Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[desertgal]

There are several biased anti-Ramsey forums on the internet like Forums for Justice and Websleuths and Topix.net JonBenet Ramsey forum, and even Crimeshots. There used to be a pro-Ramsey forum, Jameson's forum, but that is now defunct. There is one pro-Ramsey private forum.

The blood trail and footprints and pajama-like fibers in the MacDonald case do not prove MacDonald did it. Not all the witnesses who know exactly what happened and who have knowledge in relation to the crime are dead.

I know the victims had different blood types but that was mainly used by the prosecution to manufacture a theory that bodies had supposedly been carried in a sheet put forward by the purported expert FBI hair and fiber man and former insurance salesman Stombaugh.

There were never rivers of blood anyway which you would know if you had a thorough grasp of the subject and were acquainted with the whole business of the MacDonald case. To say there must have been footprints of intruders is a silly remark. How many murder cases do you know about where the footprint of the murderer was found at a crime scene? When visitors or other people visit your home they very rarely leave any footprints. It isn't a very clever criminal who leaves any of his blood or fingerprints behind.

About thirty people had tramped across the crime scene in the MacDonald case before there was any analysis of the blood evidence. There was no protection of the crime scene or crime scene manager. That was contamination.

The Army CID must learn how to elicit information from potential suspects and not just to jump to conclusions. They are not professional homicide detectives.

Who are you talking to? You quoted me, but I asked you only about your "grave doubts" in the Ramsey case. I never said any of the above about the Macdonald case, "silly remarks" or otherwise.

Try using the quote function properly in your nonsensical rants.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I'm sorry if it wasn't you who mentioned footprints but you people all seem to say the same sort of thing. I fully appreciate that footprints can have forensic significance but they are rather like fingerprints. Murder investigators hope to find footprints but they do not expect to find footprints unless the murderers get careless.

Kearns of the Army CID was not an experienced homicide detective and he did not get it right in the MacDonald case. He was the goon who was 'sure' MacDonald was lying about Kristen wetting the bed and so he ordered the urine stain to be tested after eighty weeks to somehow prove it was Kim's. You don't have to have an expert opinion to know that a test like that can't possibly be scientifically correct.

Kearns then went to New York to tell the Kassabs that MacDonald was a womanizer. The point is that though you might be a pro-Nazi Catholic, being a womanizer is not necessarily relevant to a murder investigation. What about President Kennedy and Clinton and Hollande of France then?

The blood and fiber evidence is very far from being overwhelming. I agree there was blood supposedly found in strange places, but it can be unfair to ask MacDonald to explain that. It could have come from the murder weapon dripping blood from different victims. He had nothing to do with it. The pajama-like fibers is extremely weak evidence and highly controversial.

There is a bit about this matter on an internet website:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Lisson.htm

"A small brown hair in Colette's left hand.(59) This hair was tested and matched neither MacDonald nor anyone else present at the crime scene. (100)
Both Kimberly and Kristen had brown hairs found under their fingernails. CID lab reports indicate that these hairs did not match one another, nor did they match MacDonald. (59) Both hair samples remained unreported evidence.
In addition to the hair and fiber evidence on the victims, a twenty-two inch synthetic blond wig hair was found on a brush on the telephone seat near where MacDonald said he saw the blond female. (60)

The Boston Globe ran an article about the 1990 effort led by Harvey Silvergate to set aside MacDonald's conviction based on evidence suppressed at the first trial. Evidence outlined in the article includes black wool fibers on Colette's mouth, shoulder, and on one of the murder weapons, all discovered by FBI forensic expert James Frier. The black wool fibers, in addition to several other unidentified green, brown, and white wool fibers, were not matched to any clothes present in the MacDonald home, and were not disclosed by the prosecutor at the trial, according to the court filing. (1)

Fatal Justice states that during the MacDonald trial the prosecution released no evidence or lab reports to the defense. Because the prosecutor, Brian Murtagh, insisted that the lab reports held nothing to support MacDonald's claims, the judge refused to make Murtagh release the lab documents to the defense.(131) The Freedom of Information act released these reports years after the trial ended, providing MacDonald's defense team with a list of potential evidence which was not accurately released to the jury at the MacDonald trial, and therefore could form the basis for an appeal."

 

[JTF]

You're Late To The Party, Pal

As usual, Henri is late to the party. His internet reference was published 10 years before DNA test results sourced that brown hair to Jeffrey MacDonald. Henri's pot shot at Peter Kearns is laughable. Kearns did an incredible job overseeing the CID's massive 2 year investigation and Henri leaves out the fact that during a 1971 interview, Kearns made MacDonald look foolish.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[yodaluver28]

I realize I am repeating this question but what is it that the pro-innocence side is hanging their hat on here. If there is blood all over the place how is it possible that there were intruders at the murder scene that left no footprints in the blood?

It seems like I must not understand something here.

There seem to be two basic types of people in the pro-innocence camp:


1) Conspiracy theorists who think the government had to be involved in the murders and/or coverup because they happened on a military base and anything involving the military is inherently suspicious to them.

2) People, many of them women, who've bought into Jeffrey MacDonald's cult of personality. He's a charismatic sociopath and they are very good at attracting loyalists and groupies. He is particularly skilled at manipulating his.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I don't think the military are necessarily too incompetent to solve a difficult murder. The problem with the MacDonald case is that the military Army CID wrongly thought it was an open and shut case from the start and they then decided Dr. MacDonald did it and they have been fixated on him, and only him, ever since.

There needed to be specialist homicide detectives and a specialist homicide squad on the case who were experienced in following evidence, and in developing suspects. A competent judge was needed to weigh and test the evidence, unlike Judge Dupree and his pal Judge Fox. Judge Dupree once made the stupid remark that it somehow proved Dr. MacDonald was lying about not wearing his glasses during the MacDonald murders because a speck of blood was found on his glasses!

I fully appreciate that being a homicide detective can be a frustrating and stressful job. A homicide detective can know that the talk on the street is that 'Johnny' did it but he is unable to charge or prosecute him because of insufficient evidence and a lack of a confession. That doesn't mean that the police and prosecutors should then manufacture and fabricate evidence and use forensic fraud to secure a conviction, or use third degree methods to secure a confession. That can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

A senior officer in charge of a murder investigation should act in a professional manner and look for hard evidence. That never happened in the MacDonald case. It was a shambles and the evidence was made up.

 

[desertgal]

I'm sorry if it wasn't you who mentioned footprints but you people all seem to say the same sort of thing. I fully appreciate that footprints can have forensic significance but they are rather like fingerprints. Murder investigators hope to find footprints but they do not expect to find footprints unless the murderers get careless.

I don't know what you mean by "you people". My determination of Macdonald's guilt is not wholly based on the absence of intruder footprints, and I never said it was, or anything else about footprints, so there is no "if".

Learn how to read and properly disseminate information, because your conclusions are laughable.

 

[lane99]

...It isn't a very clever criminal who leaves any of his blood or fingerprints behind...

Well you wouldn't expect a group of drug crazed hippies would be particularly clever or conscientious, would you?

Certainly the Manson Family killers left their fingerprints at the Sharon Tate crime scene.
.
.

 

[kookbreaker]

Henri, your entire argument seems to be based on saying things that you have no evidence for. Claims that investigations were 'botched' (without proof) or just handwaving away evidence with the claim that the people who gathered it were 'incompetant'. Nothing you have produce has shown any of these claims to be based in reality. You need to step up your game because right now your arguments reek of people who speak in echo chambers or have never needed to provide evidence of their assertions and just got used to saying them over and over with the assumption that they will be taken as fact.

 

[Rolfe]

Henri and JTF seem just to be talking past each other, posting their different manifestos. It just so happens that JTF's is the one the evidence supports.

Rolfe.

 

[JTF]

The Truth

ROLFE: Actually, I've responded DIRECTLY to Henri and every other MacDonald advocate for the past decade. It doesn't matter if it's an author proclaiming MacDonald's innocence, an attorney representing MacDonald, or a MacDonald groupie spinning his or her special brand of propaganda. I've challenged each and every one of them with documented fact. I enjoy being a minor thorn in the side of the MacDonald camp.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[JTF]

Journalist Or Con Man

Speaking of author's who write books proclaiming MacDonald's innocence, Errol Morris told me in 2011, that "it is unlikely that Judge Fox will grant Jeff a new trial." That was one of the few moments of honesty for an author who didn't hesitate to peddle his mess of a book to fawning members of the print and television media.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin. The criminal law is a clumsy machine.

The MacDonald case needs an extremely competent judge who is experienced at weighing evidence and who can seize the situation like a man and who has a bit of humane wisdom, instead of judges just using the law's delay and working for the prosecution. It's only because officialdom never admits a mistake and they don't want any political embarrassment.

The so-called detectives on the MacDonald case were very inexperienced with regard to difficult murders. They did not get it right. There were judges in the past in the Supreme Court who were in disagreement with the decision to send Dr. MacDonald back to prison but they were always outnumbered. Those judges had their reasons and they should never have been disregarded.

If Judge Fox and Joe McGinniss and JTF and Murtagh are to have the final decision on a man's liberty then God help us all.

 

[desertgal]

Once again, Henri, you make arguments that are unsupported by evidence.

In case you aren't aware, JTF, Murtagh, and Joe McGinniss didn't decide Macdonald's fate. A jury did. Actually, Macdonald did, the moment he began slaughtering his pregnant wife and little daughters. You know, the same victims you always blithely disregard when you are boo-hooing about Jeff Macdonald.

It's a better thing Jeff Macdonald doesn't have a say about anyone's liberty or life. We all saw what happened when he did.

 

[AdMan]

It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin.

It sure would be, had it happened in this case

Thankfully, it clearly and obviously didn't.

 

[catsmate]

It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin. The criminal law is a clumsy machine.<snip>

Indeed. Luckily in the case of Jeffrey MacDonald the guilty-beyond-reasonable-doubt murderer was convicted, thus preventing him from killing again, and avoiding prosecution of the innocent.

 

[desertgal]

It's cruel and callous to prosecute an innocent man with manufactured evidence and then land that person in financial ruin.

"Financial ruin"? Good thing he hasn't been "wrongfully imprisoned" all these years, too, because that would really suck.

 

[JTF]

Matching Pattern

Henri is semi-correct in stating that the evidence was manufactured. Some of the key pieces of evidence presented at trial were manufactured by none other than Jeffrey MacDonald. For example, the Pajama Top Theory was made possible by the fact that MacDonald stabbed his wife 21 times through his pajama top which resulted in 48 perfectly round holes in that garment.

The Pathologist's report determined that Colette's body was inert when she was stabbed and all 48 holes in the garment were perfectly round, indicating that the garment was stationary when penetrated by the ice pick.

When reconstructing the position of the pajama top as it was found on Colette's chest, the pattern of stab wounds on Colette's chest matched the puncture hole pattern in MacDonald's pajama top. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

When reconstructing the position of the pajama top as it was found on Colette's chest, the pattern of stab wounds on Colette's chest matched the puncture hole pattern in MacDonald's pajama top. Case closed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The Stombaugh and Shirley Green pajama folding experiment is hardly conclusive evidence. Dr. Thornton at the 1979 trial testified that it was impossible and contrived and conceptually unsound. It was never mentioned at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. Stombaugh was a con man, like Murtagh and Blackburn and Joe McGinniss. It was fabricated out of whole cloth in order to sway a gullible jury. Stombaugh also presented false evidence to the Warren Commission regarding fibers in the President Kennedy murder.

Stombaugh openly admitted that his theories, like Colette hitting her husband with a hairbrush, were speculation at the MacDonald Grand Jury. The point is that speculation is illegal, and inadmissible in court under the Federal Rules of Evidence. A good judge would have had that pajama folding business tested instead of just accepting it as the gospel truth.

Prosecuting an innocent man doesn't prevent murders. The real culprits should have been relentlessly pursued.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Segal wasn't semi-correct about Stombaugh. He was absolutely correct. A more aggressive defense lawyer would have had Stombaugh withdrawn as a a witness for being a purported expert, even though the judge was biased for the prosecution.

I don't think MacDonald's lawyer Bernie Segal regarded Stombaugh of the FBI as a brilliant man in the way JTF thinks of Stombaugh. This is from the 1979 MacDonald trial:

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.
Secondly, I would say to Your Honor that his testimony indicates again the desirability of our being able to subpoena his personnel record in reference to that. Again, I would not in any way seek to embarrass this man in any kind of matters not related to his qualifications. I am not looking to do anything on that level.

But I do think when he is offered as a multi-faceted expert and where he is unable because of--I suppose that the jury could decide that the poor man's memory just doesn't help him. We should be able to develop facts. Perhaps at a later time I would say we may go forward. But we could have the record down here very fast if the Court would agree that we are entitled and should be able in the interest of fairness to do this.

He represents, Your Honor, Dr. MacDonald's testimony to the grand jury. And his testimony represents the so-called new facts in this case. He is, as the Government has constantly told everyone, very important to their theory of this case. We must take the Government at face value. I think the Defendant in fairness ought to be able to find out something more about this man.

I will tell you that the other day, Your Honor, when Mr. Murtagh said that he went to the University of South Carolina and took his degree in chemistry, we discovered that he did not go to the University of South Carolina. We now know it is Furman.

We have been in no way able to get any information about his background and the extent of his expertise in these areas. And for that reason I would say, one, that we defer--perhaps at least defer that, receiving testimony on fabric impressions; and two, permit us to renew our subpoena on his personnel record for the basis of checking his qualifications on that subject matter."

 

[JTF]

Pajama Top

HENRI: Still on that Stombaugh Wasn't Qualified kick, eh? I hate to break it to ya, but repeating a dubious claim over and over again doesn't magically enhance its credibility. The Pajama Top Theory was based on SEVERAL factors and Shirley Green was able to replicate the wound/puncture hole pattern using THREE separate techniques. The reality is that Segal was unable to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Pajama Top Theory.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com