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
Outside of Helena Stoeckley's concocted intruder narratives, there is nothing that links Greg Mitchell to this horrific crime. I realize that you're fully aware of the following facts, but since you are the King of Repetition...One other interesting memory with regard to Greg Mitchell:
https://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/dclr_bkoppert_1988-09-19.html
4) In 1981, Mitchell was interviewed by the FBI, and he denied having any involvement in this crime.
5) In 2006, none of the 29 DNA exhibits tested by the AFIP matched Mitchell's DNA profile.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
It proves that Mitchell never stepped foot inside 544 Castle Drive. The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.I don't think that proves anything. Most murderers categorically deny their crimes and even sometimes no comment. The surgical glove fragment at the crime scene was never DNA tested for a start which could be interesting information with modern DNA technology. That is unless Murtagh and Bruce and the FBI lab dishonestly substituted the surgical glove fragment for another. Corruption is very difficult to detect and that applies to the MacDonald case.
The evidence against MacDonald is as vexed Judge Dupree once said at the trial: "the number of times I have heard old Stombaugh only said it could be" which is quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence.
Jeffrey MacDonald's DNA profile matched a body hair found on Kristen's bed, a body hair on the rumpled bedspread found in the master bedroom, and a limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand. The two body hairs were not considered inculpatory due to the fact that both hairs were naturally shed. The condition of the limb hair, however, inculpated MacDonald in the murder of his wife. The hair was bloody, broken, and located next to a splinter from the club. Prior to DNA testing in this case, MacDonald advocates argued that the presence of a splinter in Colette's left hand indicated that the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the club. Considering that the left sleeve of MacDonald's pajama top was torn down to the cuff, one could argue that Colette used her left hand to rip a hair from her husband's exposed left arm.There was a similar miscarriage of justice case to the MacDonald case featured on that Medical Detectives show. A man called Camm was imprisoned for twelve years before they found the DNA of the real culprit at the crime scene. That was a serious matter for him and even no joke. The prosecution then tried to speculate there was collaboration to keep him in prison which was ridiculous.
https://www.groundreport.com/the-david-camm-case-an-american-miscarriage-of-justice/
"Even though the Indiana State Police had a blood spatter expert available, Sergeant Dean Marks, they decided to spend nearly $300,000 on Stites and Englert. Rod Englert is best known for his bitter feud with the acknowledged foremost expert in the field, Dr. Herbert MacDonell. According to court documents from a defamation suit filed by Englert, MacDonell had called Englert a “forensic whore” and a “liar-for-hire”. Stites had no experience in crime scene analysis at the time of the murder and seriously misrepresented his educational background in sworn testimony during the first trial.
The first jury was also evidently heavily influenced by the testimony of several women who had had extra-marital affairs with David. This type of testimony can be powerful stuff in the Bible belt but an appellate court ruled it was irrelevant and found it the basis for overturning the first conviction."
J. The condition of the limb hair, however, inculpated MacDonald in the murder of his wife. The hair was bloody, broken, and located next to a splinter from the club. Prior to DNA testing in this case, MacDonald advocates argued that the presence of a splinter in Colette's left hand indicated that the source of the limb hair was the wielder of the club. Considering that the left sleeve of MacDonald's pajama top was torn down to the cuff, one could argue that Colette used her left hand to rip a hair from her husband's exposed left arm.
https://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/dna_evidence.html
I still think MacDonald was tricked into that April 1970 interview by the Army CID on the pretext that they were going to return some of his private property. It's true that he was informed of his Miranda rights and that he could have a lawyer with him, but I believe he was a novice with regard to legal work and that he didn't fully appreciate that he was under suspicion and had to be careful what he said. None of it proved he did it anyway.
It looks as though somebody has now suggested improvements with regard to the Army CID:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-civilian-cid-fort-hood/
...and, let us not forget about how he showed his consciousness of guilt by first agreeing to take the polygraph and then calling and withdrawing from the appointment so quickly. He knew he would not pass....
“I told him that in my opinion, he was being deceptive on that--questions relating to the crime,” Backster said. “I told him I could not be of help to him because he had failed his polygraph.”
As usual, the regurgitator is misleading with deliberately ignoring the actual facts of this case.
Still in a cage, still guilty!
What a shame you didn’t have the guts to post the entire transcript of this testimony, instead of a small segment about the Johnny Carson show.
Still guilty & in his cage!
In regards to the polygraph exam administered by Cleve Backster, the only relevant information is as follows.I have the guts to post the entire transcript of this testimony. It's just I might get suspended or banned because short paragraphs or tweet soundbites are required.
You can't deny that people have been wrongly convicted for murder in the past by judges and juries or that there have been miscarriages of justice like the Hillsborough football disaster. Just saying a jury convicted MacDonald is not good enough because juries are very likely to be wrong and the foreman of the jury said he was going to convict the hell out of MacDonald before the trial even started.
The real culprits committed the perfect murders. They were able to swing the blame on to an innocent man just because they believed the police to be dishonest. Something needs to be done about this. Not every verdict is wrong, but mistakes are made and crimes in wars. The police are apt to jump to conclusions and not bother with investigating.
This is more of that transcript. It's a joke:
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And have you appeared on the Johnny Carson Show on some occasions, talking about attaching polygraph machines to plants?
A Only one taping of Johnny Carson which was, I believe, reshown because it had Raquel Welch on it, not because I was on it.
Q And did the plants react to Raquel Welch on the show?
A No. I know a number of people who did, but I don't know whether the plants did.
Q Could you look at Page 619 of Exhibit 402, that's the book?
A Yes.
Q What he's saying here about -- in the first full paragraph on Page 619, about the fact that you polygraph plants, and being on the Johnny Carson Show; that's true, isn't it? Essentially?
A Well, where is the part about Johnny Carson?
Q The first full paragraph on Page 619.
A 619. Okay. Well, he says "He's on the Johnny Carson Show all the time." That is not true.
Q But it was shown several times; right?
A Once, and once it was repeated, yes.