Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

Neither Stombaugh of the FBI, or Judith Bunker, were qualified to testify and give their opinions as experts in a murder case about fabric impressions. It was the usual nonsense. Laber and Craig Chamberlain of the Army CID lab were both very young and inexperienced at the time. Janice Glisson of the Army CID lab was a qualified serologist, but she was sidelined at the trial and told to keep her mouth shut because she was in disagreement with the prosecution:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979-08-07-stombaugh.html

B E N C H C O N F E R E N C E

MR. SEGAL: Your Honor, we have no further objection that this witness be heard by the Court as a witness on hairs and fiber identification.
We think there is an inadequate basis to qualify him as an expert in the so-called area of fabric damage or fabric impressions. We can find nothing in the examination to support his claim of being a certified expert in those areas.
He can't name a single case where he has ever been accepted by any court as an expert in those areas. And absent such corroboration, it is generally vague and self-serving to call himself an expert in those matters. He has no academic training that he can point to. He says he read some FBI bulletin in that regard.
For those reasons, I would suggest most seriously that he should not be received in that area.

 

[JTF]

Making Things Up

The landlord's ongoing shell game (e.g., refusing to address inculpatory evidence) has never nor will ever fool those who have taken the time to read the documented record. Judith Bunker never testified in this case due to the FACT that she agreed with the blood stain analysis put forth by Laber and Stombaugh. She simply told Segal that her testimony would do more harm than good to his client.

Thornton was certainly qualified to analyze the blood stains on the pajama top, yet Segal seemed to put more faith and/or stock in the expertise of Bunker. I would bet the farm that if Bunker disagreed with Laber/Stombaugh, the landlord would hail her as being THE expert on blood stain/spatter analysis.

In terms of Janice Glisson, the landlord is creating another in a long line of fantasy narratives. His claim that Glisson was "told to keep her mouth shut," has no basis in reality. There are several affidavits by Glisson that contradict this claim and prove beyond ALL doubt that the landlord is a serial fabricator.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

In terms of Janice Glisson, the landlord is creating another in a long line of fantasy narratives. His claim that Glisson was "told to keep her mouth shut," has no basis in reality. There are several affidavits by Glisson that contradict this claim and prove beyond ALL doubt that the landlord is a serial fabricator.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

It's true that Janice Glisson was no whistleblower, but there can be no doubt that she was in disagreement about all that stuff about when the pajama top and pajama pocket were torn to supposedly indicate a violent argument.

Glisson was a qualified serologist, unlike Laber at that time, and the FBI should have presented a qualified expert serologist in court rather than the hair and fiber man Stombaugh, whose integrity along with Malone of the FBI has been questioned in the past, including his work for the Warren Commission. Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry, or JTF and Byn, could present the forensic evidence in court. It's against the rules of evidence and procedure which states that only real experts can give their opinions in court.

This is what Silverglate has said about the matter in the past:

What MacDonald’s lawyers did not know prior to trial — indeed, until the Murphy FOIA expedition — was that the government’s evidence files contained laboratory bench notes written by CID lab technician Janice S. Glisson that identified the presence of long, blonde synthetic wig hairs in a brush at the murder scene. In addition to bolstering MacDonald’s account of the murders, the presence of these blonde fibers would have corroborated the defense’s hearsay testimony and required Judge Dupree to allow the witnesses to Stoeckley’s repeated confessions to be heard by the jury.

 

[JTF]

A Bunch Of Blahs And A Big Fat Yawn

The landlord has a penchant for providing an answer to a question that has yet to be posed. For example, there hasn't been a single mention of Janice Glisson being a "whistleblower," yet the landlord states that "Glisson was no whistleblower." Wow. In addition, the landlord repeats the erroneous claim that Glisson disagreed with Laber's analysis of the pajama top pocket.

The FACT is that Glisson NEVER analyzed the pajama top pocket, so the landlord is simply concocting a fantasy narrative for his own personal enjoyment. Paul Stombaugh was not a serologist nor did he ever claim to be one. If the landlord had bothered to read Stombaugh's trial testimony, he would have noticed the FACT that Stombaugh told Segal that he relied on the CID's blood analysis in this case.

Last time I checked, Stombaugh's hair/fiber analysis in the JFK case has never been questioned by the FBI. The only people who question it are conspiracy nuts who wouldn't know the first thing about the techniques used by Stombaugh to compare hairs/fibers.

Silverglate can bluster with the best of them, but his hyperbolic presentations to Judge Dupree and the 4th Circuit Court fell on deaf ears. Silverglate couldn't prove that the source of the saran fibers was a cosmetic wig, he couldn't prove that the government knew about Glisson's analysis, and he couldn't prove that the presence of synthetic fibers at the crime scene corroborated inmate's tale of mythical hippie home invaders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

The FACT is that Glisson NEVER analyzed the pajama top pocket, so the landlord is simply concocting a fantasy narrative for his own personal enjoyment. Paul Stombaugh was not a serologist nor did he ever claim to be one. If the landlord had bothered to read Stombaugh's trial testimony, he would have noticed the FACT that Stombaugh told Segal that he relied on the CID's blood analysis in this case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The point is that Stombaugh, who was not a qualified serologist, manufactured that so-called evidence about when the pajama top was torn, and Laber seems to have fabricated out of whole cloth all that waffle about the pajama pocket in order to incriminate MacDonald with false evidence. It was never a big issue at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. You must remember that Laber was PAID by the prosecution and Army CID and ordered what to testify by Stombaugh and the FBI.

I suppose you can partially blame Segal and Dr. Thornton for not seeing it coming, but 'what if' arguments and perjury should be taken into consideration in any careful preparation.

There is a bit about this sort of thing on the internet:

Unlike most witnesses, who can only give evidence on questions of fact, expert witnesses are allowed to draw inferences and give opinions based on their experience, exposing them to accusations of bias. That danger is exacerbated by an adversarial system pitting one set of experts against the other, and the fact experts are engaged and paid by one side (ESR forensic scientists are paid by police and defence experts are paid by Legal Aid, via defence lawyers).

In two recent cases (see On The Case) judges have berated both Crown and defence experts for failing to have an open mind.

 

[JTF]

Thought Disorganization

Not surprisingly, the landlord spouts conspiracy narratives when backed into a corner by documented fact. I realize that the landlord's lone reason for posting on this case is to garner a reaction from those who have taken the time to read the documented record. He doesn't really care about the truth in this case and is simply deriving enjoyment from HIS perception that he is effectively "poking the bear."

A few comments on his disjointed musings.

- Stombaugh's analysis of the 4 bisected blood stains fell into the category of fabric damage, not serological analysis.

- As mentioned in prior posts, Stombaugh testified at trial that he accepted the CID's blood typing results and that the focus of the 4 blood stains in question was whether the stains formed a contiguous whole.

- The claim that the blood stain analysis was "manufactured" has no basis in fact and is simply the landlord's way of avoiding the stark reality that the analysis inculpates inmate.

- The landlord uses the same tactic when addressing Laber's analysis of the pajama top pocket. If there was any validity to the claim that Laber fabricated his serological report, Bernie Segal would have certainly cross-examined Laber at the 1979 trial. The FACT that Segal did NOT cross-examine Laber speaks to the strength of Laber's analysis.

- The landlord provides no proof of his claim that "Laber was PAID by the prosecution and Army CID and ordered what to testify by Stombaugh and the FBI." This claim demonstrates that the landlord has no real interest in discussing the facts of this case AND it invalidates ALL of his bizarre claims.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Garrison]

I can only admire the stamina of those responding to Henri in this thread having seen his performance elsewhere on the forum. A collection of non-sequiturs, quotes from increasingly ancient books and a shameless refusal to acknowledge his numerous errors.

 

[BStrong]

I can only admire the stamina of those responding to Henri in this thread having seen his performance elsewhere on the forum. A collection of non-sequiturs, quotes from increasingly ancient books and a shameless refusal to acknowledge his numerous errors.

Site record for fact-free posting and a potential world record for fantasy construction and self contradictory posts.

 

[desmirelle]

I can only admire the stamina of those responding to Henri in this thread having seen his performance elsewhere on the forum. A collection of non-sequiturs, quotes from increasingly ancient books and a shameless refusal to acknowledge his numerous errors.

Personally, I have an allergy to stupidity that makes me break out in sarcasm if I've not taken the meds for it.

 

[Henri McPhee]

- Stombaugh's analysis of the 4 bisected blood stains fell into the category of fabric damage, not serological analysis.

- As mentioned in prior posts, Stombaugh testified at trial that he accepted the CID's blood typing results and that the focus of the 4 blood stains in question was whether the stains formed a contiguous whole.

- The claim that the blood stain analysis was "manufactured" has no basis in fact and is simply the landlord's way of avoiding the stark reality that the analysis inculpates inmate.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

There were lurking doubts about all this, especially from Janice Glisson at the Army CID lab, and at the AFIP lab. Stombaugh was not qualified in fabric damage and neither is JTF, or Laber at the time. The 4th Circuit judges should get a thorough grasp of the subject:

"Regarding the blood stains that bisect the tear, Bost states on page 148 of the hardcopy edition that Janice Glisson, years earlier, "had explored the same bloodstain theory and had come to a different conclusion. She had determined that the stain edges on either side of the rips did not intersect, that the pajama top was, therefore, stained after it was ripped, not before."

 

[Henri McPhee]

There is a bit in that English Justice book published in 1932 by a solicitor and police court advocate, which applies to the MacDonald case. Not much has changed in that regard:

The Royal Commission report, however goes on to say : "But responsible witnesses with experience on the bench have stated that there is occasionally a tendency on the part of the police, when they genuinely believe a prisoner to be guilty, to strain the evidence against him so as to secure his conviction." This is certainly true, and the word "occasionally" may be omitted. Several times I have known guilty persons escape in consequence of the prosecution being bolstered up by evidence the falsity of which was easily exposed. But it is easy to see that innocent persons may be put in grave peril by such means.

These 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court judges should be given training in forensic evidence, and false forensic evidence by unqualified people so that they become thoroughly acquainted with the whole business, and especially of forensic fraud. They are supposed to be judicial lawyers, not just rubber stampers.

 

[lionking]

The forebearance of some in this thread is amazing.

Because of this thread I have re-read Fatal Vision and Final Vision as well as the major pro- and anti-guilty websites thinking I must have missed something.

I haven't. This was and still is a slam dunk conviction. People who don't see this are delusional. And that's being kind.

 

[Garrison]

These 4th Circuit judges and Supreme Court judges should be given training in forensic evidence, and false forensic evidence by unqualified people so that they become thoroughly acquainted with the whole business, and especially of forensic fraud. They are supposed to be judicial lawyers, not just rubber stampers.

But then they could all see through your ineptitude and misinformation so how would that help your cause?

 

[JTF]

Santa Claus

According to inmate's advocates, the main difference between a beloved mythical home invader (e.g., Santa Claus) and the Stoeckley Seven is that neither Mr. Claus nor inmate are "capable" of causing harm to another human being.

Taking a deep breath...

- Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, Stombaugh testified at the 1979 trial as an expert in hair, fiber, fabric impression, AND fabric damage analysis.

- Janice Glisson has NEVER testified as a defense and/or government witness in regards to fabric damage analysis.

- Glisson admitted to me that she disagreed with Stombaugh's analysis of 4 bisected blood stains, BUT she stated that she and every other CID staff member felt that inmate was guilty of murdering his family.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/conversations_glisson.html

- Stating that appellate court judges should be trained in the forensic sciences is beyond absurd. They simply take the lead of the FBI which has set the bar at sourced and unsourced evidence. With the exception of unsourced DNA present in a case involving a sexual assault, the FBI considers unsourced hair/fiber/print evidence to be "forensically insignificant."

- Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, the government effectively used this paradigm to keep inmate in his concrete bunker. The government has labeled this unsourced evidence as "household debris."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Taking a deep breath...

- Much to the chagrin of inmate's advocates, Stombaugh testified at the 1979 trial as an expert in hair, fiber, fabric impression, AND fabric damage analysis.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/conversations_glisson.html

[/url]

You people miss the point. You have to be a real expert before you give opinions in a deadly place like a court otherwise it's a mistrial. Witnesses other than experts must speak only as to facts in court. It's what is known technically as the rules of evidence and procedure. Byn and JTF are not real experts.

Segal questioned Stombaugh on his credentials as a real expert at the 1979 trial. The answers were not satisfactory:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979-08-07-stombaugh.html

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can you recall how many cases, if any, that you were found qualified as an expert by a court somewhere on the matter of fabric impressions as distinguished from fabric damage?
A No, sir; I was qualified as an expert in many courts and in many cases throughout this country in that field.
Q What I asked was can you tell us how many cases were you qualified as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Here again, sir, you are asking for a number which I cannot give you. I don't keep records like that.
Q All right, could you tell me, please, the name of one case and what court that was that you were qualified, as an expert in fabric impressions?
A Sir, I couldn't even tell you the cases that I have just testified in Greenville recently. It's just something you don't remember. I don't.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A I'm finished.
Q Would I be correct in saying that you are unable to name any specific case or any specific court in which you were found to be a qualified expert in fabric impressions?
A That is correct, sir. I would have to go back to Washington, D.C., and go through all kinds of records just to try to find the cases I testified in.
Q On fabric impression. I am only asking you about one subject now.
A I know.
Q Well, how about -- you say you have been in Greenville since 1976, up to now. How many cases have you testified in Greenville as an expert on fabric impressions?
A I can't recall having one down there, sir. Most of these cases are in hairs and fibers.

 

[Henri McPhee]

This reply from Stombaugh to Segal does not fill one with any confidence with all the empty waffle on the internet forums about blood evidence from Stombaugh:

Q You weren't trained in, say, doing any types of blood analysis.
A No, sir; the Serology Unit did the blood work in the FBI Laboratory.

 

[Border Reiver]

You people miss the point. You have to be a real expert before you give opinions in a deadly place like a court otherwise it's a mistrial. Witnesses other than experts must speak only as to facts in court. It's what is known technically as the rules of evidence and procedure. Byn and JTF are not real experts.

Segal questioned Stombaugh on his credentials as a real expert at the 1979 trial. The answers were not satisfactory:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/tt-1979-08-07-stombaugh.html

You miss the point - expert witnesses are accepted as experts by the court. Prior to being allowed to give expert evidence, persons present their credentials to the court and the other side challenges them. If the challenges are credible, then the court does not accept them, or the decision to accept them as expert witnesses can be a ground for appeal.

The inmate was unable to successfully challenge the prosecution's experts at trial and haven't overturned the expert testimony on appeal.

That is a good indication that he can't.

 

[JTF]

Zero For Seven And Counting

Piggybacking Border's post, inmate has had more chances at overturning expert testimony than any convicted murderer in history. His current round of legal machinations is his 8th shot at obtaining a new trial.

To put this scenario in it's proper context, the totality of the physical evidence used to convict Wayne Williams of multiple homicides in the Atlanta Child Murder Case was 17 carpet fibers and fibers from the clothing worn by two of the victims.

Despite the limited amount of SOURCED evidence in this case, Williams has only received two chances at obtaining a new trial. Compare that scenario to the MacDonald Case which includes over 1,000 evidentiary items presented at the 1979 trial. The pajama top alone shed over 100 fibers at the crime scene with most of those fibers found under/near bodies and under bedcovers.

Once DNA technology was applied to the Williams Case, not a single evidentiary item was sourced to an individual other than Wayne Williams. In the MacDonald Case, two hairs found on the children's bedding and a limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

It's all trust me I'm in the FBI. It's Egyptian or Iranian justice.

 

[desmirelle]

It's all trust me I'm in the FBI. It's Egyptian or Iranian justice.

Table pounding at its lamest, Henri.

(If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if neither is on your side, pound on the table.)