Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[BStrong]

HENRIBOY: You have yet to...

- Name a single viable suspect that was "disregarded" by the CID and/or FBI

- Produce a single salient rebuttal to the FACT that the CID reinvestigation and early 80's FBI investigation were beyond thorough

- Provide a single lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect

- To produce a single appellate court decision whose conclusion was that Judge Dupree was biased

- To produce a single appellate court decision whose conclusion was that Judge Fox was/is biased

- To produce a single district and/or appellate court decision whose conclusion was that the FBI committed "forensic fraud"

For the past 13 years, the totality of your posts consist of mythical narratives based on your musings/opinions of data produced by dubious sources. Outside of the occasional copying and pasting of selected trial testimony from John Thornton or Charles Morton, most of your source material is a mixture of hyperbolic rhetoric by MacDonald advocates or self-serving commentary by individuals who have gotten their butts kicked by investigative journalists and/or the appellate courts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

You're much more patient than I am.

13 years of this nonsense?

 

[JTF]

Unfortunately...

BStrong: For the most part, Henriboy's 2003 posts on this case mirror his posts in 2017. The major difference between past/current Henriboy is that 10 years ago, he would leave MacDonald case discussion boards for extended periods of time after being hammered by case researchers. Now, he appears immune to the factual beat downs he receives on a daily basis. IMO, his current postings are merely to stir the pot and I don't think he really believes in MacDonald's innocence. It has become a game to him which indicates that there is a huge void in his social life.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[BStrong]

BStrong: For the most part, Henriboy's 2003 posts on this case mirror his posts in 2017. The major difference between past/current Henriboy is that 10 years ago, he would leave MacDonald case discussion boards for extended periods of time after being hammered by case researchers. Now, he appears immune to the factual beat downs he receives on a daily basis. IMO, his current postings are merely to stir the pot and I don't think he really believes in MacDonald's innocence. It has become a game to him which indicates that there is a huge void in his social life.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

I concur.

There are folks that are immune to facts, but before the 'net they basically were laughed at and went away, or found fellow travelers in ignorance and had their little cliques, but the 'net turned ignorance and delusional thinking into a cottage industry and so far I see no end in sight.

 

[byn63]

henri has not, to my knowledge, left the other discussion boards voluntarily. At the old A&E boards he would "join" and post for a while and then start getting more and more off track. (pretty much the same things as he posts now, and in the same sort of cycles) Eventually, he'd cross the line and a moderator would ban him. A few months later he'd come back and within 2 or 3 posts we'd know it was him. Albert Webb and Arthur Thorpe were the 2 names I remember most. Albie and Artie - we wondered if these names belonged to one of multiple.......well you can guess I'm sure. Finally another poster told Artie or Albie that she'd tossed a nickel into the corner of the round room "over there" and told him to go find it.......and that was the last we saw of him until he popped up as henri on a couple of boards.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Bryant Lane now believes your man crush is guilty.

Now, answer JTF's challenge. You've dawdled long enough.

The Lanes may have changed their minds about Greg Mitchell confessing to them, but there are several other credible witnesses who are still convinced Mitchell confessed to them about the MacDonald murders.

There needs to be an impartial judge and jury on the MacDonald case, and an extremely competent judge, Not biased Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree, or Judge 'corrupt bias' Fox, or rubber stampers from the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court, or inaccurate newspaper reports. Judge Dupree just excluded the Helena Stoeckley confessions. That was clearly erroneous. I don't think the Greg Mitchell confessions were ever mentioned in court, except at that 2012 evidentiary hearing. It's a serious injustice.

There is a bit about all this on the internet by somebody called Michael Newton:

In addition to suppressing physical evidence at trial the FBI also apparently misrepresented statements from critical witnesses during MacDonald's appeals. A forensic pathologist, Dr. Ronald Wright, reported that Colette MacDonald was clubbed by a left-handed assailant standing in front of her, whereas her husband was right-handed.

In 1984 FBI agent James Reed prepared an affidavit falsely stating that Dr. Wright had "retracted" his opinion. Wright contradicted that claim, but MacDonald's attorneys did not learn of the lie under oath until October 1989.

G-men also tinkered with the statements of witness Norma Lane, who reported that suspect Greg Mitchell (a left-handed soldier and addict) had confessed the murders in her presence, in 1982. An FBI affidavit claimed that Lane was uncertain whether Mitchell had referred to events at Fort Bragg or in Vietnam, a falsehood Lane flatly denies.

 

[BStrong]

The Lanes may have changed their minds about Greg Mitchell confessing to them, but there are several other credible witnesses who are still convinced Mitchell confessed to them about the MacDonald murders.

There needs to be an impartial judge and jury on the MacDonald case, and an extremely competent judge, Not biased Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree, or Judge 'corrupt bias' Fox, or rubber stampers from the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court, or inaccurate newspaper reports. Judge Dupree just excluded the Helena Stoeckley confessions. That was clearly erroneous. I don't think the Greg Mitchell confessions were ever mentioned in court, except at that 2012 evidentiary hearing. It's a serious injustice.

There is a bit about all this on the internet by somebody called Michael Newton:

My cat understands more about the criminal justice system through osmosis than you do through whatever passes for study in your fantasy world.

Your man crush is guilty. No amount of projecting your incompetence onto the parties involved in the case will change that.

 

[Henri McPhee]

My cat understands more about the criminal justice system through osmosis than you do through whatever passes for study in your fantasy world.

Your man crush is guilty. No amount of projecting your incompetence onto the parties involved in the case will change that.

I disagree with you. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. I have just been reading the drivel and prejudice and violent prejudice of posters on that biased yuku MacDonald forum. They need a good kick up the backside. All this 'court of public opinion' and trial by television is all very well, but their needs to be rules about it if there is to be a fair trial. An innocent man should be able to get out of prison. The MacDonald case was biased.

There is a bit about this matter by a lawyer as it applies to Singapore at:

www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dont-turn-court-trials-into-public-circuses

JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE

In a society governed by the rule of law, judges must come to an independent decision based on the law and his or her objective assessment of the evidence presented in court. In doing so, the judge is assisted by opposing counsel and must be free of influence from outside the courtroom. It would be worrying if the people with the loudest voices or deepest pockets can appear to apply pressure on our judges to reach a certain decision.

Professional judges, being legally trained, are assumed to be immune to pressures from the media or from public opinion. But where there was a media circus leading up to a judge's decision, questions are bound to be raised as to the objectivity of the final outcome, even if the judge was not in fact so influenced.

An important tenet of our justice system is that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done. If the public perceives that there is a possibility that a legal outcome may be influenced by public lobbying, the level of trust in our judiciary as a neutral arbiter of disputes will be affected. Furthermore, everyone with an interest or view in the outcome will feel obliged or free to weigh in, especially if others are expressing a contrary view.

Do we really want a potentially unruly public debate about the guilt or liability of an individual or are we better off with the present system where the judge attempts to come to the outcome he or she best feels fits the law and the evidence without the danger of any undue external influence?

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?

Even if no actual prejudice is caused to the trial, this is often of little comfort to parties caught in the cross-hairs of excessive public speculation on the outcome of the trial.

A court of law presumes a suspect to be innocent until proven guilty, but the court of public opinion often operates the opposite way.

The infringement into the privacy of the individual is also irreparable. Netizens nowadays are formidable in using their "CSI" skills (a term inspired by the popular US drama series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) for online vigilantism. Before the courts have even pronounced on the guilt of the suspect, netizens have dug up and posted personal information of the suspect online to name and shame them, sometimes actively encouraging other netizens to join in the campaign. Often, innocent family members and friends are also dragged into the media spotlight.

 

[BStrong]

I disagree with you. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done. I have just been reading the drivel and prejudice and violent prejudice of posters on that biased yuku MacDonald forum. They need a good kick up the backside. All this 'court of public opinion' and trial by television is all very well, but their needs to be rules about it if there is to be a fair trial. An innocent man should be able to get out of prison. The MacDonald case was biased.

There is a bit about this matter by a lawyer as it applies to Singapore at:

www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dont-turn-court-trials-into-public-circuses

I know it's hard to imagine that the love of your life might be a murderer, but he is. You can disagree till the cows come home but that doesn't mean you know more than the cows.

As long as the "court of public opinion" is in session, why the hell should anyone listen to you? you're certainly no investigator, lawyer or judge.

What a lawyer has to say about Singapore is almost as useless as what you have to say about your man crush.

 

[byn63]

I disagree with you. Justice must seem to be done as well as seen to be done.

Of course you disagree but you are still wrong.

I have just been reading at the yuku MacDonald forum. All this 'court of public opinion' and trial by television is all very well, but their needs to be rules about it if there is to be a fair trial. An innocent man should be able to get out of prison.

An innocent man can get out of prison, if an innocent man actually WENT to prison. However, in this case inmate is far from innocent. He had his presumption of innocence and he had his fair trial before a jury of his peers. At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses (both lay and expert) during the approximately 7 weeks of trial. The jury convicted inmate in just under 6 hours. The evidence AGAINST inmate is even stronger now, with the highly inculpatory DNA evidence.

the yuku board is not about "court of public opinion" as most of the posters are highly educated on the FACTS of this case having read the Article 32 Transcripts, Grand Jury Transcripts, Trial Transcripts, Investigative documentation, seen the autopsy (and photos), crime scene photos, etc. There are lawyers and investigators, laymen and researchers, and they KNOW the case FACTS unlike yourself (and of course there is a lone macolite that is clueless to the facts - for example she posted in December that inmate was going to receive a pardon from President Obama before he left office. roflmao - first - no way; second - he is not eligible for a pardon under the rules of pardon; and THIRD - accepting a pardon means you are and HAVE accepted/acknowledged your GUILT.)

 

[desmirelle]

They I need a good kick up the backside.

FITY

 

[BStrong]

FITY

I doubt he could find his with both hands and an anatomy book.

 

[JTF]

You Can't Help Yourself, Can You?

HENRIBOY: You have yet to...

- Name a single viable suspect that was "disregarded" by the CID and/or FBI

- Produce a single salient rebuttal to the FACT that the CID reinvestigation and early 80's FBI investigation were beyond thorough

- Provide a single lab document that sources an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect

- To produce a single appellate court decision whose conclusion was that Judge Dupree was biased

- To produce a single appellate court decision whose conclusion was that Judge Fox was/is biased

- To produce a single district and/or appellate court decision whose conclusion was that the FBI committed "forensic fraud"

For the past 13 years, the totality of your posts consist of mythical narratives based on your musings/opinions of data produced by dubious sources. Outside of the occasional copying and pasting of selected trial testimony from John Thornton or Charles Morton, most of your source material is a mixture of hyperbolic rhetoric by MacDonald advocates or self-serving commentary by individuals who have gotten their butts kicked by investigative journalists and/or the appellate courts.

Your hero is about to celebrate his 36th year in prison and no amount of debunked talking points put forth by the Errol Morris' of the world will magically release MacDonald from his concrete bunker. Spew away with your fanciful tales of mythical hippie home invaders who ignore a closet full of drugs, don't inflict a single wound on their main target that requires suturing, and slaughter 3 people without leaving a trace of their presence at the crime scene. Your hero isn't going anywhere.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Your hero is about to celebrate his 36th year in prison and no amount of debunked talking points put forth by the Errol Morris' of the world will magically release MacDonald from his concrete bunker. Spew away with your fanciful tales of mythical hippie home invaders who ignore a closet full of drugs, don't inflict a single wound on their main target that requires suturing, and slaughter 3 people without leaving a trace of their presence at the crime scene. Your hero isn't going anywhere.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

That's not absolutely correct. That's trial by media. The rule of law with regard to trial by media seems to be a bit different in America and England, and even Scotland and Australia. The point about it is that it can affect a fair trial which has happened in the MacDonald case, and the JonBenet Ramsey case, with all these biased MacDonald and JonBenet forums, and people giving their silly opinions and violent prejudices.

There needed to be an eminent barrister judge with a strong personality on the MacDonald case. Unfortunately there is the obstinate reluctance of officialdom to concede the possibility of error. I don't think Obama had the power and influence to release the innocent MacDonald, but Clinton somehow managed to pardon his drug dealing pal Rich when he left office.

There is a bit about all this at:

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

Instances[edit]
It has been said that the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case attempted to try the case in the court of public opinion by making unsupported allegations to the media.[5] In the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, it was alleged that parties were using court pleadings as press releases.[9]

 

[BStrong]

That's not absolutely correct. That's trial by media. The rule of law with regard to trial by media seems to be a bit different in America and England, and even Scotland and Australia. The point about it is that it can affect a fair trial which has happened in the MacDonald case, and the JonBenet Ramsey case, with all these biased MacDonald and JonBenet forums, and people giving their silly opinions and violent prejudices.

There needed to be an eminent barrister judge with a strong personality on the MacDonald case. Unfortunately there is the obstinate reluctance of officialdom to concede the possibility of error. I don't think Obama had the power and influence to release the innocent MacDonald, but Clinton somehow managed to pardon his drug dealing pal Rich when he left office.

There is a bit about all this at:

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

Don't you ever get tired of looking into the mirror?

The judges involved in the trial and conviction and in the appeals process have discharged their duties faithfully and your man crush is exactly where he should be.

Your own posts are a wealth of contradiction. The poster least likely to concede error is you.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Don't you ever get tired of looking into the mirror?

The judges involved in the trial and conviction and in the appeals process have discharged their duties faithfully and your man crush is exactly where he should be.

Your own posts are a wealth of contradiction. The poster least likely to concede error is you.

Would you like to have your case dealt with by any of the judges in the MacDonald case if you were wrongfully convicted? Judge Fox has been in semi-retirement since 2001. He has a closed mind. Judge Fox is not fair-minded. I doubt he has an abstract sense of justice. I agree with what Carol White has said about the MacDonald case on the internet:

The evidence

Much of the forensic evidence collected by the Army at
the time of the incident is called into question, by sloppy
laboratory procedures. Questionable assumptions were made
on blood and urine typing, all to the disadvantage of Dr.
MacDonald. Certain vital evidence such as tissues samples
found under Mrs. MacDonald's fingernails, and clothing worn
by Dr. MacDonald on the night of the murder, mysteriously
disappeared. Only a partial analysis of fingerprints found on
the scene was accomplished. Blood tests made by the Army
were later disputed by the FBI, but evidence of the disagreement
was not made available to the defense, although it
would have materially affected the prosecution case. Evidence
has now been uncovered showing that fiber samples
supposed to have come from MacDonald's own pajamas may
actually have been of wool rather than silk, substantiating the
presence of outsiders.

During the trial itself, the judge prevented Dr. MacDonald
from introducing psychiatric evidence on his own
behalf. The judge's pretext was a counter-evaluation by Dr.
Brussel, in which the latter claimed that MacDonald was
lying about the events of that night. The judge ruled that the
jury would only be confused to hear contradictory testimony.
Likewise the evidence of 35 witnesses who could have substantiated
evidence connecting the Satanic cult to the murder
was withheld as hearsay. Finally, Helen Stoeckley requested
immunity so that she could testify to what really occurred
that night, but this request was rejected out of hand by the
government, who claimed that her testimony would be irrelevant.

The MacDonald case should be reopened, not only so
that justice is done on his behalf, but so that the role of the
FBI and the Justice Department is brought to light.

 

[byn63]

Would you like to have your case dealt with by any of the judges in the inmate case if you were wrongfully convicted?

Henri that is exactly the point INMATE WAS NOT WRONGFULLY CONVICTED. Judge Dupree and Judge Fox at the District Court level were/are (respectively) outstanding jurists. Inmate has had his presumption of innocence and then some. He was tried before a jury of his peers and CONVICTED TIMES THREE. The prosecution presented over 1,100 pieces of evidence via 28 witnesses both lay and expert. At trial in 1979, the prosecution estimated it had used approximately 60% of the inculpatory evidence available. IF he were retried today the case against him would be even stronger.

FACTS are FACTS. The FACT is that EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS DIRECTLY AT INMATE AS THE SOLE PERPETRATOR.

 

[BStrong]

Would you like to have your case dealt with by any of the judges in the MacDonald case if you were wrongfully convicted? Judge Fox has been in semi-retirement since 2001. He has a closed mind. Judge Fox is not fair-minded. I doubt he has an abstract sense of justice. I agree with what Carol White has said about the MacDonald case on the internet:

I'll take your post for exactly what it's worth.

-0-.

Every assertion you make is more applicable to you than your intended target.

 

[BStrong]

To give Henri a little credit, I did just find this:

Mastro Geppetto the wood carver had this to say on the internet:

That-a- judge, he-a have-a the testa dura! Disgraziade! Brutale bastardo!

Case closed.

 

[JTF]

Living In A Fantasy World

Poor inmate. Judge Fox just won't cut him a break. Right? Ah, no. In their 2011 remand, the 4th Circuit Court did not require that Judge Fox have an evidentiary hearing on the "evidence as a whole," but this "close-minded" Judge threw inmate yet another legal bone. Not only did Judge Fox provide inmate with yet another forum to regurgitate past claims, he allowed inmate to present the kitchen sink at the hearing.

Despite this gift from Judge Fox, the defense didn't present a single forensics and/or DNA expert at the hearing. The defense focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony to combat the mass of inculpatory evidence in this case. The defense was given ample opportunity to present an evidentiary item or items that directly linked Stoeckley, Mitchell or D.B. Cooper to the crime scene, but all Judge Fox heard were cricket noises.

Similar to Henriboy, the defense was challenged to come up with the goods and they failed to do so. The 2012 evidentiary hearing was no different than the 1979 trial in that ALL of the sourced evidence pointed to Jeffrey MacDonald as being the lone perp.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[BStrong]

Poor inmate. Judge Fox just won't cut him a break. Right? Ah, no. In their 2011 remand, the 4th Circuit Court did not require that Judge Fox have an evidentiary hearing on the "evidence as a whole," but this "close-minded" Judge threw inmate yet another legal bone. Not only did Judge Fox provide inmate with yet another forum to regurgitate past claims, he allowed inmate to present the kitchen sink at the hearing.

Despite this gift from Judge Fox, the defense didn't present a single forensics and/or DNA expert at the hearing. The defense focused on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony to combat the mass of inculpatory evidence in this case. The defense was given ample opportunity to present an evidentiary item or items that directly linked Stoeckley, Mitchell or D.B. Cooper to the crime scene, but all Judge Fox heard were cricket noises.

Similar to Henriboy, the defense was challenged to come up with the goods and they failed to do so. The 2012 evidentiary hearing was no different than the 1979 trial in that ALL of the sourced evidence pointed to Jeffrey MacDonald as being the lone perp.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Preferably from deceased sources...