Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

This is absolutely false. MacDonald wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and slapped him. All his testimony was a lie, easily proven by the blood evidence.

I still think that Judge Fox does not have a thorough grasp of the MacDonald case and he is certainly not thoroughly acquainted with the whole business of the blood evidence. There was never a complete investigation by the Army CID who were what would be described in the UK as ordinary constables. The real culprits were never properly investigated because Helena Stoeckley was never believed. Gerg Mitchell and Mazerolle and their accomplices did it.

There was some kind of polygrapher who made the remark that it was most unlikely that the two women Helena and Cathy Perry would come up with the same kind of story about the MacDonald case and that it would also be untrue. Cathy Perry later withdrew her statements because her parents didn't want her to get involved. I think she is now deceased, I think according to Errol Morris.

You don't have to have a law degree, or know the Federal Rules of Evidence to appreciate that if you are presenting blood evidence to a court then you need to be a qualified forensic serologist. It's no good just saying that as a layman there was blood at the crime scene so Dr. MacDonald must be guilty or concocting some quite ludicrous theory that bodies were carried in a sheet without supporting evidence. Stombaugh only said it could be.

 

[byn63]

I still think that Judge Fox does not have a thorough grasp of the MacDonald case and he is certainly not thoroughly acquainted with the whole business of the blood evidence.

what you think is meaningless Henri since you continuously show your lack of critical thinking skills and your continual insistence on ignoring FACTS.

Judge Fox has been on this case for 19 years; he has a thorough grasp of the case and he is not conned by inmate. I am not sure what you mean by the blood evidence. The FACTS in that regard are that each family member had a different blood type so investigators can easily read the scene. Also FACT is that blood type proves conclusively that Kimmie is the one that wet the bed in the master bedroom and that she was transported in the bedspread.

There was never a complete investigation by the Army CID.....The real culprits were never properly investigated because Helena Stoeckley was never believed. Gerg Mitchell and Mazerolle and their accomplices did it.

The CID did a proper investigation taking over 2 years. Helena's story did not match the evidence or inmate's story. Greg Mitchell was investigated. No forensic evidence from either Greg or Helena was found at the scene. AND ONCE AGAIN - Allen Mazzerole could not have been involved because HE WAS IN JAIL ARRESTED BY PRINCE BEASLEY AND FINGERED BY THE SNITCH HELENA STOECKLEY.

There was some kind of polygrapher who made the remark that it was most unlikely that the two women Helena and Cathy Perry would come up with the same kind of story about the MacDonald case and that it would also be untrue. Cathy Perry later withdrew her statements because her parents didn't want her to get involved. I think she is now deceased, I think according to Errol Morris.

geez Henri - really, you are going to bring this nonsense up again? Cathy Perry's story NEVER CAME CLOSE to matching the facts of the case. In her "alleged confession" the bedrooms were upstairs, the children were boys, and a myriad other errors. She was not involved, and all possible suspects were thoroughly investigated.

You don't have to have a law degree, or know the Federal Rules of Evidence to appreciate that if you are presenting blood evidence to a court then you need to be a qualified forensic serologist. It's no good just saying that as a layman there was blood at the crime scene so MacDonald must be guilty or concocting some quite ludicrous theory that bodies were carried in a sheet without supporting evidence. Stombaugh only said it could be.

the persons who testified to the blood at trial were all qualified experts. Terry Laber's testimony went in without object by Segal, WHY because they could not object to the truth.

 

[JTF]

Burden Of Proof

Some of us on this discussion board, have had the pleasure or displeasure of reading and responding to Henri's disjointed propaganda for the past decade. There is little difference between Henri's posts in 2004, and his posts on this board in the past 24 hours. Despite his tiresome shouts from the rooftops, the case against Jeffrey MacDonald is open and shut.

MacDonald advocates studiously ignore a majority of the government's case. At the 1979 trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. This includes blood, hair, fiber, bloody footprints, bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions, and fabric damage evidence.

The 2006 DNA test results were simply icing on the government's evidentiary cake. There were 3 DNA test results that further proved MacDonald's guilt, with the most significant test result involving a limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand.

For the past 25 years, the MacDonald camp has argued that the source of this hair was intruder suspect Greg Mitchell. MacDonald and his advocates received the bad news that this broken, bloody limb hair matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

Judge Fox has yet to make a decision on MacDonald's latest request for a new trial, but his chances at receiving a new trial are extremely remote. The burden of proof is now on MacDonald and his lawyers have not come close to meeting that burden.

The 4th Circuit Court has stated that MacDonald's burden of proof is "extraordinarily high." In essence, what MacDonald had to prove at the 2012 evidentiary hearing was that Jimmy Britt's statements had merit and that the 3 unsourced hairs found at the crime scene were evidence of intruders.

The defense did neither at the evidentiary hearing. Britt was proven to be a serial fabricator and the defense presented no evidence that the unsourced hairs were proof of intruders. The government, on the other hand, presented the following facts.

- None of the hairs had any blood deposits on them

- None of the hairs had broken shafts

- All 3 hairs had club roots which indicates that they were naturally shed

- The hair found under Colette's body was a pubic hair and she was not sexually assaulted

- The hair allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail was not observed at autopsy

- This hair was not observed by Dillard Browning during his microscopic examinations of hair exemplars

- The first time this hair was observed was 6 months after the murders by Janice Glisson. Janice re-analyzed the fingernail scrapings from Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen

- The packaging of Kristen's fingernail scrapings indicates that the presence of this hair was the result of contamination

- No hairs were found under Kristen's fingernails at autopsy, but a bloody fiber later sourced to Jeffrey MacDonald's torn pajama top was found under her fingernail

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

when it comes to the blathering posts made by henri mcphee and his ilk the same "blurb" comes to mind:

blather - ignore - repeat

like your post JTF!

 

[desertgal]

when it comes to the blathering posts made by henri mcphee and his ilk the same "blurb" comes to mind:

blather - ignore - repeat

like your post JTF!

That's fine, except you've been responding to Henri, not ignoring him.

Seriously, if his posts for the last decade have been the same continuous blather, no one responding with facts that disprove his theories are going to change his mind. Doesn't seem to me it's worthwhile to continue dignifying anything he says with a response...except to keep rearguing the facts of the case to a guy who isn't listening.

MacDonald is guilty. Always has been. That's pretty much all there is to that. It's not as if Henri's theories are going to set MacDonald free.

 

[JTF]

Synopsis

For the past 44 years, Helena Stoeckley has been THE red herring put forth by MacDonald and his rotating band of lawyers. With this in mind, the perfect synopsis of Stoeckley's role in this case was presented by the government in their 1984 response memo to Judge Dupree.

"What distinguishes Stoeckley's confession from the others is not only the factual details of the crime which she managed to weave into her narrative (not unlike the malingerer who learns the symptoms of obscure diseases), but also her complex motivations. These motivations include grandiose delusions of her medical and scholastic ability, a propensity for histrionics, a vicarious interest in police matters, and a bizarre conception of herself as a benevolent witch."

What has been a huge forensic thorn in the side of the MacDonald defense team is the FACT than none of the evidence collected at the crime scene was sourced to a KNOWN intruder suspect.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html

 

[Katy0755]

I've been a longtime reader, but have not posted before. I just wanted to say:

JTF, you're missed over at Yuku!

Henri, you are living in a dream world of conspiracies that has no factual support at all. Have you ever really read the evidence in this case? You couldn't have, or you wouldn't be writing such unbelievable comments. Good for a laugh, I guess.

Hello to everyone.

 

[KatieG]

Hi Katy0755! Welcome to JREF and to this thread in particular. Obviously you're familiar with this case and we need more warriors here.

 

[JTF]

Thanks

KATY: Welcome to the forum. I appreciate your kind words. Well, my prediction of an April decision by Judge Fox went by the wayside. I just hope that he decides to deny inmate relief and that he closes every avenue for an appeal. IMO, EIGHT shots at a new trial are/were seven shots too many for the ice pick baby killer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Katy0755]

Thank you for the welcome, Katie and JTF!

JTF, I think your prediction was a good one; but then Judge Fox surprises us all by requesting the April 6th interview. Hmm...I really wonder what he wants it for. Regardless of what Henri says, Judge Fox knows this case inside and out, from the minutiae to the big picture.

Maybe early June?

 

[JTF]

Request

Considering that the government provided Judge Fox with only Part One of the 4/6/70 CID transcript, I would assume that Judge Fox simply misplaced Part One in the recent weeks. This scenario indicates that Judge Fox was in the process of reading inmate's claims in the early stages of the CID investigation.

I would assume he read the interviews conducted by the CID and FBI, while inmate was at Womack. Judge Fox then went to read the 4/6/70 CID interview and discovered that he only had Part Two. IMO, Judge Fox requesting another copy of Part One doesn't bode well for inmate.

As McGinniss points out in Fatal Vision, inmate's account on 4/6/70, "would stick to him like tar for years afterward, in all its messy, inconvenient detail, despite his many attempts to cleanse himself of it as his understanding of the physical evidence, and its implications, increased."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

I still think Judge Fox is out of touch with reality. I can't quite see how you can be definite in saying that Allen Patrick Mazerolle was in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders when there is no documentation at all that he ever appeared in court. Mazerolle went on the run, and then he blamed the MacDonald murders on Dr. MacDonald.

It's like these diplomats who have no wide and practical experience of anything else in their lives, and who are mainly glorified journalists, talking a lot of nonsensical rubbish about the Russians being savages and drunken peasants, and how Obama is vacillating for not bombing Moscow, and that we must all now support the Waffen SS.

 

[Stamuel]

I still think Judge Fox is out of touch with reality. I can't quite see how you can be definite in saying that Allen Patrick Mazerolle was in jail at the time of the MacDonald murders when there is no documentation at all that he ever appeared in court. Mazerolle went on the run, and then he blamed the MacDonald murders on Dr. MacDonald.





[...]

Actually, there is ample documentation that Mazerolle was in prison at the time of the murder. You can find ten separate official court documents about his case at this site: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/scanneddocuments.html.



This includes an official record of his being incarcerated from January 20-March 10, 1970; a docket listing thirteen court dates related to his case; two subpoenas for witnesses to testify in Mazerolle's trial on February 17, 1970 (the day of the murders); his indictment from February 2, 1970; and a couple others.



He was in custody at the time. Of all suspects to fixate on, Mazerolle is probably the worst choice. He obviously did not do it.

 

[byn63]

That's fine, except you've been responding to Henri, not ignoring him.

Seriously, if his posts for the last decade have been the same continuous blather, no one responding with facts that disprove his theories are going to change his mind. Doesn't seem to me it's worthwhile to continue dignifying anything he says with a response...except to keep rearguing the facts of the case to a guy who isn't listening.

MacDonald is guilty. Always has been. That's pretty much all there is to that. It's not as if Henri's theories are going to set MacDonald free.

I can only let his nonsense stand unchallenged for so long. IF you do not reply there is always the chance that someone not familiar with the facts will believe henri's tripe. Besides it annoys henri when one of us insists on clouding the issues with FACTS.

 

[byn63]

I've been a longtime reader, but have not posted before. I just wanted to say:

JTF, you're missed over at Yuku!

Henri, you are living in a dream world of conspiracies that has no factual support at all. Have you ever really read the evidence in this case? You couldn't have, or you wouldn't be writing such unbelievable comments. Good for a laugh, I guess.

Hello to everyone.

Welcome Katy0755 - always enjoy your insights!

 

[byn63]

Actually, there is ample documentation that Mazerolle was in prison at the time of the murder. You can find ten separate official court documents about his case at this site: http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/scanneddocuments.html.



This includes an official record of his being incarcerated from January 20-March 10, 1970; a docket listing thirteen court dates related to his case; two subpoenas for witnesses to testify in Mazerolle's trial on February 17, 1970 (the day of the murders); his indictment from February 2, 1970; and a couple others.



He was in custody at the time. Of all suspects to fixate on, Mazerolle is probably the worst choice. He obviously did not do it.

great post imho!

 

[desertgal]

I can only let his nonsense stand unchallenged for so long. IF you do not reply there is always the chance that someone not familiar with the facts will believe henri's tripe. Besides it annoys henri when one of us insists on clouding the issues with FACTS.

Fair enough. I don't really care if someone believes Henri's tripe, because if they say so, everyone here can point them in the right direction. I like the thought of annoying Henri with facts.

(Henri will now say it doesn't annoy him. Wait for it...)

 

[JTF]

Focus On The Hard Data

The excellent literary essays by Joe McGinniss, Gene Weingarten, Robert Sam Anson and a number of dedicated case researchers explains why the approach of MacDonald advocates is logically unsound. I understand that MacDonald advocates have a fervent desire to ignore logic and plunge headlong into the largely irrelevant and irresolvable minutiae that is the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case.

It is far easier to focus on the fact that Stoeckley confessed on multiple occasions or that the CID's original investigation was not a model of its kind, but as McGinniss pointed out, "Facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they can't be overcome by hype." MacDonald advocates have no salient retort to most of the government's massive forensic case against inmate, so they rely on an artificially-created dichotomy between "MacDonald is the lone perp" and everything else. The "everything else" usually involves some type of conspiracy.

No amount of failure to prove a conspiracy of any kind (e.g., CID, FBI, DOJ, or all three) deters the MacDonald advocate from posting the same nonsense over and over again. At best, their theory is a wobbly premise which is used to bait their critics into having to defend the CID/FBI investigations. It matters not that their case for conspiracy lacks corroborative data.

Fortunately, the inclusion of fact-based websites in the past decade have allowed the general public to separate fact from fiction. Much to the chagrin of advocates like Fred Bost and Errol Morris, their work has been exposed as propaganda and the only individuals who take their work seriously are those who embrace woo.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[soetkin]

I don't understand how the McDonald supporters fail to explain the total lack of evidence of the 4-6 intruders while McDonald apparantly shed evidence like a husky on his tours through the house.

 

[catsmate]

I don't understand how the McDonald supporters fail to explain the total lack of evidence of the 4-6 intruders while McDonald apparantly shed evidence like a husky on his tours through the house.

They carefully avoid the topic.