Assertions are not evidence. Your assertion that the CID lab technicians were inexperienced is a mere assertion without foundation. Your fantasies about Murtagh and Bruce both coaching the lab technicians and cheating on the DNA are simply crap pulled out of your ass.
Finally your fantasies about Malone and Stombaugh being "proved" to be liars and "forensic whores", is another piece of utter nonsense on your part.
I disagree. Murtagh had a will to win attitude at any cost for the sake of his career. I suppose it might be true that Bernie Segal was not MacDonald's best lawyer. He treated the North Carolina lawyers and jury like bumpkins which they were and that might not have been very tactful or diplomatic. There are no first-class trial judges in North Carolina. I think Gary Bostwick was MacDonald's better lawyer and he could speak in plain English. Judge Dupree made the remark once that Segal was the only lawyer he knew who would take three days to litigate an uncontested divorce case.
There is a bit about all this in a website by Bill James who is not convinced MacDonald is innocent, unlike me. but he does write sense about the MacDonald case :
"Morris argues that the judge in the case, Franklin Dupree (formerly of the law firm You, Me and Dupree) was biased against MacDonald, ruled repeatedly against him, and blocked all of his appeals. In fact, Morris argues implicitly, the judge was really the only person in the case who was fully convinced of MacDonald’s guilt; the prosecutors were, in their minds, doing the best they could with the case they had, but they didn’t really know whether he was guilty or not. The judge, on the other hand, was just trying to make sure that this scoundrel got what he deserved. In the index to the book there are 30 pages referenced under Dupree, Franklin T—bias of.
I have no idea whether Judge Dupree was or was not biased, frankly, and I don’t take too seriously Morris’s repeated claims that he was. But again, Morris does have a point here. After MacDonald was convicted, many of his appeals, in one form or another, had to go back through Judge Dupree’s court.
That’s not right, for this reason. Of course the judicial system makes every possible effort to find judges who are able to rise above their assumptions, their biases—but, in the interests of fairness, the system should never assume that the trial judge was unbiased. The system should assume, in the interests of fairness, that there is a possibility that the appellant has been unfairly treated, and should ask someone else to look at all appeals.
I would go further than that: I would ban anyone involved in a prosecution—judges and prosecutors—from playing any role in the case, after the conviction, insofar as it is practical to avoid this. I would prohibit them from commenting on or being involved in appeals. I would prohibit them from appearing before or even from writing to parole boards.
I have often observed, in reading crime books, that the worst injustices occur because police, prosecutors or judges are absolutely convinced that they know what happened when they really don’t."
