Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still think Stombaugh never proved that there were ever hand impressions on the sheet, or a bare shoulder impression, which was the main prosecution accusation against Dr. MacDonald in that he was supposed to have moved bodies in a sheet, and Colette was supposed to have murdered the two little girls, and hit Dr. MacDonald with a hairbrush.

It's true that the forensic experts did agree that a pajama cuff impression might have brushed against the sheet, but that could easily have been caused by all sorts of contamination in the initial investigation. From the Article 32 transcripts the military police were not exactly twinkle toes when they arrived at the apartment, and they were not terribly careful not to touch things. Even Dr. MacDonald might have brushed against the sheet and not noticed it happened in all the chaos and panic of the situation. He was barely conscious at the time.

Murtagh told Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial that Stombaugh only said it could be which I don't regard as conclusive evidence.

How Stombaugh ever became Head of Chemistry at the FBI lab I will never know. He joined the FBI as an insurance salesman with no scientific qualifications to write home about. The Warren Commission on the Kennedy assassination once quite reasonably asked for a second opinion about Stombaugh's testimony in that case. When the FBI heard about that they became quite sniffy and refused any further cooperation if that happened.

I still think what is needed is for some private detectives to dig up some facts and gossip about the Stoeckley group. The American police and FBI don't seem interested in complete investigations of difficult murders. Dr. MacDonald did have some private detectives at first but they stopped work when Dr. MacDonald ran out of money, or else they went and died before they could take the next logical steps.
 
Trolls Ignore Documented Fact

HENRIBOY: It must get boring to copy and paste the SAME insanity you've been spewing since 2004. Your never-ending trolling on true crime discussion boards is yawn inducing and I've yet to see your conspiracy-minded talking points sway any MacDonald case fence-sitters.

I've always felt that this is simply a game to you and that you don't truly believe in MacDonald's innocence. The mass of inculpatory physical evidence and MacDonald's outrageous behaviors are the reasons why he has spent 32 of the past 34 years in prison.

Like most psychopaths, MacDonald is a terrible liar and a sore loser when confronted with concrete data. He fumes, he dodges, he ducks, but he cannot escape documented fact. The forensic evidence and his own words will haunt him until he is worm food.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
<snip>As I have mentioned many times before I don't think their main priority was to murder Dr. MacDonald.
Click to expand...

:confused:

But you just said the Mafia set out to murder MacDonald because he punched Jay's Mafia drug dealer in the face.
Henri McPhee said:
The thought occurred to me that one reason for the horrible MacDonald murders could have been when Dr. MacDonald went to New York before the murders to help out his drug addicted brother, Jay, who was in a bad way at the time. According to Dr. MacDonald's own testimony Dr. MacDonald punched Jay's drug dealer in the face at that time.

The thing is under the Mafia code if anybody assaults a a Mafia man that means death to him and his family.
Click to expand...

Are you a member of the Mafia? You seem to know their code. Is there a guidebook? Please show us a list of all of the families who have been murdered by Mafia hitmen because a Mafia member got punched in the face by a non Mafia member. Seriously. We'd like to see the evidence to back up your statements.

The thing about the half-mad William Hague <senseless blabbering snipped>.
Click to expand...

What the hell does any of that have to do with the MacDonald case? Dude, stick to the topic. Can't you handle that?
 
I may not know too much about the Mafia, but I am under the impression that should you do something that makes a Mafia member want you dead, then they will try to kill you by shooting you at close range.

I suspect Mafia Hitmen bring their own weapons, not pick them up at the house. They;d shoot the person they wanted dead and would leave. Not magically incapacitate the target, kill the rest of the family with random stuff and leave without checking the primary target.

Nor would they dress like hippies and chant silly central casting slogans.

This would be incredibly silly if there were not dead people involved.
 
kookbreaker said:
I may not know too much about the Mafia, but I am under the impression that should you do something that makes a Mafia member want you dead, then they will try to kill you by shooting you at close range.

I suspect Mafia Hitmen bring their own weapons, not pick them up at the house. They;d shoot the person they wanted dead and would leave. Not magically incapacitate the target, kill the rest of the family with random stuff and leave without checking the primary target.

Nor would they dress like hippies and chant silly central casting slogans.

This would be incredibly silly if there were not dead people involved.
Click to expand...

True, but it is a good example of Henri's "I think, therefore it is" lack of credibility.

Helena Stoeckley wasn't drug addled. That was just an act. She was really a Mafia hitman. (It's impossible to type that without snorting derisively, btw. I did try.)

Now, according to Henri, Jeffrey MacDonald WAS the primary target because he punched some Mafia guy in the face, but their main priority wasn't to murder him. Murder Colette and the children, yes, because Colette and the girls never did anything to anybody and for that they had to die. Jeffrey they just wanted to briefly incapacitate to gain access to drugs they didn't steal, and THEN somehow get the CID and all the other people involved to join in a mass conspiracy to wrongfully convict Jeffrey MacDonald. They had conferences in Madison Square Garden and sang "The Ballad of the Green Berets" in between court appearances.

No sense arguing, Henri has said it is so. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Please stay on topic and desist from making personal attacks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
That's All You've Got?

Defense Attorney Gordon Widenhouse had 44 days to deliver a reply to the Government's 200 page post-hearing response memo. His 37 pages of half-truths, assumptions, and distortions makes me question his work ethic and competence. For all of Gordie's bluster regarding the CLAIMS leveled by Stoeckley/Britt, he still hasn't met the "extraordinarily" high burden placed upon him by the 2255.

In addition, his 37 page reply didn't prove that MacDonald's constitutional rights were violated and he wasn't in the same stratosphere in regards to proving actual innocence. It took Gordie 44 days to produce 37 pages of what amounts to a synopsis of his original 130 page memo. LOL.

In addition, the Government produced two booklets worth of exhibits in their 200 page response memo, yet all Gordie can produce is a few updated affidavits and articles written by MacDonald advocates. LOL. I'm not cutting Gordie any slack because he knew that this would be his last legitimate shot at achieving relief for his client AND he knew that the Government would be given an opportunity to have the final word. The Government won't produce another 200 page reply memo, but their sur-reply will most likely dwarf Gordie's regurgitated list of soundbytes, hearsay testimony, and hype.

Ironically, the Government's sur-reply is due almost one year to the day of the end of the evidentiary hearing. Historically, Judge Fox has taken two years to decide on significant case issues. Examples include...

- 1997-1999 Decision on issues related to DNA testing

- 2006-2008 Decision on MacDonald's bid for a new trial

I would love for Judge Fox to make a decision before the New Year, but I believe that the earliest we can expect a decision would be late Spring of next year. If he decides by Christmas to deny MacDonald relief, the Defense will argue to the 4th Circuit Court that a quick decision demonstrates that Judge Fox is biased and they will demand that a new judge be assigned this case. The old "fresh set of eyes" argument. Judge Fox has bent over backwards for the Defense and he doesn't want to give the 4th Circuit Court ANY reason to prolong this legal circus.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
I would love for Judge Fox to make a decision before the New Year, but I believe that the earliest we can expect a decision would be late Spring of next year. If he decides by Christmas to deny MacDonald relief, the Defense will argue to the 4th Circuit Court that a quick decision demonstrates that Judge Fox is biased and they will demand that a new judge be assigned this case. The old "fresh set of eyes" argument. Judge Fox has bent over backwards for the Defense and he doesn't want to give the 4th Circuit Court ANY reason to prolong this legal circus.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com[/QUOTE]

Judge Fox intends to keep the innocent Dr. MacDonald in prison because he is biased and officialdom never admits a mistake.

For JTF to say that the juror Fred Thornhill thinks Dr. MacDonald is guilty doesn't make it a fact. There was at least one MacDonald trial juror who publicly said after the trial that she thought the jury was not fully informed about "that woman" by which she meant Helena Stoeckley. There were other jurors who have publicly expressed doubts about the MacDonald case. Their quotes are on the internet somewhere. There are affidavits that the now deceased foreman of the jury spoke to three different people before the trial saying he was going to convict Dr. MacDonald whatever happened in court.

This business of Lockerbie is on topic because there is a possibility that Murtagh prosecuted an innocent man then as he did in the MacDonald case. <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 
SNIPed, breach of rule 11.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Discussion re forum moderation has been split out to Forum Management and can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264500

Please stay on topic.

While discussion wrt Murtagh is on topic, discussion of Lockerbie is only tangentially so (as Murtagh prosecuted both cases). Beyond this tangential link, discussion re Lockerbie belongs in the appropriate Lockerbie threads that can be found in Conspiracy Theories.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Lacking Merit

The Government's 200 page response memo is replete with MacDonald's attempts to mold inculpatory data into scenarios involving mythical hippie home invaders. In addition, there are numerous examples of MacDonald being unable to remove his foot from his mouth. Whether it was Victor Woerheide confronting him on whether he touched the blue bedsheet or James Blackburn asking him to explain the proliferation of pajama fibers in all three bedrooms, MacDonald was continually shrugging his shoulders about the reasons why the data linked him to the crime.

The resounding message of the Government memo is that MacDonald didn't come close to meeting the burden of proof at EVERY level. This includes the merits of his claims, gatekeeping issues, constitutional claims, his actual innocence, and yes, the "evidence as a whole." No matter how you interpret the 2255, the Defense failed miserably in constructing a case for a new trial. The Government didn't have to provide rebuttals to the Britt and DNA claims. It was up to the Defense to prove that these claims had merit, yet what occurred at the hearing and in post-hearing memos, was that Britt was PROVEN to be a liar and the DNA claims were pure hyperbole. No DNA experts were presented by the Defense, none of the unsourced hairs showed signs of forcible removal, and the only hairs that were bloody/broken linked Jeffrey MacDonald to these horrific murders.

There is no doubt that the Government's sur-reply will be just as thorough and, in a perfect world, be the last time that the Government has to debunk MacDonald's campfire stories. The 2011 decision by the 4th Circuit Court to remand the case back to Judge Fox was a slap in the face to justice. Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen deserved better. Hopefully, this nonsense will come to an end in 2014.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
I entirely disagree with you. I'm "highly confident" and it is "highly likely" that Murtagh manufactured the evidence in that case... <snipped>
Click to expand...

You also think Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman, hired because Jeffrey MacDonald punched some supposedly Mafia guy in the face.

Yawn.
 
I'm nearly done with 'Fatal Vision'. At this point I see no reason to have any doubt about McDonald's guilt. However, I plan to read 'Final Vision' and 'A Wilderness of Error' as well, and we'll see then. I've been assigned four other books by my reading group now, though, so it may be a while...
 
Tiktaalik said:
I'm nearly done with 'Fatal Vision'. At this point I see no reason to have any doubt about McDonald's guilt. However, I plan to read 'Final Vision' and 'A Wilderness of Error' as well, and we'll see then. I've been assigned four other books by my reading group now, though, so it may be a while...
Click to expand...
You need to stop wasing time on irrelevancies like sleep.
 
catsmate1 said:
You need to stop wasing time on irrelevancies like sleep.
Click to expand...

More true than you know. I finished it last night before bed and then a) couldn't sleep, b) when I did sleep dreamed about it, and c) woke up thinking about it. There was a part that really disturbed me, to the point of nausea and eyes welling up. I can't get it out of my mind. Tonight I'll read about fluffy bunnies...
 
Facts VS Agenda

CATS: Yeah, Henriboy had to throw his .5 cents in, but I also posted in the comments section. My post (e.g., PhilC) is the first one listed in that section. Next to the Weingarten article on Brian Murtagh, this is the best article written on the case since Robert Sam Anson's 1998 article in Vanity Fair.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom