• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
End This Legal Circus

"On the other hand just think of all the legal presidents and refinements that came out of this case. I'm sure it will be quite useful as a teaching tool for future lawyers and judges."

WK: Unfortunately, the only lawyers that have benefitted from the legal machinations in this case are defense lawyers. Take the 4th Circuit's 2011 decision on MacDonald's 8th attempt at relief. From 1970-2010, MacDonald's lawyers seemed to exhaust every legal tactic in the book, but the 4th Circuit threw them a bone by allowing the defense to skip over basic requirements for requesting a new trial. This included gatekeeping requirements, meeting the high burden of proof that is a part of the 2255, and constructing pre-filing authorizations to present "new" evidentiary arguments.

MacDonald's lawyers must have sent candy and flowers to the 4th Circuit Court for wet nursing their client and focusing on a singular aspect (e.g., evidence as a whole) of the 2255. The current panel of 4th Circuit flat-out ignored the 1998 conclusion drawn by the 4th Circuit Court who stated that this case needs to come to an end.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
CSPAN Book TV
A Conversation with Edward Jay Epstein and Errol Morris
Edward Jay Epstein; Errol Morris
About the Program
Edward Jay Epstein, author of "The Annals of Unsolved Crime," and Errol Morris, author of "A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald," talk about notorious crimes that were never solved or only partially solved. The authors spoke at the Harvard Coop in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

About the Authors
Errol Morris
Errol Morris is the director of several documentaries, including "A Thin Blue Line," "The Fog of War," and "Standard Operating Procedure." He is the author of "Believing is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography." For more, visit: errolmorris.com.


Buy the author's book from: Amazon | Barnes & Noble | Indiebound
Edward Jay Epstein
Edward Jay Epstein is the author of "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" and "The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood." For more, visit: edwardjayepstein.com.
Click to expand...

Re Errol Morris' book, A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald
Errol Morris has been investigating the MacDonald case for over twenty years. A Wilderness of Error is the culmination of his efforts. It is a shocking book, because it shows us that almost everything we have been told about the case is deeply unreliable, and crucial elements of the case against MacDonald simply are not true. It is a masterful reinvention of the true-crime thriller, a book that pierces the haze of myth surrounding these murders with the sort of brilliant light that can only be produced by years of dogged and careful investigation and hard, lucid thinking.

By this book’s end, we know several things: that there are two very different narratives we can create about what happened at 544 Castle Drive, and that the one that led to the conviction and imprisonment for life of this man for butchering his wife and two young daughters is almost certainly wrong. Along the way Morris poses bracing questions about the nature of proof, criminal justice, and the media, showing us how MacDonald has been condemned, not only to prison, but to the stories that have been created around him.
Click to expand...

Haven't read the book, but the CSPAN book TV program was well worth watching. The two gentlemen don't talk fast enough for my taste so pick a time you can stand to watch two knowledgeable old guys who are painfully slow getting to the point, but worth the time after you've spent it.

My interest is not in this case though miscarried justice is something that should concern us all. My interest is in how people can come to be certain of things which are not certain.

From the sounds of the thread comments, people are certain. I've had enough arguing legal cases in this forum at the moment to take on another one right now. But for anyone interested, I recommend at least listening to Morris. You can watch it online.



BTW, this is a redundant thread: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did. And you surely know that JTF since you posted in the other thread that Henri McPhee who disagrees with you is a MacDonald groupie. I do believe starting this thread is a rule violation.
 
Last edited:
It Has Returned

"My interest is not in this case though miscarried justice is something that should concern us all. My interest is in how people can come to be certain of things which are not certain."

SG: I spoke with Morris on the phone for 90 minutes in 2011, and he played the same game with me that he played with others he spoke to about the MacDonald case. Morris stated to anyone who would listen that he had yet to formulate a definitive conclusion about MacDonald's guilt or innocence, but once the book was published, everyone who chatted with him realized he was a b.s. artist. Morris admitted to several interviewers that he has believed in MacDonald's innocence since 1990. As a matter of fact, he wrote an endorsement on the back jacket of a book (e.g., Fatal Justice) that advocated for MacDonald's innocence.

Jay Epstein relies heavily on the data in that book and I pointed out to him via e-mail that the book was filled with assumptions, distortions, half-truths, innuendo, and falsehoods. Not surprisingly, Epstein didn't respond to my e-mail.

"From the sounds of the thread comments, people are certain."

SG: This case is open and shut. Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of killing his wife and two young daughters due to the mass of inculpatory evidence presented at the 1979 trial.

"I've had enough arguing legal cases in this forum at the moment to take on another one right now. But for anyone interested, I recommend at least listening to Morris. You can watch it online."

SG: To each his own, but Morris is a literary con man and his book is a mess.

"BTW, this is a redundant thread: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did."

SG: I started a new thread on this case after being unable to find the old thread on the MacDonald case. I assumed that the thread was removed, but it appears that my creation of a new thread unearthed the old one.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
From the sounds of the thread comments, people are certain. I've had enough arguing legal cases in this forum at the moment to take on another one right now.
Click to expand...

Why? Are you well versed in the Macdonald case and positive a miscarriage of justice occurred? Or are you simply in the mood to play devil's advocate? Either way, what would be served by a debate?

But for anyone interested, I recommend at least listening to Morris. You can watch it online.
Click to expand...

Have you read Fatal Vision? Final Vision? Fatal Justice?

ETA: A note to JTF - it's an exercise in futility.You'll see what I mean.
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
"My interest is not in this case though miscarried justice is something that should concern us all. My interest is in how people can come to be certain of things which are not certain."

SG: I spoke with Morris on the phone for 90 minutes in 2011, and he played the same game with me that he played with others he spoke to about the MacDonald case. Morris stated to anyone who would listen that he had yet to formulate a definitive conclusion about MacDonald's guilt or innocence, but once the book was published, everyone who chatted with him realized he was a b.s. artist. Morris admitted to several interviewers that he has believed in MacDonald's innocence since 1990. As a matter of fact, he wrote an endorsement on the back jacket of a book (e.g., Fatal Justice) that advocated for MacDonald's innocence.

Jay Epstein relies heavily on the data in that book and I pointed out to him via e-mail that the book was filled with assumptions, distortions, half-truths, innuendo, and falsehoods. Not surprisingly, Epstein didn't respond to my e-mail.

"From the sounds of the thread comments, people are certain."

SG: This case is open and shut. Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of killing his wife and two young daughters due to the mass of inculpatory evidence presented at the 1979 trial.

"I've had enough arguing legal cases in this forum at the moment to take on another one right now. But for anyone interested, I recommend at least listening to Morris. You can watch it online."

SG: To each his own, but Morris is a literary con man and his book is a mess.

"BTW, this is a redundant thread: Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did."

SG: I started a new thread on this case after being unable to find the old thread on the MacDonald case. I assumed that the thread was removed, but it appears that my creation of a new thread unearthed the old one.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...
After 49 posts you might want to learn how to use the 'reply with quote' function.

[quote=SG] what I said [/quote]

I found the duplicate thread with a simple search of thread titles for "MacDonald". Also a useful task for any new member to learn how to do. But even simpler was to just go to your "subscribed threads". You appear to be subscribed to only 6 threads.[/url] You'll find "subscribed threads" in the drop down box under "user CP" in the forum menu bar.

As adamant as you are about "knowing the truth" others are equally adamant that they know a different truth.

I did not get the idea Morris was "playing games". I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion on MacDonald's guilt or innocence. I do have an opinion on the too frequent police and prosecutorial incompetence and misconduct. I also have an opinion on the effect of a narrative on people's perception of 'evidence'.

Why should we believe your truth and not Morris' or Henri's? You present your reasons, they present their reasons. At some point you just have to say, the case appears certain to you, but not everyone sees it that way.

The whole world works that way in case you hadn't noticed.

I'm curious, why does this case mean so much to you? And is that your own web page that you've linked to?
 
desertgal said:
Why? Are you well versed in the Macdonald case and positive a miscarriage of justice occurred? Or are you simply in the mood to play devil's advocate? Either way, what would be served by a debate?



Have you read Fatal Vision? Final Vision? Fatal Justice?
Click to expand...
I'm not versed at all on the case, I know what it was about. I was interested in what Morris had to say about the errors in the case and the effect of the publicity on beliefs after seeing the CSPAN Book TV episode that recently aired.
 
The Salon article from Nov 2012 has a good summary:

Maybe Jeffrey MacDonald was innocent after all

Lynn Parramore has a different take on Errol Morris than JTF's dismissal. It's the "Fatal Vision" author that may be the con man.
Morris researched the MacDonald case for 20 years and knows each labyrinthine turn of its progress through the criminal justice system. Even before bureaucratic stalling and federal machinery overtook the search for truth, things were working against Jeffrey MacDonald. A crime scene was left open to bystander traffic. Inexperienced military police failed to pick up a woman near the house who fit MacDonald’s description. Many think this woman could have been Helena Stoeckley, a drug abuser and professed member of a witchcraft cult who repeatedly confessed to having been at the MacDonald house the night of the murders, but recanted her story whenever she seemed to fear prosecution. Now deceased, she remains a pivotal figure in the case.

As I read Morris’ meticulous examination the evidence, the picture in my mind became less clear. I began to see that Joe McGinniss’ creation of Picture No. 1 might be just that: a creation. Some of the “facts” I thought I knew began to look more like ideas conjured by eager prosecutors and a journalist who had dealt so disingenuously with Jeffrey MacDonald in writing ”Fatal Vision” that he was sued after publication. McGinniss’ publisher settled with MacDonald out of court, after the judge called the author a “con man.” (This story, in its own right, became a famous book about journalistic ethics by Janet Malcolm.)
Click to expand...
Interesting that you should use the same language, JTF, as the judge used about the "Fatal Vision" author.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Salon article from Nov 2012 has a good summary:

Maybe Jeffrey MacDonald was innocent after all

Lynn Parramore has a different take on Errol Morris than JTF's dismissal. It's the "Fatal Vision" author that may be the con man. Interesting that you should use the same language, JTF, as the judge used about the "Fatal Vision" author.
Click to expand...

Says SG, who hasn't read any of the books she is discussing. Way to go, SG.

And the Fatal Vision/Final Vision author is Joe McGinniss. If you can call Errol Morris by name, surely you can do the same for the other author.
 
Last edited:
desertgal said:
Says SG, who hasn't read any of the books she is discussing. Way to go, SG.

And the Fatal Vision/Final Vision author is Joe McGinniss. If you can call Errol Morris by name, surely you can do the same for the other author.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the CSPAN Book TV 1.5 hour talk by Morris and Epstein about the issue of police following a narrative they started with despite any further evidence before deciding only your own path to the 'facts' is valid?

Do you know what an ad hom argument is?
 
catsmate1 said:
Nitpick: I don't see his guilt as being proven beyond any doubt just beyond and reasonable or probable doubt.
There are many unreasonable scenarios that could explain MacDonald's family's deaths without him being responsible, aliens, time travellers, doppelgangers, parallel universe. It's just that none of them are even remotely reasonable and can be ignored.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
How does a skeptic ever know what to believe in the face of competing claims? One has to delve into the facts.
Click to expand...

Without looking at the CSPAN episode I linked to, and taking JTF's word for it that Morris is "a con man" is a good example of how not to be a skeptic or critical thinker.

Listen to the first half of it, don't even invest the whole hour and a half, and you'll see the topic is about how confirmation bias affects how we view the evidence. It's not about the evidence in the case, it's about the way prosecutors latch on to a conclusion and pursue it. That is something we should all be very familiar with as critical thinkers, there are so many thousands of examples.

There are ways to delve into the facts. Start with understanding how the faulty human brain misinterprets the evidence.
 
Just The Facts

"After 49 posts you might want to learn how to use the 'reply with quote' function."

SG: I've posted on discussion boards since 2004, and that has been my style from Day One.

"I found the duplicate thread with a simple search of thread titles for "MacDonald"."

SG: A few days ago, there were 5 pages of threads on the Social Issues topic, but this thread was gone.

"Also a useful task for any new member to learn how to do. But even simpler was to just go to your "subscribed threads". You appear to be subscribed to only 6 threads.[/url] You'll find "subscribed threads" in the drop down box under "user CP" in the forum menu bar."

SG: Thanks.

"As adamant as you are about "knowing the truth" others are equally adamant that they know a different truth."

SG: Different truth, eh? Nonsense. Morris is simply blathering away about perception in order to gloss over the facts of this case.

"I did not get the idea Morris was "playing games"."

SG: In regards to this case, Morris is the ultimate game player. Judging by the FACT that he avoids 90 percent of the government's case in his book, he is also a coward. He chides Joe McGinniss for misleading MacDonald about the conclusions drawn in Fatal Vision, yet Morris flat-out lied to me and everyone he spoke to about this case in regards to his stance on MacDonald's guilt or innocence. So, Morris is a con man, a coward, and a hypocrite.

"I do have an opinion on the too frequent police and prosecutorial incompetence and misconduct. I also have an opinion on the effect of a narrative on people's perception of 'evidence'."

SG: The prosecution presented over 1,100 evidentiary items at the 1979 trial and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. This included blood, hair, fiber, bloody footprint, fabric damage, and bloody fabric impression evidence. The AFIP's DNA test results produced 5 inculpatory results. Not one hair, fiber, or fingerprint has been sourced to a known intruder suspect. Not one. Morris, however, is so arrogant that he flat-out ignores all of that in favor of a gut feeling. Morris isn't big on critical thinking.

"Why should we believe your truth and not Morris' or Henri's?"

SG: Morris is an attention-seeker with an agenda whereas Henri is a MacDonald groupie. Henri has been posting for years on MacDonald case discussion boards and his information is culled directly from MacDonald camp propaganda. My truth is the same truth embraced by the CID, FBI, DOJ, and anyone who has taken the time to read the documented record in this case.

"I'm curious, why does this case mean so much to you? And is that your own web page that you've linked to?"

SG: That is my website. The About Me icon located on my Home Page provides the reasons why I started the website and why this case interests me. I've researched this case for the past 28 years, had conversations with several people involved in this case, and have accumulated a mass of case material (e.g., written correspondence, lab notes, court records, books, and DVD's).

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Fact VS. Feeling

"There are ways to delve into the facts. Start with understanding the faulty human brain."

SG: The problem is that Morris doesn't delve into the facts of this case. As I stated in a prior post, Morris IGNORES 90 percent of the government's case at the 1979 trial. Considering that this case presentation resulted in a conviction in less than 7 hours, Morris' faulty human brain gibberish is worthless when compared to the mass of evidence that led to MacDonald spending 32 of the past 34 years in prison.

Ironically, Morris fails miserably in rebutting the 10 percent of the government's case that he does include in his mess of a book. For example, he spends an entire chapter debating the merits of the Pajama Top Theory, yet he doesn't understand the concept that you cannot force a pattern to exist. The following link describes the evidentiary value of the Pajama Top Theory.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/pjs_sub_pjtop_theory.html
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Without looking at the CSPAN episode I linked to, and taking JTF's word for it that Morris is "a con man" is a good example of how not to be a skeptic or critical thinker.

Listen to the first half of it, don't even invest the whole hour and a half, and you'll see the topic is about how confirmation bias affects how we view the evidence. It's not about the evidence in the case, it's about the way prosecutors latch on to a conclusion and pursue it. That is something we should all be very familiar with as critical thinkers, there are so many thousands of examples.

There are ways to delve into the facts. Start with understanding how the faulty human brain misinterprets the evidence.
Click to expand...

I understand that this is a huge problem. I spent years supporting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I saw what was happening early on, because I was familiar with other cases that bear many striking similarities. It's a particular interest of mine.

In MacDonald's case, the police made many classic mistakes. They ran roughshod over the crime scene. They failed to investigate alternative suspects thoroughly once they decided MacDonald was guilty. But police errors do not necessarily mean a suspect is innocent. It is important to look at the facts of the case as well as how the investigation was handled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom