Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr Thornton was in disagreement with Stombaugh and Shirley Green with regard to their manufactured evidence. Dr. Thornton testified that the pajama folding experiment was conceptually unsound, contrived and impossible. Dr. Thornton testified that Stombaugh's bare left shoulder impression had 'no credible possibility' and that was supposed to prove MacDonald moved bodies.

From Dr. Thornton's testimony at the MacDonald trial:

"Stombaugh then said, Area C on the sheet...conforms to a bloody left hand - the two portions of it here, here and here." Stombaugh said, as to area D it conforms to a bloody right hand." Let me ask you first of all, do you agree with his opinion and his conclusion?

A No, I think that is exceedingly unlikely.
Click to expand...
 
No evidence was manufactured and no matter how many times you repeat the nonsensical claims to the contrary it is not going to change the FACTs. I notice you cherry pick your data even more tightly than before....FACT - Thornton agreed with more of Stombaugh's testimony then he disagreed with and he never said it was not possible. In point of fact, since Bernie delayed having the evidence looked at by experts, they didn't have time to closely examine everything so his "exceedingly unlikely" in all probability would have been different if he'd had the time.
 
JTF said:
Speaking of Thornton, he made several admissions that cast inmate and the defense team in a negative light.

1) At trial, he agreed with Paul Stombaugh's conclusions regarding bloody fabric impressions found on Areas A, B, and F of the blue bedsheet.

2) Inmate denied ever touching the blue bedsheet on 2/17/70, yet BOTH Stombaugh and Thornton concluded that inmate's right pajama cuff formed two separate impressions and Colette's left pajama cuff formed a singular impression.

3) All three impressions were formed in Colette's Type A blood.

4) Thornton didn't put in a request for examinations of hairs and fibers in this case. His rationale was that the FBI had a history of competence in hair and fiber analysis.

5) Thornton admitted that he had "unfettered access" to evidence in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

It's no use posting a lot of blarney on the internet with no references. Thornton may have agreed with Stombaugh about area A but that proved nothing. Thornton has been quoted as saying that the FBI had discovered mistakes with regard to blood in other cases in the past. The recent history of the FBI hair and fibers department, and Malone in particular, has become a public scandal but nothing has been done about it. It's a typical all must be well attitude. Thornton might have had "unfettered access" to the forensics but he was not allowed to examine it.

This is part of Thornton's testimony at the 1979 trial. It doesn't indicate agreement with Stombaugh to me:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q* Dr. Thornton, you have the display there with the sheet -- the top bedsheet.* In Area "A" --
A* (Interposing) I am sorry.* "A"?
Q* I beg your pardon.* In Area "F."* Mr. Stombaugh stated that he found an impression which he concluded conformed to the left sleeve of Colette MacDonald's pajama top.* Do you agree with that conclusion by Mr. Stombaugh?
A* Yes, I do.
Q* Is there anything unique about that impression?
A* No.
Q* Based upon the available evidence you have, you have no reason to disagree that that could have been created by the pajama top of Colette MacDonald?
A* I agree.
Q* Now, I ask you to look at the area marked "E" on the pajama top, would you please identify that?* That is an area which has been referred to by Mr. Stombaugh as a shoulder impression.* Let me see if I can find you the section of his testimony.

MR. MURTAGH:* Your Honor, I don't believe that is what Mr. Stombaugh said.

MR. SEGAL:* I am going to read exactly what his words were, Your Honor.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q* Refer to page 4140 of the testimony.* He was asked the question about Area "E."
*****"Area 'E' is the appearance of a bare left shoulder and the bottom of it has the appearance of a torn left cuff of a pajama top, the trailing out portion here."
*****Dealing first of all with the statement that Area "E" has the appearance of a bare left shoulder, do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
A* I disagree.
Q* What is the basis of your own opinion in this regard?
A* I am unable to replicate an impression that has the appearance of "E" on that item by using a shoulder, neck, or clavicle region of a human being.* I can replicate it to some extent by folding the fabric over an area of bloody cloth.
Q* Let me go back over what you just told us.* First of all, is it your opinion that it is not in any reasonable fashion a bare -- it is not an impression made by a bare left shoulder as far as you can ascertain?
A* That is correct.* I don't think there is any credible possibility that it could be a bare left shoulder.

MR. MURTAGH:* OBJECTION to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT:* I will strike the word "credible."* Don't consider that.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q* Do you find evidence that it is inconsistent with that Area "E" having been made by a bare left shoulder?
A* Yes.
Click to expand...
 
Point of Fact: JTF referenced areas A, B, and F (Alpha, Beta, Foxtrot), not area E (Echo).
So, you're spouting nonsense, as usual.

And I find it amusing that you did (posted something without a 'link') what you chided JTF for doing earlier in the selfsame post.
 
Last edited:
Justice Marshall at the Supreme Court had right judgement in regard to the MacDonald case. Two other Supreme Court judges agreed with him. This is part of Marshall's dissenting opinion on the MacDonald case, and it makes sense to me. In a way it's a criticism of Judge Dupree:

Because of this delay, a speedy trial violation could be found in this case, even without proof of actual prejudice at trial. The record is clear that the delay caused MacDonald to suffer other forms of substantial prejudice, including continuing anxiety, intrusive publicity, legal expense, and disruption of a new civilian career.

The proof of actual prejudice at trial in this case, although somewhat speculative, does buttress MacDonald's speedy trial claim. It is possible that Stoeckley's trial testimony would have been less confused and more helpful to MacDonald at an earlier date.

This testimony was critical to MacDonald, whose principal defense was that she was one of a group of intruders who committed the murders. Although Stoeckley was hardly a reliable witness, she did testify at trial that she had no memory of the events that night, in contradiction to some of her earlier out-of-court statements. See MacDonald II, 632 F.2d, at 264-265. Her claim of loss of memory obviously became more credible with the passage of time.

It is likewise possible that the inevitable "coaching" of Government witnesses prior to their testimony would have had lesser adverse impact on the defense, and could have been minimized more effectively by cross-examination, had the trial occurred earlier. 8 See id., at 263-264. The unusual facts of this case, recited by the majority, suggest that slight differences in trial testimony may well have influenced the verdict.
Click to expand...
 
Produce The Goods

Despite his best efforts, the landlord of MacFantasy Island has not been able to magically erase the documented record in this case. This is also the first time that the landlord has pulled the link issue out of his weathered hat and the reason for that desperate ploy is crystal clear.

When you consistently accuse the government and the appellate courts of bias, yet rely on defense-related blogs/articles/websites for your erroneous claims, you're comfortable with being a hypocrite. In regards to the following claims, please provide corroborative data/links.

- Affidavits and/or testimony that references influences by flibbertigibbets

- Affidavits and/or testimony that references the term "silly cows"

- An appellate court decision stating that inmate did not receive a fair trial

- An appellate court decision stating that there was an "usurpation of the functions of counsel."

- Post-2005 affidavits and/or 2012 evidentiary hearing testimony that produced a link between this case and the death of Princess Diana

I will be waiting in breathless anticipation to your references to, ahem, the documented record.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
- An appellate court decision stating that inmate did not receive a fair trial

I will be waiting in breathless anticipation to your references to, ahem, the documented record.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

This is highly technical. There is a danger of getting into a quagmire of legalese, and sending anybody who reads this to sleep.

To try to put it into plain English for primary school children, the 4th Circuit judges expressed doubts about MacDonald having a fair trial when they ordered biased Judge Fox to hold an evidentiary hearing. which happened in about 2012. Judge Fox had initially refused this and he had no intention of ever saying Judge Dupree, or Murtagh, were wrong. I'm not American, but from what I can gather the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling in about 2006 that appeals should encompass the evidence as a whole. Judge Fox just wanted to restrict the evidence as a whole to the Jimmy Britt matter. There is more to the MacDonald case than Jimmy Britt.

There is legal waffle about all this if anybody can understand it at:

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/court/2011/2011-04-19_doc110_COA_decision.html

The district court clearly went too far, however, when (at the government’s urging) it applied the constraints of § 2244(b)(3), § 2255(f), and § 2244(b)(1) to substantially limit the evidence it would consider as part of the "evidence as a whole" in conducting its assessment of the Britt claim. In so doing, the court wrongly conflated MacDonald’s proffered evidence with his claim for relief. That is, the court viewed the various items of proffered evidence — such as the DNA test results, the affidavit of the elder Helena Stoeckley, the blond synthetic hair-like fibers, and the three affidavits describing confessions made by Greg Mitchell — as being submitted in support of claims separate and distinct from the Britt claim and each other.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Judge Fox did not want any DNA testing in the MacDonald case. He had to be ordered to do so by the 4th Circuit judges, the appeal court, and then he only allowed a few items to be DNA tested, and then he and Murtagh made sure that took about ten years. Goodness knows if the forensics were tampered with in the meantime. There was no DNA testing when the MacDonald murders took place. It's corrupt bias.

There is a bit of background to the timeline of all this on the internet:

May 1, 1996
FOIA attorney Anthony Besceglie uncovers 1400 new pages of case documents, despite government claims that all information had been previously released to the defense. Michael Malone's report stating he found no pajama top fibers on the club is found.

April 16, 1997
The Wall Street Journal runs a front page story detailing misconduct by Michael Malone in a number of cases, including the MacDonald case.

April 22, 1997
Attorneys Silverglate&Good file a new appeal based on Malone's faulty testimony. Part of the appeal requests DNA testing of all biological evidence
.
April 25, 1997
Judge Malcolm Howard recuses himself as DuPree's replacement, because he helped draft a memorandum for the prosecution in earlier court proceedings against MacDonald.* Judge James C. Fox, who was a personal friend of Judge DuPree's, and gave the eulogy at his funeral, takes the case, and signs a statement saying that he can be impartial despite his friendship with DuPree.

October 17, 1997
Judge Fox has denied all defense motions, but the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals grants one defense motion- the motion for DNA testing.
Click to expand...
 
Henri, if you'd provide links, we could read it for ourselves instead of being "treated" your excised, out-of-context snippets. After all, you did chide JTF for not posting links, the least you can do is follow your own advice......
 
Creating Lies In A Dream World

You are the gift that keeps on giving. Where to begin?

The 4th Circuit's decision that inmate received a fair trial is hardly "highly technical." If you had bothered to read the trial transcripts, it was apparent that Judge Dupree gave Bernie Segal ample opportunities to present rebuttal witnesses and he set aside large chunks of time for Segal to cross-examine government witnesses. Despite this leeway, inmate was still convicted in less than 7 hours and provided the impetus for the 4th Circuit deciding that inmate received a fair trial.

The 4th Circuit's 2011 remand had NOTHING to do with the mythical bias of Judge Fox. If you had bothered to read the 4th Circuit's decision, you would know that the Court's decision had NOTHING to do with the merits of the government's case. Their rationale for the decision was that Judge Fox did not consider the "evidence as a whole."

Judge Fox did NOT have to order an evidentiary hearing, but he decided to allow the kitchen sink to be presented at the hearing. He didn't want to give the 4th Circuit Court any reason to prolong this legal circus. Leave it to the defense to not take advantage of this opportunity for they didn't present a single forensics expert at the hearing.

In terms of the DNA timeline, I've corrected you on your erroneous claims at least 10 times in the past 14 years. So, for the 11th time...

In 1999, Judge Fox ordered a DNA protocol hearing and he allowed the defense to list their preferred labs for DNA testing. The AFIP was eventually selected as the DNA testing lab and they were on the defense teams short list of preferred labs. The defense team asked for 62 exhibits to be DNA tested, with a majority of those exhibits being blood exhibits.

Brian Murtagh pointed out to Judge Fox that the blood exemplars from Colette, Kimmie, and Kristen were used up at autopsy. In essence, Judge Fox had no choice but to focus the DNA testing on hair exhibits. Judge Fox then ordered the packaging of the exhibits to be photographed/videotaped by the FBI.

A year later, the AFIP began macroscopic examinations and divisibility analysis of the hair exhibits. Subsequent legal haggling lasted about 6 months and shortly after that was resolved, 9/11 occurred and that put DNA testing on hold. Despite your assertions to the contrary, neither Judge Fox nor Brian Murtagh were the reasons for the delay in DNA testing.

The FACT is that the AFIP was the lab responsible for DNA testing remains found at Ground Zero. They were also the designated lab in DNA testing the remains of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your tampering charge is another narrative driven by your fantasy-driven thought process. It defies logic to assert that a lab chosen by the defense would purposely tamper with evidence nor do you specify the kinds of tampering allegedly performed by the AFIP.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
desmirelle said:
Henri, if you'd provide links, we could read it for ourselves instead of being "treated" your excised, out-of-context snippets. After all, you did chide JTF for not posting links, the least you can do is follow your own advice......
Click to expand...

The Thornton trial testimony is at:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1979-08-14-thornton-tt.html

and:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/1979-08-15-thornton-tt.html

The MacDonald case timeline which I quoted is at:

www.educate-yourself.org/jm/macdonaldcasetimeline.shtml
 
JTF said:
The FACT is that the AFIP was the lab responsible for DNA testing remains found at Ground Zero. They were also the designated lab in DNA testing the remains of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your tampering charge is another narrative driven by your fantasy-driven thought process. It defies logic to assert that a lab chosen by the defense would purposely tamper with evidence nor do you specify the kinds of tampering allegedly performed by the AFIP.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

An innocent person should have an impartial judge and jury. Judge Fox is biased. The foreman of the jury in the MacDonald case was biased.

Judge Fox never wanted any DNA testing and he never wanted an evidentiary hearing in 2012. He had to be urged and urged to do so by the 4th Circuit judges at the request of MacDonald lawyers.

Murtagh would only allow a few items to be DNA tested which he could then say were too small to be tested, or would not prove MacDonald innocence. The MacDonald lawyers wanted the forensics to be tested by a European lab, but Judge Fox insisted on the American AFIP lab. There was then a delay of several years when MacDonald lawyer Harvey Silverglate in an unseemly wrangle accused an AFIP lab technician of previously saying he thought MacDonald was guilty.

There is a reference somewhere to broken and empty vials being sent to the AFIP lab, which indicates forensic fraud to me.
 
This is what Fred Bost said about the forensic fraud to JTF and how MacDonald was screwed:

Subsequently in October 1997 the court authorized the defense to conduct DNA tests of those hairs and certain other unsourced hairs and selected blood stains. Although the Justice Department was ordered 15 months ago to cooperate with such testing, Murtagh and his crowd continue every means possible to delay the tests.

In their latest paper to the court, dated February 11, 1999, they are requesting still more time to meet requirements. More important, in this latest paper there is a hint they will contend a loss of the hairs taken from the children's fingernails. I base this on the fact that Glisson, in her lab note, indicates she put these critical hairs into labelled vials.. In the government paper, though the writer states: "The vials appear empty; however, in order to be certain this is the case, it will still be necessary to open the vials and examine any remaining contents."

So you see, when it comes to the government screwing MacDonald, the old adage fits perfectly. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Click to expand...
 
Egg On His Face

In that referenced letter and in multiple phone conversations, Fred made a number of claims that turned out to be false and/or resulted in egg on his face. If he were alive today, Fred would certainly disagree with your childish pot shots aimed at Judge Fox. He told me that he was impressed with Judge Fox's decision-making process at the 1999 DNA protocol hearing. His quote to me was, "Phil, he finally gets it." Fred added that ALL of the IMPORTANT hair exhibits were going to be DNA tested by the AFIP.

He predicted that the limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand would match the DNA profile of Greg Mitchell. Whoops. That broken, bloody hair matched the DNA profile of inmate. In terms of the hairs found in the children's fingernail scrapings, Fred's "hint" turned out to be a complete bust. The hair found in Kimmie's scrapings turned out to be animal hair and the hair from Kristen's scrapings was not lost. It was DNA tested by the AFIP and remains one of three unsourced hairs in this case.

Fred's claim that the government was doing everything it could to delay the DNA tests was/is erroneous. How could one delay DNA testing before a lab had been chosen and before the DNA protocol hearing actually took place? You again make false assertions regarding the power that Murtagh wielded in this process. Judge Fox ordered the number of exhibits to be DNA tested, not Murtagh.

In addition, it was the defense, not Judge Fox, who requested that the AFIP DNA test exhibits in this case. In their initial filings, the defense listed Lab Corp and the AFIP as their top choices for DNA testing in this case. Harvey Silverglate must have mind-melded with you in regards to his avoidance of the REAL reason for the delay in the DNA testing. Harvey, the landlord, and every other MacDonald advocate KNEW that the main reason for the delay was 9/11.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Henri McPhee said:
An innocent person should have an impartial judge and jury. Judge Fox is biased. The foreman of the jury in the MacDonald case was biased.
Click to expand...


Well, no matter then because MacDonald wasn't and isn't "an innocent person". If you had any integrity whatsoever you would have at least referred to him as "an accused person" or "a charged person".
 
Personally, I think it's ridiculous for any DNA tests to take ten years. It could all be done nowadays in a few weeks. MacDonald himself wanted the tests to be done by a European lab but I suppose he had no say in the matter. There would have been no law's delay caused by 9/11 then. The delay smells of fraud and tampering.

Neither Judge Fox or Murtagh wanted any DNA testing done and they both did their best to prevent it. Judge Fox had to be forced to order DNA testing by the 4th Circuit judges.

I agree with what somebody called hall wrote on a Google group website in 1998:

Helena left evidence of her presence by fibers from a blond wig. *FBI
hair-and-fiber expert Michael Malone submitted a perjurious affidavit
affirming the prosecution's claim that the fibers were doll hair from Mattel
dolls owned by MacDonald's daughters despite denial by a Mattel expert who
had refused to sign the affidavit. *She complained of the pressure she
suffered in her own affidavit after she refused to sign a false affidavit.

Judge Fox last year turned down an appeal based on the false affidavit for an
evidentiary hearing on numerous showings of falsified and suppressed evidence
and was upheld on appeal this year.

Appeals courts are not much interested in evidence of innocence. *Procedure is
their thing. *Procedure has nothing to do with factual guilt or innocence.
Thank God for DNA. *It is almost unique in being physical evidence that
appeals courts will seriously consider.
Click to expand...
 
AnimalFriendly said:
Well, no matter then because MacDonald wasn't and isn't "an innocent person". If you had any integrity whatsoever you would have at least referred to him as "an accused person" or "a charged person".
Click to expand...

That's ignorance of the law. It's no good being a simpleton about all this and just assuming anybody who is arrested or charged is guilty. You have to be proven guilty.

The matter was discussed in the JonBenet Ramsey case with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood and rookie homicide detective Steve Thomas in the Steve Thomas deposition in 2001:

16 Q. Now, you understand, I trust, the
17 difference between probable cause to arrest
18 someone and sufficient evidence to justify a
19 criminal prosecution to prove guilt beyond a
20 reasonable doubt. Do you know the
21 difference?
Edited by Agatha: 
Trimmed for rule 4
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henri McPhee said:
That's ignorance of the law. It's no good being a simpleton about all this and just assuming anybody who is arrested or charged is guilty. You have to be proven guilty.

The matter was discussed in the JonBenet Ramsey case with Ramsey lawyer Lin Wood and rookie homicide detective Steve Thomas in the Steve Thomas deposition in 2001:
Click to expand...


No, "that" isn't ignorance of the law. And you're the last person on this board who should be calling anyone else a simpleton. I didn't assume anything...I said you should have referred to MacDonald as either an accused person or a charged person which you failed to do. You referred to him as an "innocent" person despite the fact that he was already, nearly 40 years ago, found guilty by a court of law. That he is still "innocent" is your opinion only - nothing more - and certainly not a judicial fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom