AMEN!
Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
- Status
AMEN!
Hello, Time To Walk The Walk
HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that singular lab document or court decision that proves beyond ALL doubt that hippie home invaders committed this brutal crime and that the CID/FBI/DOJ railroaded the Ice Pick Baby Killer. I know that I've waited 15 years for you to provide this documentation. I know that you know that no such documentation exists. I know that you are intellectually bankrupt and derive enjoyment from wearing the black hat on multiple true crime forums. I know that you will NEVER provide the proof to back your claims because of your innate cowardice.
Despite it all, I will never let you off the hook for your reliance on rinse and repeat logic. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of this claim. For the past 15 years, your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden doesn't change the nature of the challenge. If you can't meet the challenge, show some class by admitting that your proof consists of your personal bias, opinion-based source material, and your cursory knowledge of the facts of this case.
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.
2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.
3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.
4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.
5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
HENRIBOY: Still waiting on that singular lab document or court decision that proves beyond ALL doubt that hippie home invaders committed this brutal crime and that the CID/FBI/DOJ railroaded the Ice Pick Baby Killer. I know that I've waited 15 years for you to provide this documentation. I know that you know that no such documentation exists. I know that you are intellectually bankrupt and derive enjoyment from wearing the black hat on multiple true crime forums. I know that you will NEVER provide the proof to back your claims because of your innate cowardice.
Despite it all, I will never let you off the hook for your reliance on rinse and repeat logic. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of this claim. For the past 15 years, your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden doesn't change the nature of the challenge. If you can't meet the challenge, show some class by admitting that your proof consists of your personal bias, opinion-based source material, and your cursory knowledge of the facts of this case.
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.
2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.
3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.
4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.
5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
Personally, I think Eisman was a brilliant lawyer and competent attorney, even though he was an aggressive defense attorney. I don't know the American law on that hair sample business but I believe MacDonald was within his rights. There is something highly suspicious about the way Eisman was shot dead when he was involved in some kind of drugs trial in Philadelphia in about 1982. I'm not saying he was bumped off by Murtagh and Blackburn, but the case was never really solved. MacDonald is quite reasonably fearfully aggrieved about all the lawyers in the MacDonald case because he was wrongly convicted and imprisoned.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
How odd, a convicted murderer denying his own responsibility for his crimes and placing the blame on everyone else.
Why, that has never happened before in the history of the world! Every other convicted murderer has definitely taken responsibility for their own actions and accepted the verdict of the court.
Why, that has never happened before in the history of the world! Every other convicted murderer has definitely taken responsibility for their own actions and accepted the verdict of the court.
You would believe him brilliant. Aggressive is not the word for his tactics, dirty, rotten, under-handed, scheming, childish, moronic would be better words to use when describing Eisman.
The government had a subpeona to take hair, blood, fingerprint exemplars and inmate refused to do so....THIS WAS NOT WITHIN HIS RIGHTS. When the court says you will submit - that is what one does. Why would he refuse to provide samples if he was innocent? That is the main point, he wasn't innocent and he didn't want to provide samples because he knew it would show him guilty.
Nothing suspicious about a man committing suicide. Sad, but not suspicious.
Of course you would LIKE to create an entirely new conspiracy to attach to your already long ago disproven theory of the crimes. Just like your man crush you like to throw in the kitchen sink in order to make people forget that the victims Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy should be the focus. Inmate butchered his family, one of the lawyers in the case committed suicide. Independent incidents and FACTS.
If he is aggrieved then he should take his various lawyers to Court and attempt to prove ineffective counsel. HOWEVER, he'd never be able to prove that the lawyers were ineffective and the evidence backs up that he is in jail because he murdered his family and therefore was RIGHTFULLY convicted.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
This matter is highly technical, and as I have said before I don't know the American law with regard to the matter. From what I can gather a suspect has the right to remain silent, or to no comment under some kind of Amendment. There have been cases on these American murder case TV shows where suspects have refused to provide DNA, or to take a polygraph. Where is the REFERENCE that the government had a subpoena? In the UK a person who is arrested now automatically has his or her fingerprints and DNA taken at the police station. It may be similar in America now, but that was way back in 1970.
Charlie Brown's Teacher
HENRIBOY: Hate to break it to ya, but not one of inmate's rotating band of lawyers was able to produce a single lab document that definitely sourced an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. No sourced DNA, hairs, fibers, fingerprints, and/or footprints. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Let's talk turkey, your posts are simply rinse and repeat arguments narrated by Charlie Brown's teacher.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
HENRIBOY: Hate to break it to ya, but not one of inmate's rotating band of lawyers was able to produce a single lab document that definitely sourced an evidentiary item to a known intruder suspect. No sourced DNA, hairs, fibers, fingerprints, and/or footprints. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Let's talk turkey, your posts are simply rinse and repeat arguments narrated by Charlie Brown's teacher.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I just think the MacDonald case is a bit like this so-called Russian collusion in American and British elections, which is high on opinions, and sadly lacking in facts and evidence.
inmate's case IS NOT LACKING IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE. THAT is the part that you seem to fail to understand. IT IS FACT that if the Court issues a subpeona for your hair, fingerprints, palmprints, blood, etc. THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO THE TAKING OF THESE SAMPLES. PERIOD. There is nothing technically complicated about it. It is very simple:
1. Prosecution presents to the Judge the request for whatever samples they believe they require.
2. Judge hears the request, reviews the legal precedents on the matter and either issues a subpeona or does not.
3. Judge issues the subpeona and it is given to the defense (including lab where the samples are to be taken)
4. Subject of the subpeona shows up and a technician takes the samples as required.
that is not complex at all. you can't try to play off every item as a complex issue. the issue is simple. inmate viciously, brutally, and savagely slaughtered his family, he was rightfully convicted, his behavior before and after conviction are the actions of a person who is conscious of his guilt, he was tried before a jury of his peers and was convicted. He is in prison, he is rightfully convicted.....period
1. Prosecution presents to the Judge the request for whatever samples they believe they require.
2. Judge hears the request, reviews the legal precedents on the matter and either issues a subpeona or does not.
3. Judge issues the subpeona and it is given to the defense (including lab where the samples are to be taken)
4. Subject of the subpeona shows up and a technician takes the samples as required.
that is not complex at all. you can't try to play off every item as a complex issue. the issue is simple. inmate viciously, brutally, and savagely slaughtered his family, he was rightfully convicted, his behavior before and after conviction are the actions of a person who is conscious of his guilt, he was tried before a jury of his peers and was convicted. He is in prison, he is rightfully convicted.....period
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Two senior members of the government have pled guilty, others have been charged.
That all the facts have not been publically revealed prior to trial is NOT unusual, nor is it proof that there is no evidence.
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
In your man crush's (and your) dreams. The two things the case wasn't short of were facts and evidence. That turned out to be ice-pick-baby killer's undoing: FACTS and EVIDENCE - which all pointed straight at him.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I just think that's ignorance of the law. Eisman was a skilled professional advocate, and he understood that the Army CID could not just get a forced admission from MacDonald under the law as it then was. I agree that the police can be hamstrung if a witness, or a suspect, refuses to provide evidence when properly called upon to do so, but the law is the law. There is no mention of a subpoena in the MacDonald case records that I have ever seen. The law may have changed since then. There is a bit of legal waffle about the matter at this website:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+...e+32+investigation:+a+military...-a0368281585
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Talk about ignorance of the law! The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights has not been repealed.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It's only been in effect since 1789 so maybe it has escaped your notice.
Hollow Chatter
HENRIBOY: Eisman's capability as a lawyer? The process of obtaining hair samples? Hypotheticals regarding the Article 32? Yup, none of your dodging tactics pass muster nor do they have any relationship to the clear challenge put before you. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim.
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.
2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.
3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.
4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.
5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
HENRIBOY: Eisman's capability as a lawyer? The process of obtaining hair samples? Hypotheticals regarding the Article 32? Yup, none of your dodging tactics pass muster nor do they have any relationship to the clear challenge put before you. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim.
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.
2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.
3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.
4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.
5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Last edited:
Promises, Promises
BYN: The landlord even argued that inmate had put forth some sort of timeline. LOL. Henriboy would then add that inmate sounded "sincere" and "truthful" when providing his non-existent timeline. When I quoted the line from Fatal Vision that inmate's story was a mess filled with "inconvenient details," he attacked Joe McGinniss and bragged that he would post a timeline demonstrating inmate's innocence. No such post was forthcoming and similar to the forensic/legal challenge, he has taken the coward's route by not walking the walk.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
BYN: The landlord even argued that inmate had put forth some sort of timeline. LOL. Henriboy would then add that inmate sounded "sincere" and "truthful" when providing his non-existent timeline. When I quoted the line from Fatal Vision that inmate's story was a mess filled with "inconvenient details," he attacked Joe McGinniss and bragged that he would post a timeline demonstrating inmate's innocence. No such post was forthcoming and similar to the forensic/legal challenge, he has taken the coward's route by not walking the walk.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
The proof is that MacDonald is innocent. You take everything on the evidence and not on opinions, unless those opinions come from a real expert. Stombaugh was not a real expert.
As far as I can remember, the two little murdered girls did have their bodies raised at some stage, presumably by the Army CID, or FBI, in order to extract their hair samples. I suppose there must have been some sort of subpoena there, or due legal process, possibly involving a judge. It looks like MacDonald's hair samples were eventually obtained, but I can't now remember how that was eventually achieved. I don't trust the honesty of the FBI hair and fiber department. The MacDonald defense were never allowed to double check all that.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
You do realize that the evidence presented by the prosecution and NOT refuted by the defence is the proof that MacDonald is GUILTY.
Your opinion that he is not guilty is worth less than the electrons used in preparing this statement.
What Is The Color Of The Sky In Your World
HENRIBOY: Your special brand of half-baked logic is both amusing and pathetic. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim. Unlike inmate's rotating band of lawyers, the government walked the walk and provided concrete proof of inmate's guilt. This included hairs, fibers, bloody footprints, bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions, and DNA evidence. If you want to end your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden, all you have to do is...
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.
2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.
3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.
4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.
5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
HENRIBOY: Your special brand of half-baked logic is both amusing and pathetic. Again, the burden is on YOU to provide proof of your central claim. Unlike inmate's rotating band of lawyers, the government walked the walk and provided concrete proof of inmate's guilt. This included hairs, fibers, bloody footprints, bloody fabric/non-fabric impressions, and DNA evidence. If you want to end your self-imposed exile from meeting this burden, all you have to do is...
1) Produce a decision by a District Court Judge and/or Appellate Court Judge that concludes that a CID and/or FBI agent committed perjury in this case.
2) Produce a decision by a 4th Circuit Court Judge and/or United States Supreme Court Judge that concludes that Judge Dupree and/or Judge Fox did not provide inmate with a fair trial and/or evidentiary hearing.
3) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fiber was a microscopic match and/or matched the chemical composition of clothing worn by a known intruder suspect.
4) Produce a lab document that concludes that a hair was a microscopic match and/or matched the DNA profile of a known intruder suspect.
5) Produce a lab document that concludes that a fingerprint, palmprint, or footprint matched a print exemplar from a known intruder suspect.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Asserting a falsehood and going on about how opinions can only come from an expert is a hilarious juxtaposition.
By your own standard your opinion can't be considered because you're not an expert in any discipline involved in this or any other criminal case.
Is the above your farewell message?
- Status