desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
You certainly implied it. You didn't pointedly exempt Stoeckley in the below quoted, did you? Perhaps I missed it.
Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
You certainly implied it. You didn't pointedly exempt Stoeckley in the below quoted, did you? Perhaps I missed it.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I disagree with JTF.
Any good judge would say it was an unsafe verdict on that ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. There are very real concerns that the real culprits were never properly investigated.
There is no evidence that any fibers came to be there at the time of the murders, except for the unidentified black fibers around Colette's mouth, so why are pajama fibers so suspicious?
This theory that there was blood on the pajama top before it was torn was a Stombaugh theory. He was a former insurance salesman and hair and fiber man. Janice Glisson at the Army CID lab, who was a blood expert, was in disagreement with Stombaugh about that, but she was told to keep her mouth shut.
There is no evidence at all that that any bodies were transported by Dr. MacDonald.
With regard to no blood being found on the living room floor you need to use a bit of common sense about the matter. Dr. MacDonald's bleeding was mainly internal bleeding. I don't know if you have ever had a nasty accident in the house but rarely does it lead to rivers of blood on the floor unless you have cut a jugular vein. It has been said that Princess Diana had no blood on her at all though she was suffering from fatal injuries after her accident.
An example of the manufactured evidence in the MacDonald case was when the thick- headed Kearns ordered a re-investigation of the case after the Article 32 in 1970. He was convinced that Dr. MacDonald was lying when he said he had carried Kristen to her bedroom and that it was Kimmie who wet the bed. He then ordered the urine stain on the bed to be tested again after ninety weeks, and he then declared it was Kimmie's urine stain! That can't possibly be scientifically correct. Urine stains are difficult to test anyway, and they are virtually impossible to test accurately after four weeks.
Any good judge would say it was an unsafe verdict on that ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. There are very real concerns that the real culprits were never properly investigated.
There is no evidence that any fibers came to be there at the time of the murders, except for the unidentified black fibers around Colette's mouth, so why are pajama fibers so suspicious?
This theory that there was blood on the pajama top before it was torn was a Stombaugh theory. He was a former insurance salesman and hair and fiber man. Janice Glisson at the Army CID lab, who was a blood expert, was in disagreement with Stombaugh about that, but she was told to keep her mouth shut.
There is no evidence at all that that any bodies were transported by Dr. MacDonald.
With regard to no blood being found on the living room floor you need to use a bit of common sense about the matter. Dr. MacDonald's bleeding was mainly internal bleeding. I don't know if you have ever had a nasty accident in the house but rarely does it lead to rivers of blood on the floor unless you have cut a jugular vein. It has been said that Princess Diana had no blood on her at all though she was suffering from fatal injuries after her accident.
An example of the manufactured evidence in the MacDonald case was when the thick- headed Kearns ordered a re-investigation of the case after the Article 32 in 1970. He was convinced that Dr. MacDonald was lying when he said he had carried Kristen to her bedroom and that it was Kimmie who wet the bed. He then ordered the urine stain on the bed to be tested again after ninety weeks, and he then declared it was Kimmie's urine stain! That can't possibly be scientifically correct. Urine stains are difficult to test anyway, and they are virtually impossible to test accurately after four weeks.
davefoc
Philosopher
I've followed this case for years through casual reading of miscellaneous articles.
My view, up to the point that I read through this thread and a few of the links, was that there was a reasonable chance that MacDonald was innocent.
It appears that I have been wrong.
The most compelling evidence for me was:
1. The murder weapons all seemed to have come from the MacDonald house. How strong is the evidence that this is the case?
2. The lack of evidence for a desperate struggle by MacDonald for his life. I would expect that a fight between a healthy 26 year old male and intruders not armed with a gun would be extremely violent and there would be significant evidence of that kind of fight both within the room and in the nature of injuries to MacDonald. If the intruders some how managed to gain control of MacDonald is it plausible that they would have only lightly wounded him, the most dangerous individual in the house from their perspective? If it is plausible it is certainly at the extreme limits of what might be judged plausible.
3. The complete lack of evidence for the intruders that MacDonald claimed were involved. Not only was no physical evidence of their existence found, they have managed to go completely undetected for all the time after the trial. If we are to believe MacDonald a group of hippy killers engaged in a conspiracy involving a massacre ,left no detectable evidence of themselves at the crime scene, never committed a crime as a group for which they are arrested and managed to maintain the secrets of their conspiracy over long periods of time. This seems an unlikely enough scenario that I wouldn't be surprised if it had never happened one time in the history of the world.
Still right now my level of certainty about MacDonald's guilt falls somewhat below my view that OJ Simpson was guilty of murder and that Amanda Knox was not guilty of murder. Perhaps mostly because I just don't know enough about the case to form as strong opinion about it as I have done for the other cases I mentioned.
My view, up to the point that I read through this thread and a few of the links, was that there was a reasonable chance that MacDonald was innocent.
It appears that I have been wrong.
The most compelling evidence for me was:
1. The murder weapons all seemed to have come from the MacDonald house. How strong is the evidence that this is the case?
2. The lack of evidence for a desperate struggle by MacDonald for his life. I would expect that a fight between a healthy 26 year old male and intruders not armed with a gun would be extremely violent and there would be significant evidence of that kind of fight both within the room and in the nature of injuries to MacDonald. If the intruders some how managed to gain control of MacDonald is it plausible that they would have only lightly wounded him, the most dangerous individual in the house from their perspective? If it is plausible it is certainly at the extreme limits of what might be judged plausible.
3. The complete lack of evidence for the intruders that MacDonald claimed were involved. Not only was no physical evidence of their existence found, they have managed to go completely undetected for all the time after the trial. If we are to believe MacDonald a group of hippy killers engaged in a conspiracy involving a massacre ,left no detectable evidence of themselves at the crime scene, never committed a crime as a group for which they are arrested and managed to maintain the secrets of their conspiracy over long periods of time. This seems an unlikely enough scenario that I wouldn't be surprised if it had never happened one time in the history of the world.
Still right now my level of certainty about MacDonald's guilt falls somewhat below my view that OJ Simpson was guilty of murder and that Amanda Knox was not guilty of murder. Perhaps mostly because I just don't know enough about the case to form as strong opinion about it as I have done for the other cases I mentioned.
Case Closed
DAVEFOC: Apart from the fact that MacDonald's story doesn't come close to passing the sniff test, the following are facts that have never been in dispute.
MacDonald claims that he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his wife and his two daughters in their respective bedrooms, but fibers from that garment were found in these locations.
- 24 fibers were found under his wife's body
- 22 fibers were found on top of the master bed
- 6 fibers were found on the master bed pillow which was directly underneath the word PIG written on the headboard in Colette's blood
- 19 fibers were found under Kimmie's bedcovers
- 1 fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow and 1 fiber measuring 20.5 inches was found on top of that same pillow
- 2 fibers were found under Kristen's bedcovers
- 1 fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail
- No fibers from MacDonald's torn pajama top were found in the living room where MacDonald claimed he was attacked by three armed drug-crazed home invaders
MacDonald also has no explanation for the FACT that his torn pajama top was stained with his wife's blood in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn and that 5 bloody cuff impressions sourced to the pajamas of Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald, were found on a bedsheet used to transport both Kimmie and Colette back to their respective bedrooms.
In terms of DNA testing in this case, there are 5 inculpatory DNA test results which includes a limb hair sourced to MacDonald that was found clutched in his wife's left hand. That hair links MacDonald to the murder club because a splinter from that club was also found in Colette's left hand.
This case is open and shut. ALL of the SOURCED evidence points to MacDonald as the perp. This includes DNA, blood, fiber, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence. There is also no SOURCED evidence linking any intruder suspect to the crime scene. This includes DNA, hairs, fibers, and fingerprints.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
DAVEFOC: Apart from the fact that MacDonald's story doesn't come close to passing the sniff test, the following are facts that have never been in dispute.
MacDonald claims that he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" his wife and his two daughters in their respective bedrooms, but fibers from that garment were found in these locations.
- 24 fibers were found under his wife's body
- 22 fibers were found on top of the master bed
- 6 fibers were found on the master bed pillow which was directly underneath the word PIG written on the headboard in Colette's blood
- 19 fibers were found under Kimmie's bedcovers
- 1 fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow and 1 fiber measuring 20.5 inches was found on top of that same pillow
- 2 fibers were found under Kristen's bedcovers
- 1 fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail
- No fibers from MacDonald's torn pajama top were found in the living room where MacDonald claimed he was attacked by three armed drug-crazed home invaders
MacDonald also has no explanation for the FACT that his torn pajama top was stained with his wife's blood in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn and that 5 bloody cuff impressions sourced to the pajamas of Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald, were found on a bedsheet used to transport both Kimmie and Colette back to their respective bedrooms.
In terms of DNA testing in this case, there are 5 inculpatory DNA test results which includes a limb hair sourced to MacDonald that was found clutched in his wife's left hand. That hair links MacDonald to the murder club because a splinter from that club was also found in Colette's left hand.
This case is open and shut. ALL of the SOURCED evidence points to MacDonald as the perp. This includes DNA, blood, fiber, bloody footprints, bloody fabric and non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence. There is also no SOURCED evidence linking any intruder suspect to the crime scene. This includes DNA, hairs, fibers, and fingerprints.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I think someone's been watching too many movies.
davefoc
Philosopher
I noticed all the information in the thread about the location of fibers from the pajamas. I didn't quite follow why this was a big deal. He lived in the house, wasn't it expected that one would find fibers from his pajamas throughout the house? Still it seems like his pajamas were doing a lot of fiber shedding. Was there something unusual about his pajamas that caused fibers to be shed from them at an unusually high rate?
It did strike me as strange that they didn't find any of his pajama fibers in the living room where he was supposedly attacked. Wasn't he also sleeping on the living room couch? Why didn't his pajamas that had been shedding fibers all over the place shed some fibers where he supposedly slept?
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
It was a big deal because they found not just fibers, but amounts of fibers, where they weren't supposed to be, i.e. under Colette's body, if MacDonald's story was true. MacDonald claimed the fibers clung to his arms and conveniently fell off in those locations-he must've looked something like Sully from Monsters, Inc-but that explanation doesn't really hold up, especially considering...
Exactly. So they found fibers where they shouldn't have been, and vice versa. That's why the fibers were a big deal.
The problem MacDonald ran into was that he gave his story before he knew how the physical evidence stacked up, so he couldn't change it to fit. And it never added up.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There is no evidence that the Geneva knife or Hickory knife was ever in the MacDonald apartment. There is also no evidence that an ice pick, which was used as a murder weapon, was ever in the MacDonald apartment either.
What seems to have happened is that the MacDonald family may have had an ice pick at one time but it seemed to have got lost somehow when they moved to North Carolina. Dr. MacDonald's colleague Ron Harrison testified that he went to look for an ice pick when he was at a MacDonald family gathering once but he was unable to find one. In the initial investigation Colette's mother and the babysitter Kalin said there was no ice pick there, but they later testified in court that there was one after being coached and bribed by Murtagh.
There is evidence that Dr. MacDonald put up a strong fight. I don't know if you are capable of defeating some ex-military hard cookies armed with a wooden club weapon and knives and attacking you when you are asleep on a couch, but it is a difficult task even for a Green Beret. Dr. MacDonald isn't Batman or Superman.
You are assuming there would be lots of forensics of intruders. If they were wearing surgical gloves it's unlikely to find their fingerprints there and most of the DNA evidence has now been destroyed or tampered with by the FBI. DNA evidence did not exist then. There were fibers there that have never been identified as MacDonald fibers. What evidence of intruders do you expect to find. Their passports and identity cards lying about on the floor?
What seems to have happened is that the MacDonald family may have had an ice pick at one time but it seemed to have got lost somehow when they moved to North Carolina. Dr. MacDonald's colleague Ron Harrison testified that he went to look for an ice pick when he was at a MacDonald family gathering once but he was unable to find one. In the initial investigation Colette's mother and the babysitter Kalin said there was no ice pick there, but they later testified in court that there was one after being coached and bribed by Murtagh.
There is evidence that Dr. MacDonald put up a strong fight. I don't know if you are capable of defeating some ex-military hard cookies armed with a wooden club weapon and knives and attacking you when you are asleep on a couch, but it is a difficult task even for a Green Beret. Dr. MacDonald isn't Batman or Superman.
You are assuming there would be lots of forensics of intruders. If they were wearing surgical gloves it's unlikely to find their fingerprints there and most of the DNA evidence has now been destroyed or tampered with by the FBI. DNA evidence did not exist then. There were fibers there that have never been identified as MacDonald fibers. What evidence of intruders do you expect to find. Their passports and identity cards lying about on the floor?
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I don't claim to have inside knowledge of the Mafia. It made me laugh to read that Hoover of the FBI thought the Mafia did not exist. I don't think he knew what was going on and he didn't want to know what was going on.
My information about the Mafia code comes from a TV documentary of an FBI agent doing undercover work who had joined the Mafia. He seemed to think the Mafia was involved in drugs which they categorically deny. Not all FBI agents are idiots. That was a dangerous job and many Mafia people were identified.
From internet information a Mafia soldier has to have murdered somebody and he doesn't necessarily have to be of Italian descent. It's just that from what that FBI man said on TV it is not wise to assault a Mafia man.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
This would be the gentleman in question, I presume.
Yes, a mafia member has to be of Italian descent, though he doesn't have to be fully Italian. Plus, the requirement isn't just to murder somebody, but to carry out a contract killing - personally-motivated murders don't count.
And at the time of the MacDonald murders, actually carrying out the contract killing wasn't strictly required - it counted if you were, for example, the getaway driver during the contract killing and didn't kill anyone yourself.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
This is an opinion from the internet about the MacDonald case murder weapons with which I agree. It reminds me all so much of British TV journalists who say it is blindingly obvious who carried out that chemical attack in Syria when it is not obvious at all. There is deception and lies and terrorism in war which journalists don't seem to understand or investigate or report:
"The renowned forensic investigator Thomas Noguchi investigated the case and concluded that there were numerous assailants and numerous weapons used in the slayings. In fact one of the assailants was left-handed (Captain MacDonald is right-handed). So before all you haters of Captain MacDonald go shooting your mouths off based on your select isolated views of the "evidence" you should look at all the "facts" of this case!!!! This is another of the cases where the prosecution was so convinced in their minds that he was guilty that they did whatever they had to, even if it was illegal to get their guilty verdict! Several of those involved with the prosecutors case have since become convicted criminals and/or discredited!"
"The renowned forensic investigator Thomas Noguchi investigated the case and concluded that there were numerous assailants and numerous weapons used in the slayings. In fact one of the assailants was left-handed (Captain MacDonald is right-handed). So before all you haters of Captain MacDonald go shooting your mouths off based on your select isolated views of the "evidence" you should look at all the "facts" of this case!!!! This is another of the cases where the prosecution was so convinced in their minds that he was guilty that they did whatever they had to, even if it was illegal to get their guilty verdict! Several of those involved with the prosecutors case have since become convicted criminals and/or discredited!"
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
This is how truthful the baby sitter Kalin was. Colette's mother was also very keen to say there was an ice pick at the 1979 trial when she had never provided that information before then when asked:
This was part of the cross examination of Kalin-Cochran at the 1979 trial by Wade Smith :-
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, let me ask you to refresh your recollection and state whether or not it isn't true that in February of 1970 you were interviewed by the CID and told them that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick anywhere in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q Do you remember that?
A No; I had no recollection of any of the weapons--not just the ice pick.
Q You had no recollection at all on February 19, 1970, of ever seeing an ice pick in the Mac-Donald house?
A Right.
Q And then you were interviewed--weren't you--by the FBI and told them a few days after this event occurred that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick in the house; do you remember that?
A No.
Q But you do remember telling the CID that you had never seen an ice pick?
A I believe they came over to our house.
Q Do you remember now talking with them?
A Yes.
Q You remember?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember telling any of the lawyers for Dr. MacDonald, for example, a Mr. Malley, that you had never seen an ice pick at their house?
A I don't remember.
Q But you do recall that you had said on a number of occasions that you never saw an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, do you remember testifying before the grand jury here in Raleigh--do you remember your testimony?
A Yeah.
Q Mrs. Cochran, I ask you to listen to my reading of a part of the typed transcript of your testimony before the grand jury and ask you if it refreshes your recollection with respect to anything about the ice pick.
On page 23 of the transcript of the grand jury, I will read you the question and then read you your answer, Mrs. Cochran, and ask you if you recall it. The questioner asked you this question.
"Question: Now, how about the ice pick? Do you recognize it? Answer: No."
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you stated further that you thought the MacDonalds had an ice pick; is that true?
A Yes.
Q You were shown the ice pick on that occasion and you said that you did not remember ever seeing that ice pick; didn't you?
A Right.
Q Now, it was only later--it was later, after lunch, that you remembered seeing an ice pick; would that be correct?
A It was in the afternoon..........
Q Now, during that four-year period, had anybody ever talked with you about it?
A No.
Q Is there any reason that you can think of why your recollection would be better four years after the event than it was a day or two after the event?
This was part of the cross examination of Kalin-Cochran at the 1979 trial by Wade Smith :-
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, let me ask you to refresh your recollection and state whether or not it isn't true that in February of 1970 you were interviewed by the CID and told them that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick anywhere in the MacDonald house?
A Right.
Q Do you remember that?
A No; I had no recollection of any of the weapons--not just the ice pick.
Q You had no recollection at all on February 19, 1970, of ever seeing an ice pick in the Mac-Donald house?
A Right.
Q And then you were interviewed--weren't you--by the FBI and told them a few days after this event occurred that you had no recollection of ever seeing an ice pick in the house; do you remember that?
A No.
Q But you do remember telling the CID that you had never seen an ice pick?
A I believe they came over to our house.
Q Do you remember now talking with them?
A Yes.
Q You remember?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you remember telling any of the lawyers for Dr. MacDonald, for example, a Mr. Malley, that you had never seen an ice pick at their house?
A I don't remember.
Q But you do recall that you had said on a number of occasions that you never saw an ice pick in the house?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mrs. Cochran, do you remember testifying before the grand jury here in Raleigh--do you remember your testimony?
A Yeah.
Q Mrs. Cochran, I ask you to listen to my reading of a part of the typed transcript of your testimony before the grand jury and ask you if it refreshes your recollection with respect to anything about the ice pick.
On page 23 of the transcript of the grand jury, I will read you the question and then read you your answer, Mrs. Cochran, and ask you if you recall it. The questioner asked you this question.
"Question: Now, how about the ice pick? Do you recognize it? Answer: No."
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you stated further that you thought the MacDonalds had an ice pick; is that true?
A Yes.
Q You were shown the ice pick on that occasion and you said that you did not remember ever seeing that ice pick; didn't you?
A Right.
Q Now, it was only later--it was later, after lunch, that you remembered seeing an ice pick; would that be correct?
A It was in the afternoon..........
Q Now, during that four-year period, had anybody ever talked with you about it?
A No.
Q Is there any reason that you can think of why your recollection would be better four years after the event than it was a day or two after the event?
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Oh, well, an unsourced opinion from the Internet...it must be true.
Course, what Henri fails to mention is that Noguchi was paid for that opinion, or that MacDonald's then lawyer and Noguchi contended that the prosecution's case revolved around the theory that MacDonald beat his family to death, and then stabbed them after they were dead...which was wholly inaccurate.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-09-11/news/mn-11329_1_green-beret
It's kind of like figuring Colette MacDonald was killed by Mafia hitmen on the basis of watching The Godfather.
Tell us, Henri, was Noguchi so good at his job that he remained LA County ME until he chose to step down? Just curious.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I don't know why you have to question the integrity of Noguchi. From what I can deduce he was one of the most famous forensic pathologists in California and he was involved in several high-profile cases there.
This matter of pajama fibers is a bit of a bore. It's important because Blackburn in his closing speech at the 1979 trial proudly proclaimed that there was supposed to be one or two pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon which he then told the jury was supposed to be conclusive evidence and blatantly obvious.
This so-called pajama fiber evidence started with Browning of the Army CID lab and was then continued by Stombaugh at the FBI. It ignores the fact that pajama fibers could have come from the pajama bottoms which were then lost in the hospital. For some reason Dr. MacDonald wore old pajama which shed fibers easily. I don't know about you but none of my pajamas seem to shed fibers. Dr. MacDonald said he carried Kristen into her bedroom after she had wet the bed. Kristen could have been kicking and screaming and scratching Dr. MacDonald's pajama top at the time. I don't know why no pajama fibers were found on the couch but that was not normally where Dr. MacDonald used to sleep.
The prosecution always maintained that there were pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon. There are grave doubts about that. Frier of the FBI found black wool fibers on the wooden club which was never disclosed to the judge or jury or defense lawyers at the 1979 trial. There have been posters in the past who have had big arguments about that matter with JTF but they seem to have vanished now, or given up.
There is an affidavit from Murphy of the MacDonald defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate law firm about all that fiber stuff obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope this is not too highly technical or beyond the comprehension of posters on this forum. The matter was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with textile expert Professor Wolfgang:
Q Professor Wolfgang, assuming that certain fibers from a garment such as men's pajamas were found, some on a rug, some on bed sheets, some in other places in contact with the house, is there ways of determining from an examination of the fibers themselves, how they came to be on the rug and sheet and other places?
A No.
Q Is there any way of determining from the examination of the fibers as to whether they were torn from the garment or they had fallen from the garment, or had merely just disintegrated after considerable wear?
A No. There are some extenuating circumstances in which it might be possible. In general, however, no.
Q Was there anything in the report prepared by Mr. Browning that you examined, or in his testimony that you read, that indicated that such extenuating circumstances were present and that he testified to in his examinations?
A Not that I noticed.
Q Is there any way of telling from the examination of fibers that there were found, again in the same places as I described a moment ago, how long those fibers had lain, or been in the position that they were prior to being collected?
A By examination of the fibers, no.
Q Professor Wolfgang, again based upon your examination of the materials that we have submitted to you in writing, did you find that there was any basis upon which Mr. Browning could testify to reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the fibers and threads being definitely from the tops of the pair of pajamas that he had submitted to him?
A No. There are--perhaps, I don't know whether you want this qualified or not--
This matter of pajama fibers is a bit of a bore. It's important because Blackburn in his closing speech at the 1979 trial proudly proclaimed that there was supposed to be one or two pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon which he then told the jury was supposed to be conclusive evidence and blatantly obvious.
This so-called pajama fiber evidence started with Browning of the Army CID lab and was then continued by Stombaugh at the FBI. It ignores the fact that pajama fibers could have come from the pajama bottoms which were then lost in the hospital. For some reason Dr. MacDonald wore old pajama which shed fibers easily. I don't know about you but none of my pajamas seem to shed fibers. Dr. MacDonald said he carried Kristen into her bedroom after she had wet the bed. Kristen could have been kicking and screaming and scratching Dr. MacDonald's pajama top at the time. I don't know why no pajama fibers were found on the couch but that was not normally where Dr. MacDonald used to sleep.
The prosecution always maintained that there were pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon. There are grave doubts about that. Frier of the FBI found black wool fibers on the wooden club which was never disclosed to the judge or jury or defense lawyers at the 1979 trial. There have been posters in the past who have had big arguments about that matter with JTF but they seem to have vanished now, or given up.
There is an affidavit from Murphy of the MacDonald defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate law firm about all that fiber stuff obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope this is not too highly technical or beyond the comprehension of posters on this forum. The matter was discussed at the Article 32 in 1970 with textile expert Professor Wolfgang:
Q Professor Wolfgang, assuming that certain fibers from a garment such as men's pajamas were found, some on a rug, some on bed sheets, some in other places in contact with the house, is there ways of determining from an examination of the fibers themselves, how they came to be on the rug and sheet and other places?
A No.
Q Is there any way of determining from the examination of the fibers as to whether they were torn from the garment or they had fallen from the garment, or had merely just disintegrated after considerable wear?
A No. There are some extenuating circumstances in which it might be possible. In general, however, no.
Q Was there anything in the report prepared by Mr. Browning that you examined, or in his testimony that you read, that indicated that such extenuating circumstances were present and that he testified to in his examinations?
A Not that I noticed.
Q Is there any way of telling from the examination of fibers that there were found, again in the same places as I described a moment ago, how long those fibers had lain, or been in the position that they were prior to being collected?
A By examination of the fibers, no.
Q Professor Wolfgang, again based upon your examination of the materials that we have submitted to you in writing, did you find that there was any basis upon which Mr. Browning could testify to reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the fibers and threads being definitely from the tops of the pair of pajamas that he had submitted to him?
A No. There are--perhaps, I don't know whether you want this qualified or not--
Last edited:
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
So? Noguchi works in Los Angeles. It was inevitable he would become involved in high profile cases, by virtue of being on the staff of the LA County ME. That combined with his penchant for self promotion are what made him famous, not his skill, which is probably equivalent to many of his reputable colleagues.
"Famous" doesn't make him correct 100% of the time...especially when he was being paid to render a conclusion favorable to the person paying him. "Fame" also doesn't have anything to do with "integrity", Henri. Hate to burst your bubble, but...
And it's worth noting that Noguchi was stripped of the title of LA County ME, a decision upheld by the Calif. Supreme Court.
Only to Henri, because he can't really explain the truth about them away. Any conclusive evidence that supports MacDonald's guilt is boring to Henri. Yawn.
Actually, it's important because they found not just fibers, but amounts of fibers, where they weren't supposed to be, i.e. under Colette's body, if MacDonald's story was true. MacDonald claimed the fibers clung to his arms and conveniently fell off in those locations-he must've looked something like Sully from Monsters, Inc-but that explanation doesn't really hold up, especially considering...
Exactly. So they found fibers where they shouldn't have been, and vice versa. That's why the fibers were a big deal.
The problem MacDonald ran into was that he gave his story before he knew how the physical evidence stacked up, so he couldn't change it to fit. And it never added up.
Last edited:
Pajama Fibers
MacDonald's pajama top had a 72 inch tear which began at the yoke of the garment and extended down the left front seam AND down the left sleeve to the cuff portion. MacDonald claims the mythical home invaders pulled the top over his head and acknowledged that it was likely that the top was torn during that struggle. No fibers from his pajama top were found in the living room.
MacDonald also claims that he awoke on the hallway floor and went into the master bedroom where he "found" Colette laying face-up on the shag carpet. He claims he removed the pajama top from his wrists, but does not remember where he initially set it down. He later admitted to placing the pajama top over his wife's chest in order to treat her for shock.
MacDonald then states that he wasn't wearing his pajama top when he found his two children in their beds. Analysis by the FBI determined that MacDonald's pajama top was grabbed at the collar portion or yoke and pulled downward as MacDonald spun to his right. A majority of the shed pajama fibers would have fallen in the location where the garment was originally torn.
A majority of the pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom and there were several other pieces of evidence that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kimmie/Colette were assaulted by an individual wearing MacDonald's torn pajama top.
Seventy-Nine pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom, 19 were found in Kimmie's room, and 3 fibers were found in Kristen's room with one of those fibers discovered at autopsy under Kristen's fingernail. In a piece of bedding used to transport Colette to the master bedroom, a bloody head hair sourced to Colette was found entwined with a bloody fiber sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top. This entwining demonstrated direct contact between Colette and an individual wearing MacDonald's torn pajama top.
MacDonald claims he never got on the master bed, Kimmie's bed, or Kristen's bed, yet there were numerous pajama fibers found on all 3 beds. There was also a pajama fiber found behind the master bed headboard where the word PIG was written in Colette's blood. The word was written by a right-handed individual and MacDonald is right-handed. The individual who wrote the word was wearing gloves and a bloody finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in the bedding used to transport Colette and Kimmie back to their rooms. The finger section was similar in chemical composition to a box of surgeon's gloves found under the kitchen sink. Five drops of MacDonald's blood were found on the kitchen floor near the sink.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
MacDonald's pajama top had a 72 inch tear which began at the yoke of the garment and extended down the left front seam AND down the left sleeve to the cuff portion. MacDonald claims the mythical home invaders pulled the top over his head and acknowledged that it was likely that the top was torn during that struggle. No fibers from his pajama top were found in the living room.
MacDonald also claims that he awoke on the hallway floor and went into the master bedroom where he "found" Colette laying face-up on the shag carpet. He claims he removed the pajama top from his wrists, but does not remember where he initially set it down. He later admitted to placing the pajama top over his wife's chest in order to treat her for shock.
MacDonald then states that he wasn't wearing his pajama top when he found his two children in their beds. Analysis by the FBI determined that MacDonald's pajama top was grabbed at the collar portion or yoke and pulled downward as MacDonald spun to his right. A majority of the shed pajama fibers would have fallen in the location where the garment was originally torn.
A majority of the pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom and there were several other pieces of evidence that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kimmie/Colette were assaulted by an individual wearing MacDonald's torn pajama top.
Seventy-Nine pajama fibers were found in the master bedroom, 19 were found in Kimmie's room, and 3 fibers were found in Kristen's room with one of those fibers discovered at autopsy under Kristen's fingernail. In a piece of bedding used to transport Colette to the master bedroom, a bloody head hair sourced to Colette was found entwined with a bloody fiber sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top. This entwining demonstrated direct contact between Colette and an individual wearing MacDonald's torn pajama top.
MacDonald claims he never got on the master bed, Kimmie's bed, or Kristen's bed, yet there were numerous pajama fibers found on all 3 beds. There was also a pajama fiber found behind the master bed headboard where the word PIG was written in Colette's blood. The word was written by a right-handed individual and MacDonald is right-handed. The individual who wrote the word was wearing gloves and a bloody finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in the bedding used to transport Colette and Kimmie back to their rooms. The finger section was similar in chemical composition to a box of surgeon's gloves found under the kitchen sink. Five drops of MacDonald's blood were found on the kitchen floor near the sink.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
MacDonald Is A Serial Liar
Not only were 24 fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top found UNDER Colette's body, one of those inculpatory fibers was found directly under her head. As Colette's body was being removed from the residence, CID investigators William Ivory and Robert Shaw, noticed that this bloody fiber was sticking up from the shag carpet in pigtail fashion. This indicated that Colette had been set down on the shag carpet AFTER the fibers had been shed in the master bedroom.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Not only were 24 fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top found UNDER Colette's body, one of those inculpatory fibers was found directly under her head. As Colette's body was being removed from the residence, CID investigators William Ivory and Robert Shaw, noticed that this bloody fiber was sticking up from the shag carpet in pigtail fashion. This indicated that Colette had been set down on the shag carpet AFTER the fibers had been shed in the master bedroom.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Said by whom, Henri? Why do you consistently cite popular theories without sources?
a) Diana did have blood on her, according to eyewitness testimony in the Paget Report, from gashes on her forehead and forearm; and b) her fatal injury was a torn aorta caused by displacement of her heart as the car revolved around her. It was a wholly internal injury. They call it that because the injury is contained within the body. It would not have caused external bleeding. She was not externally sliced between the ribs by a scalpel. The injuries she had that WERE similar to Jeffrey MacDonald's DID cause some external bleeding because, like Jeffrey MacDonald's, they were external injuries. You'll need to use some common sense. Jeffrey MacDonald's injury may have caused internal bleeding, but it was also an external injury. Therefore, it would have involved external bleeding. See how that works?
You'll need to come up with a better comparison.
- Status