Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[JTF]

Run Away, Run Away

HENRIBOY: It's bad enough that you run away from my challenge, but making erroneous claims takes your trolling to another level. Please present a conviction in a high profile murder case that did not include lab documentation linking the perp to the crime.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Pacal]

The Article that Henri cites from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review v. 131 (1983) is defective in many particulars. Note worthy is that at the end of the article the author mentions that Stoeckley confessed after the trial about her involvement in the crime and further stated that she had lied on the witness stand about not remembering the events of that night. The author does not of course mention that Stoeckley repeatedly "confessed" and retracted over the years which doesn't do much for her credibility in this matter. Further the author takes seriously Gunderson's and Beasley's statement that they got from Stoeckley. Given what we now know about Gunderson's tactics and behavior this statement he got from Stoeckley lacks credibility.

Further the entire argument that the Trial Judge had to allow the statements of what Stoeckley said to others faces the real problem of given Stoeckley's statement she didn't have a clue what happened that night etc., because she was so drugged up would in disputably make any of her alleged statements dubious.

Frankly it appears to me that the author has to some extent drunk the Kool-Aid in regards to this case has for example shown by his reference to the alleged double jeopardy issues raised by the case

 

[Henri McPhee]

The Article that Henri cites from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review v. 131 (1983) is defective in many particulars.

That's your opinion, but in a deadly place like a courtroom you must speak only as to facts unless you are a real expert. That's the law under the federal rules of criminal procedure, and also the federal rules of civil procedure. It's all very well for these North Carolina judges to think the federal rules of evidence don't apply to them. That's like a judge ignoring a sign saying 'keep off the grass' and then expecting the Supreme Court to back them up.

The University of Pennsylvania Law review said that the trial judge, Judge Dupree, was clearly erroneous. That is a point of law from their knowledge of the law. Others have said the trial judge was biased, but perhaps that may just be an opinion and not a point of law.

There is one example of a murder conviction in the UK on circumstantial evidence where there was no forensics which JTF mentions from a few years ago. It's very nice to have DNA evidence and fingerprints but Mazerolle and Mitchell wore gloves and it was before the days of DNA in the MacDonald case. This is from an internet article by Marika Henneberg February 17 2016:

Circumstantial evidence is not always a bad thing. However, it does becomes a problem where available physical evidence either points away from the person charged with the crime, or where the lack of physical evidence actually contradicts the hypothesis presented by the prosecution. This is significant information which appears to be frequently ignored during trials and appeals, in cases of alleged wrongful convictions.

Michael Stone and the Chillenden murders

The recent news that Levi Bellfield had confessed to the abduction, rape and murder of Milly Dowler, a crime he was already convicted for, has reignited the interest in other crimes that he may be responsible for. The Metropolitan police confirmed that as a result of interviews with Bellfield, they are now “liaising with a number of other UK police forces in relation to information which has been passed onto us regarding a number of criminal investigations”.

One of the crimes which will undoubtedly gain renewed interest is the infamous Russell murders in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. A mother, two young daughters and their dog were viciously attacked, bound and beaten with a hammer. Only one daughter survived the attack. Although the murders are ‘solved’ as Michael Stone was eventually convicted and sentenced, Bellfield’s admissions provide the perfect opportunity to shine a light on the unsafe nature of Stone’s convictions. These convictions were based on nothing more than seemingly unreliable circumstantial evidence.

Stone was convicted in 1998, largely based on the evidence of convicted criminal and self-confessed liar Damien Daley.This witness claimed that Stone had confessed to him by talking through a pipe running between their adjoining cells when they were in the Segregation Unit of Canterbury Prison. Stone’s convictions were quashed on appeal in 2001 and a retrial was ordered. In the retrial, Stone was again found guilty despite the fact that there was no physical evidence linking him to either the victims or the crime scene. Daley, during cross examination, even said that “I am a crook” and “I lie to get by in life”.

Stone had an unsuccessful appeal in 2005. In the appeal judgment, the court stated that “There was no forensic evidence connecting the appellant with the attacks. But there was other relevant evidence”. The so called relevant evidence consisted of the fact that Stone had lied about not knowing the area, he kept tools in the boot of his car, he may have used a bootlace as a tourniquet, he may or may not have been seen with blood on his t-shirt around the time of the murders and he had a previous conviction involving a hammer.

However, no witness has been found who can conclusively place Stone in Canterbury on the day of the murders. A bootlace with knots was found at the crime scene. This bootlace had blood from two of the victims and residue of saliva on it, but no DNA link to Stone was made. A forensic examination of a car used by Stone at the pertinent time did not reveal any link to the crime, a bloodstained fingerprint on a lunchbox belonging to the Russells was not Stone’s and it was unlikely to have been made by Lin Russell. Hairs and red fibres found on the victims and at the crime scene did not come from the Russells, Stone or anyone in his family.

Wolchover and Heaton-Armstrong suggested in an article in Archbold News (2005) that perhaps the jury came to the conclusion “that the public would be safer with him [Stone] behind bars until such time as evidence might emerge which exonerated him”. So, let’s assume Stone is guilty until he can prove his innocence (or at least that his conviction is unsafe). This is one way to make a murderer.

 

[byn63]

henri - the JUDGES are exactly the ones who make judgement calls as to whether an item is admissable (although Scott was the one who pointed this out to you in the most recent thread). Judge Dupree decided what was evidence and what could be admitted and SINCE trial inmate has been heard before the courts more than any other murderer in US Jurisprudence. The Judges of the 4th Court of Appeals AND the Honorable Judges of the US Supreme Court have found no error in what Judge Dupree allowed and what he disallowed. The FACTS are that inmate was convicted after a trial of just over 7 weeks in length, before a Jury of His Peers, after the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) the jury convicted in just over 6 hours. There are absolutely NO EXCULPATORY evidentiary items and there is NO DOCUMENTATION OR SUPPORT for any claims of such exculpatory evidence. NO evidence has been in any way linked or sourced to ANY VIABLE SUSPECTS. EVERY SINGLE SOURCED EVIDENTIARY ITEM points directly at INMATE and ONLY INMATE. THESE ARE FACTS.

No where has it been shown that Judge Dupree was in error in ANY of his judgments in this case, the Supreme Court heard the "Stoeckley Seven" argument of the defense and found that Judge Dupree was within his discretion. Judge Dupree was correct in finding Helena to be unreliable and the hearsay testimony that would have resulted from the 7 witnesses would be useless. Helena was a drug addled, attention seeking, troubled young woman with a penchant for telling tall tales. She confessed and recanted, added and subtracted participants, got information totally wrong and the only CONSISTENT thing she ever stated in relations to the murders was that she was not involved. You cannot change the facts no matter how many times and how emphatically you state your theories.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The trial judge, Judge Dupree, was clearly erroneous in disregarding the statements of Helena Stoeckley and the Stoeckley seven. That's a fact. It was a mistrial, and it was quite ludicrously unsatisfactory evidence. It's only because the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court hates to admit this, and then reverse, that this is allowed to happen. Not all judges are competent and just. It's the great official principle of sticking to a mistake through thick and thin so that MacDonald spends the rest of his life in prison.

This is from the internet with regard to this matter:

Procedural fairness is violated when the decision maker is biased or their conduct or statements raise a reasonable apprehension of bias. An applicant has the right to a fair and impartial hearing and a fair and impartial decision maker.3 Jul 2015

 

[desmirelle]

WHICH statement from Helena? The one where she said she was so messed up on drugs she didn't know where she was that night? The one where she and mac were having an affair? The one where there was a phone call? The next one where she says she has no idea of where she was because she'd done mescaline? The one where she says nobody on LSD would do this (while being shown the crime scene photos by SEGAL) but maybe someone on speed?

 

[Henri McPhee]

WHICH statement from Helena? The one where she said she was so messed up on drugs she didn't know where she was that night? The one where she and mac were having an affair? The one where there was a phone call? The next one where she says she has no idea of where she was because she'd done mescaline? The one where she says nobody on LSD would do this (while being shown the crime scene photos by SEGAL) but maybe someone on speed?

I agree that Helena Stoeckley lied like a trooper if there was any chance of her ending up in prison for sixty years without parole as sometimes happens in America. She was quite happy to pin the blame on MacDonald. The point is that she made statements over the years in which she named names and described exactly what happened. That should never have been disregarded by the bungling detectives in the Army CID and FBI.

Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous on a point of law in describing Helena as untrustworthy when it came out after the trial that Helena was used as an informant by the Army CID and by the Nashville police. Detective Beasley had described her as his most reliable informant.

Perhaps Helena's most reliable statement was to her lawyer, Leonard, at the time of the trial. She was assured that she was protected by lawyer and client confidentiality, which happened while she was still alive, a bit like a priest's confessional box confessions are supposed to be confidential. Leonard later said the prosecution never proved its case to which Murtagh typically accused him of being an alcoholic among other things.

There is a bit about this matter in a MacDonald case document:

What Stoeckley told Leonard in 1979, while the MacDonald trial was in progress, has this ambit of trustworthiness. The importance of her statement to Leonard that she was in the house when the murders occurred
can hardly be overstated. In the words of the government’s own witnesses, Joe. McGinniss, it would have been the “holy grail” for the defense. (Htp. 987) It would be eyewitness evidence, a firsthand account, of intruders. If the jury had heard those three words, the circumstantial evidence of intruders that was existing at trial, even before that circumstantial evidence was augmented by other evidence that has been amassed in the intervening years that is within the ambit of the “evidence as a whole.”

 

[Henri McPhee]

These are some of the statements Helena Stoeckley made which Judge Dupree erroneously refused to be presented to the court as untrustworthy, and in which the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court erroneously concurred, which is against the federal rules of evidence and criminal procedure. It was a mistrial.:

The voir dire testimony of the seven witnesses to Stoeckley's statements against interest is summarized in the MacDonald Cert. Petition, supra note 18, at 5-8. The witnesses testified on voir dire as follows:

1) Officer Prince Beasley testified that the day after the crime, he questioned Stoeckley about the MacDonald murders because she matched MacDonald's description of one of the intruders. Stoeckley told Beasley "n my mind, it seems that I saw this thing happen," adding that she had been "heavy on mescaline." Beasley also asked Stoeckley about funeral wreaths which were found hanging in her yard. Stoeckley, who was wearing black, responded that she was mourning the MacDonalds. See Trial Transcript, supra note 19, at 5742-43.

2) William Posey, one of Stoeckley's neighbors, testified that a few days after the MacDonald slayings, Stoeckley told him that although she did not kill anyone herself, she held a light while the crime was in progress. She said she observed a "hobby horse thing," which was broken, in the apartment. She also told Posey that she believed she had been seen by a policeman on Honeycutt
Street on the morning of the crime. Id. at 5759-60.

3) Jane Zillioux, a woman who befriended Stoeckley when Stoeckley moved to Nashville after the MacDonald murders, testified that Stoeckley told her that she could not return to Fayetteville (her former home near MacDonald's) because she had been involved in murders there of a woman and two small children. She told Zillioux that she had worn her white boots and blond wig on the night of the crime, and that despite her fondness for the wig and boots she found it necessary to burn them. She also told Zillioux that she was in the company of three males the night of the crime, and "was with them for the drugs." She described the murder scene to Zillioux, stating "So much blood. I couldn't see or think of anything except blood ... " She asked Zillioux not to repeat what had been said. Id. at 5693-98.

4) Charles Underhill, another friend of Stoeckley's in Nashville, testified that Stoeckley told him, while she was in a state of emotional distress, "[t]hey killed her and the two children. They killed the two children and her." Id. at 5712-13.

5) James Gaddis, a Nashville police officer to whom Stoeckley was providing information concerning drug traffic, testified that Stoeckley confided to him that she had been at the scene of the MacDonald murders and knew who was involved. She said that one of the participants drove
a blue Ford Mustang. Id. at 5704-06.

6) Robert A. Brisentine, an Army investigator, testified that he interviewed Stoeckley in April, 1971. Stoeckley confessed that she had been present during the MacDonald murders but that she had not actively participated. She also offered to reveal the names of the participants and the circumstances surrounding the killings if granted immunity from prosecution. Subsequently,
after telling Brisentine that it rained hard right after the murders, Stoeckley said "I have already said too much," and recanted her statements. Brisentine also recalled that "she knew about the blood on the bed." Further, at one point during the interview, Stoeckley told Brisentine that "the hippie element was angry with Captain MacDonald as he would not treat them by prescribing methadone for their addiction to drugs. Id. at 5717-23.

7) Wendy Rouder, one of MacDonald's trial counsel, testified that she visited Stoeckley in the wake of a report that Stoeckley had been assaulted shortly after she had testified. Id. at 5929. Rouder testified that during the course of their conversation, Stoeckley acknowledged that she had "a memory" of "standing at the couch [in the MacDonald home] holding a candle. ... Asked whether she had ever lost her sense of guilt concerning the murders, she replied, "No, what do you think I have taken all these damn drugs for?" Asked why she would not state her recollections in court, Stoeckley replied, "I can't with those damn prosecutors sitting there." Id. at 5934, 5937.

 

[byn63]

henri you are proving our point. Helena lied, fabricated, told fibs and whoppers, had a penchant for telling tall tales and was doped up so high most of her teenage years that she tragically shortened her own life drastically. Helena was NOT a credible witness and NONE of her statements to third parties could be considered any more credible PLUS they were hearsay and thus inadmissible. Seriously, which story do you think we should believe? I favor the one where she says she watched mac himself murder his family.

 

[Pacal]

henri you are proving our point. Helena lied, fabricated, told fibs and whoppers, had a penchant for telling tall tales and was doped up so high most of her teenage years that she tragically shortened her own life drastically. Helena was NOT a credible witness and NONE of her statements to third parties could be considered any more credible PLUS they were hearsay and thus inadmissible. Seriously, which story do you think we should believe? I favor the one where she says she watched mac himself murder his family.

Helena was all over the map about what happened and most of her accounts talk about being drugged out during it and further one version of the events she gave was that they were trying to get drugs from MacDonald and it all went horribly wrong. And then there was the version in which she claimed to have had sex with MacDonald.

There is no reason to take her statements seriously in the slightest.

 

[Henri McPhee]

henri you are proving our point. Helena lied, fabricated, told fibs and whoppers, had a penchant for telling tall tales and was doped up so high most of her teenage years that she tragically shortened her own life drastically. Helena was NOT a credible witness and NONE of her statements to third parties could be considered any more credible PLUS they were hearsay and thus inadmissible. Seriously, which story do you think we should believe? I favor the one where she says she watched mac himself murder his family.

The point is that under the federal rules of criminal procedure and evidence Helena's statements were admissible. Judge Dupree refused to admit the statements. That was clearly erroneous. It was a mistrial and a wrong verdict and it should have been reversed by the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court. I think we should believe Helena's statement to her lawyer Leonard that she was in the MacDonald house when the MacDonald murders took place.

Personally, I believe that what she said to the Stoeckley seven witnesses was basically true though it might have been embellished with stuff like candles dripping blood statements, and couldn't remember talk, that is if it ever looked possible she might get arrested.

There is more about this matter from that University of Pennsylvania Law Review:

Judge Murnaghan wrote that, in his view,
the testimony regarding Stoeckley's statements should have been admitted,
and that "MacDonald would have had a fairer trial" had those
statements been admitted." Despite his uneasiness, however, Judge
Murnaghan was "not prepared to find an abuse of discretion by the
district court" and thus he concurred in the judgment."5
MacDonald filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court,9
" the fourth such petition arising from his
case.9
" MacDonald's argument for reversal was that the Fourth Circuit
had erred in its ruling on the Stoeckley statements under Rule
804(b)(3) and the due process clause.9 The Supreme Court denied
certiorari. 99

The remainder of this Comment demonstrates that Rule
804(b)(3)'s corroboration requirement was misinterpreted by the MacDonald
court and that the jury should have been permitted to hear
evidence of Stoeckley's exculpatory statements.100 The Supreme Court
should have granted certiorari because a definitive Supreme Court ruling
on the meaning of Rule 804(b)(3)'s corroboration requirement is
needed to settle the confusion among the circuits 01 and because review
of MacDonald's conviction by the highest court in the land seems particularly
appropriate.

 

[Pacal]

I agree that Helena Stoeckley lied like a trooper if there was any chance of her ending up in prison for sixty years without parole as sometimes happens in America. She was quite happy to pin the blame on MacDonald. The point is that she made statements over the years in which she named names and described exactly what happened. That should never have been disregarded by the bungling detectives in the Army CID and FBI.

Judge Dupree was clearly erroneous on a point of law in describing Helena as untrustworthy when it came out after the trial that Helena was used as an informant by the Army CID and by the Nashville police. Detective Beasley had described her as his most reliable informant.

Perhaps Helena's most reliable statement was to her lawyer, Leonard, at the time of the trial. She was assured that she was protected by lawyer and client confidentiality, which happened while she was still alive, a bit like a priest's confessional box confessions are supposed to be confidential. Leonard later said the prosecution never proved its case to which Murtagh typically accused him of being an alcoholic among other things.

There is a bit about this matter in a MacDonald case document:

May I point out that Helena also "lied like a trooper" about being in the MacDonald home and of course her different versions of what happened in the apartment vary considerably from each other and contradict MacDonald version of events. And of course this ignores all the evidence that Helena denied being involved or said she could not remember what happened because she was so doped up at the time. That combined with the lack of evidence of any intruders would make it very unlikely that Helena was there that night at all.

And of course the prosecution proved it's case in that MacDonald was convicted. And of course citing a 30+ year old law review article that studiously ignores the fact that court after court found no error in the exclusion of the worthless testimony of the seven, whose evidence is rightly regarded has hearsay, doesn't add much. After all assuming that Helena did in fact say those things all it proves is she said those things not that they are true and given the lack of evidence of intruders they most definitely are not true. And the trial judge faced with Helena saying she couldn't remember and was so drugged up that her memory was a mess what would the point have been to allow these useless pieces of evidence. Frankly the jury would have seen very quickly what a mess Helena was and discounted this hearsay evidence has worthless, which it was and is.

So was Helena reliable when she claimed to have had an affair with MacDonald? Was Helena reliable when she stated she was afraid of the chief defence lawyer Siegal?

 

[byn63]

The point is that under the federal rules of criminal procedure and evidence Helena's statements were admissible.

No, henri the statements WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE.

Judge Murnahan, writing the dissenting opinion said he thought Judge Dupree should have admitted the statements BUT that Judge Dupree was NOT in error. He had the decision to make, and his decision to NOT admit the hearsay statements was not reversible error. Helena's stories did not match the hearsay statements and they didn't match each other AND most importantly they didn't match the story inmate gave.

Once again, which story do you want us to believe from Helena? IF I have to believe one (other than I was too doped up to have any idea where I was, but I was not involved versions) then I choose to believe the one where she stated I watching him (inmate) kill his family. He did it!

 

[JTF]

Big Ball Of Nothing

HENRIBOY: In regards to inmate's ridiculous tale of hippie home invaders, you've failed to produce a single piece of corroborative data. No lab documentation sourcing a known intruder suspect to these horrific crimes. No secondary source for Stoeckley's drug-induced fantasies. For over a decade, the totality of your posts have focused on innuendo and the opinions of other MacDonald advocates. That nonsense is enough to satisfy bloggers, but has no bearing on the conclusions drawn in the CID/FBI labs and within the legal system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

No, henri the statements WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE.

Judge Murnahan, writing the dissenting opinion said he thought Judge Dupree should have admitted the statements BUT that Judge Dupree was NOT in error. He had the decision to make, and his decision to NOT admit the hearsay statements was not reversible error. Helena's stories did not match the hearsay statements and they didn't match each other AND most importantly they didn't match the story inmate gave.

Once again, which story do you want us to believe from Helena? IF I have to believe one (other than I was too doped up to have any idea where I was, but I was not involved versions) then I choose to believe the one where she stated I watching him (inmate) kill his family. He did it!

This is ridiculous. Are you now going to tell me that the police must no longer use informants because they have a repulsive appearance and are incapable of telling the truth and may be drug addicts and untrustworthy? Get real. A detective is as good as his informants.

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review distinctly said that Judge Dupree, the trial judge, was clearly erroneous on a point of law when he refused to admit the Helena Stoeckley statements. That's a serious matter and it was very serious for Jeff MacDonald. The purpose of a murder trial is to elicit the truth, not to conceal the truth so that an innocent man gets convicted. That's against the federal rules of evidence. It was a mistrial and the wrong verdict.

At the 1979 trial MacDonald lawyer Segal desperately tried to get Stoeckley to tell the truth but she refused to be frank candid and open for obvious reasons.

The matter is mentioned in a legal document:

After all of these individuals had testified without the presence of the jury, the District Court excluded the evidence. It ruled the statements inadmissible hearsay because untrustworthy."

 

[Henri McPhee]

This is an example of how Helena Stoeckley tried to fend off Segal's desperate cross-examination at the 1979 trial:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q What I was asking, Ms. Stoeckley, was, you did tell us of having some conversations with Bill Posey, other than the one you mentioned between then and August of 1970, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q I would ask you, did any of those conversations involve the subject of the MacDonald murders?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did any of those conversations involve where you were and what you had done between midnight and 5:00 a.m. on February 17th?

MR. BLACKBURN: Your Honor, we would OBJECT to leading in the questioning of the witness.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did they involve that subject matter?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember now what you said to Mr. Posey about those matters?
A Not specifically, no.
Q Do you recall anything that you told him during that period of time as to where you were between midnight and 5:00 a.m. on February 17, 1970?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Do you recall what you said to him?
A I just told him I did not know where I was.
Q Did you tell him anything else that you now remember saying about where you were between midnight and 5:00 a.m.?
A No, sir.

 

[Henri McPhee]

This is one of my previous postings on the MacDonald case. It provides a possible explanation for how Mazerolle's jail records vanished, and how a mysterious piece of paper appeared in the case to say Mazerolle was in jail when Detective Beasley said he was out on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders. That later fooled Fred Bost, and it was reported in newspapers and magazines as giving Mazerolle an iron-clad alibi:

I hope I'm not offending Shill by repeating a posting of his. I think this Shill post is intelligent and relevant to the Mazerolle mystery in the MacDonald case, and about Mazerolle's prison records, which Judge Dupree in a MacDonald appeal seemed to think proved Mazerolle's innocence.

Detective Beasley was convinced he saw Mazerolle out of jail at the time of the MacDonald murders. Mazerolle was supposed to appear in court at that time of the MacDonald murders on a drugs charge. Detective Beasley was supposed to be a witness in the Mazerolle drugs case, but that never happened for some strange reason. Then Mazerolle went on the run for several months until he was imprisoned for a short time on another charge in a different part of America.

Helena Stoeckley seemed pretty sure Mazerolle was involved in the MacDonald murders, though I suppose MacDonald prosecutors would then say that was spite and revenge by Helena for Mazerolle beating her up.

The annoying aspect of this is that Mazerolle now seems to be prospering as some kind of businessman, unsuspected I think in New Jersey, while the innocent Dr. MacDonald has been rotting in prison for the past thirty years.

This is from Shill:

"So, Busch did bond out, but records show at a price not near what was set by the judge.

So what I am implying is that those involved with his release from prison where paid the actual amount of Busch's bond, a million dollars, but only recorded the five/fifteen hundred(?) shown on records, and pocketed the rest.

So there starts the cover up of this case because of money being scammed. Who knows if bonds were being regularly paid, pocketed, and recorded on record as paid only as a small amount to hide it. The guys running the prison could have been making millions of dollars taking a cut of bonds.

But now they do this with a suspect that is high profile, and people start poking around. Not only do they not want to be discovered they are stealing the bond money, but they will also be associated with letting a notorious killer loose for money."

 

[HSienzant]

This is one of my previous postings on the MacDonald case. It provides a possible explanation for how Mazerolle's jail records vanished, and how a mysterious piece of paper appeared in the case to say Mazerolle was in jail when Detective Beasley said he was out on bail at the time of the MacDonald murders. That later fooled Fred Bost, and it was reported in newspapers and magazines as giving Mazerolle an iron-clad alibi:

"So, Busch did bond out, but records show at a price not near what was set by the judge.

So what I am implying is that those involved with his release from prison where paid the actual amount of Busch's bond, a million dollars, but only recorded the five/fifteen hundred(?) shown on records, and pocketed the rest.

So there starts the cover up of this case because of money being scammed. Who knows if bonds were being regularly paid, pocketed, and recorded on record as paid only as a small amount to hide it. The guys running the prison could have been making millions of dollars taking a cut of bonds...

You, and the original poster, don't know how bonds work. If bail is a million dollars, only a small portion of that must be paid up front to the bond agent to bail a person out. The remainder is due *only if the person fails to show for the court ordered hearing or trial, etc.*

Bond agents, also referred to as "bond dealers"[3] have a standing security agreement with local court officials, in which they agree to post an irrevocable "blanket" bond, which will pay the court if any defendant for whom the bond agent is responsible does not appear. The bond agent usually has an arrangement with an insurance company, bank or another credit provider to draw on such security, even during hours when the bank is not operating. This eliminates the need for the bondsman to deposit cash or property with the court every time a new defendant is bailed out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_bondsman

I suggest you investigate this further before you post on this subject again (checking the footnotes in the above cited wiki article might help tremendously). You are going nowhere fast with this 'missing / scammed bond money' argument.

Hank

 

[Henri McPhee]

I suggest you investigate this further before you post on this subject again (checking the footnotes in the above cited wiki article might help tremendously). You are going nowhere fast with this 'missing / scammed bond money' argument.

Hank

There is something suspicious in the fact that Mazerolle's jail records have vanished. Mazerolle was due to appear in court on the day after the MacDonald murders, but he never appeared, and there is no record of him ever having appeared in court to be sentenced. He was then imprisoned for a few months several months later in somewhere like Georgia, on a separate charge. There are no records of that either, or of him being questioned about the MacDonald murders then. As far as documentation is concerned Mazerolle has no criminal record, apart from his initial arrest by Detective Beasley in North Carolina. No true copy of Mazerolle's time in jail has ever been presented, except for some mysterious piece of paper. That is not hard documentary evidence..

The point Shill was making is that jail, and prison officials, are willing to let killers loose if the money is right. Detection of this matter can be difficult because the prisoner and the corrupt prison officials have every reason to keep their mouths shut about it.

There is a bit in New Zealand law about this matter:

259 Using altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive
(1)
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, knowing any document to have been made or altered in the manner and with the intent referred to in section 258, with intent to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any other person,—
(a)
uses, or deals with, or acts upon, the document; or
(b)
causes any person to use or deal with, or act upon, the document.
(2)
For the purposes of this section, it does not matter that the document was altered or made outside New Zealand.
Compare: 1961 No 43 s 266B
Section 259: replaced, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).

 

[JTF]

Big Ball Of Nothing

HENRIBOY: In regards to inmate's ridiculous tale of hippie home invaders, you've failed to produce a single piece of corroborative data. No lab documentation sourcing a known intruder suspect to these horrific crimes. No secondary source for Stoeckley's drug-induced fantasies. For over a decade, the totality of your posts have focused on innuendo and the opinions of other MacDonald advocates. That nonsense is enough to satisfy bloggers, but has no bearing on the conclusions drawn in the CID/FBI labs and within the legal system.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com