If not, why would you bring it up?

He said when it was going through the laboratory he "had a funny feeling about it." He stated he will not say any more than this."

So nothing based on science or his own tests or examinations of the pajama top or anything else. Just amorphous 'feeling funny'.

Your posts often make me feel funny. Like laughing even.

He also said he didn't work on the case at all. He also said he wasn't going by anything except his gut. Can you explain, if his opinion is of such value to you that you quote it here and repeat it here, why Segal didn't call Bidez as an opposing expert to counter Stombaugh's actual expert testimony?

Can you imagine the cross-examination there?

I can.

Q: Did you examine the materials in this case?
A: No.
Q: Did you conduct any tests on any of the materials in this case?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: What then are you basing your judgment on?
A: I just had a funny feeling in my gut, sir.
Q: Did you take an antacid for that?
A: Objection! ---
Q: Withdrawn. ​

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

Did the defense put any qualifying expert on the stand to counter Stombaugh's testimony?

Hank

MacDonald's main forensic expert was Dr. Thornton from California and blood expert Morton who later testified at the trial. To my mind Thornton proved that Stombaugh and Shirley Green's pajama folding experiment was a fraud.

Unfortunately Stombaugh may have been correct in saying the holes in the pajama top happened when MacDonald was stationary or unconscious and Thornton was never able to examine and test the blood evidence and hair and fiber evidence himself because it was illegally withheld by Murtagh, or else he was just concentrating on the pajama top and bed sheet.

These are some of Dr. Thornton's qualifications which Murtagh and Blackburn attempted to challenge in court:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Before the luncheon recess, Dr. Thornton, you were talking about your experience, training, and background in the field of blood. I wanted to ask you whether you had done any scholarly writing in the area of blood as related to forensic matters, blood stain identification, typing, and I believe you were telling us about a number of articles you had written on that subject?
A Yes.
Q Approximately how many articles have you written in regard to blood typing, identification, and staining?
A I don't know. I read the titles of three. I would have to count them up. Some number between three and six, perhaps.
Q Have you ever testified in Court in criminal matters in regard to blood identification, typing, and stain matters?
A Sure.
Q When you testified, was your testimony received in the capacity of an expert witness?
A Yes.
Q On how many occasions would you say that you have testified as an expert in regard to blood matters?
A I really don't know -- something in excess of 50, I am certain.

 

[HSienzant]

The reason those witnesses of the jury foreman came forward ten years after the trial is that they didn't think it was important. There are people now who don't know what is going on in Afghanistan and they don't want to know:

https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dclr_1988-09-23_jbowden.html

Thanks, but you already answered that question about how long it took for them to come forward.

The question before you now is "how credible are recollections a decade old"?

You haven't answered that one.

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

So hearsay. No actual involvement in the examinations or conclusions. How is he then qualified to judge?

Hank

The point is that Bidez was head of serology at th FBI and so presumably an expert serologist while Stombaugh was supposed to be a hair and fiber expert after one year's training and not a blood expert. The FBI hair and fiber department has come in for severe criticism for its false evidence in other cases in the past and Malone of the FBI has been described as a total liar by one lawyer.