Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Henri McPhee]

This is part of what Jeff MacDonald had to say about that Joe McGinniss case in California in 1987 and it's true:

just so your readers are aware, exactly, of the effect the psychological and psychiatric witnesses had on the trial, recall that my lawsuit alleged several things that I had to prove to win the lawsuit. I alleged McG defrauded me in his conduct over the 1979-83 years of the book writing. I alleged he mis-portrayed my life, contrary to a signed agreement I had with McG, wherein he was under an obligation to tell the factual truth. I alleged he intentionally inflicted upon me emotional distress. And I alleged he stole funds from me, funds due to me under the written contract I had with McG.

McG had basically no defense, so his major defenses became an amalgam of several things. First, he countersued me, alleging I wasn't truthful with him (so therefore, he could be released from his conractual obligations). He alleged I cooperated with other journalists, thereby abridging my pact with him (the "exclusivity" clause). And McG alleged he hadn't stolen my money, but rather kept some funds aside, in a trust fund, when I sued him.

The trial was not a libel trial, since a person in prison essentially is libel-proof, libel being based on reputation. Neither was the trial supposed to be a rehash of my 1979 murder trial. The issue in court in 1987 was, did Joe McG civilly wrong me? Judge Rea, for instance, at Kornstein's urging, set a pretrial rule for neither side to attempt to re-argue the 1979 trial. His rule was promptly broken by Kornstein himself, in his opening statement to the jury, thereby unleashing 6 weeks of my efforts to refight the criminal trial of 1979, as well as fight the civil issues of 1987.

In my view, the real issue was extremely simple: was "Fatal Vision" a novel, or was it non-fiction, as McG claimed it to be? And, was I the monster portrayed by McG? It was my strong belief that for any good to come out of the civil trial, I had to prove "F.V." was a novel, and I had to prove McG created his monster out of whole cloth, to fulfill some need in McG himself, as well as to sell books and television movies.

 

[byn63]

Henri - please point out 1 SUBSTANTIVE error in Fatal Vision! It cannot be done, because there ARE NONE. Also, don't bother with the "amphetamine psychosis" babble, because it was not presented as an absolute fact, IN FACT it was presented as the author's THEORY.

Fatal Vision (its writing and publication) had no bearing on the conviction of inmate. inmate was convicted on the evidence presented at trial and Fatal Vision is an accurate representation of those facts. (plus it was published several years AFTER the conviction so it certainly didn't aid in conviction).

 

[Henri McPhee]

The point about Fatal Vision is that it is biased and it came out, with the TV movie, just before Jeff MacDonald's 1985 appeal. It affected the court of public opinion in the same way as some of these silly biased books in the JonBenet Ramsey case. That was bad news for the innocent Jeff MacDonald. It meant that Judge 'in bed with the prosecution' Dupree and biased Judge Fox could get away with it without public criticism, and then the Supreme Court was able to rubber stamp the unsafe 1979 verdict.

A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts. The Press is not much help. very little space is given to reports of any but sensational or unusual cases, and unless someone makes a scene, irregularities, and even serious injustices, pass unnoticed. Unfortunately, newspaper reports are so often inaccurate that even when they do expose some miscarriage of justice little notice is taken of the matter.

Caroline had an interesting opinion about Fatal Vision in a review of the book Nov. 12, 2012:

I had to stop reading this halfway through, which is still an achievement since it is a 600 page behemoth of crap. I have no idea how this book gets such glowing reviews!

McGinniss is not only highly biased and fails to present a convincing case against Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, a doctor accused (and later convicted) of killing his family in 1970. First, the book is poorly written and lacking in editing. It seems that McGinniss includes anything anyone ever said about anything related to this case at all. It's not exhaustive, it's exhausting. McGinniss' book is basically a character assassination rather than a forensic argument for guilt. MacDonald is an *******, but that doesn't mean he is a murderer. I am not so sure that McGinniss understands this.

My breaking point was when McGinniss begins over-analyzing the class notes Colette MacDonald took in her Child Psych class the night of her murder, as if her study notes were some kind of diary. Come on.

I have read neither Janet Malcolm nor Errol Morris' book about Fatal Vision, but I am eager to. Seems like we are on the same page (yuk yuk).

 

[desmirelle]

The only thing Jeffrey MacDonald has ever told the truth about is that Jeffrey MacDonald is his name. Oh, yeah, and he went to Princeton. That's two things. He's lied about being a good husband and father, about not being the murderer of his family, about whether or not he won a lawsuit, about his 'factual innocence' and just about everything else that's come out of his mouth (probably since he was a child).

His OPINION on a book that used his own contributions as well as the facts of the case to show him for the murderer he is is quite understandable. If I were him, wouldn't want my real face shown to the world, either.

And since "Caroline" admits she didn't read the book (got part-way through and since, like you, she's only interested in her opinion and not the facts), her viewpoint is irrelevant. You can't cite any facts that support your opinion, neither can she. All YOU can do is disrespect the dead. Wow. How......lame.

 

[byn63]

In all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE ERROR has been found in Fatal Vision. The same cannot be said of FJ or WOE both of which are full of errors of FACT.

inmate slaughtered his family. Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn son are the VICTIMS in this case. inmate is the narcissistic sociopathic bastard that slaughtered them all. FACT

 

[wasapi]

This may have already been discussed. I apologize if I missed it.

I know that lie detectors are not admissible in court. However, I wonder if the murdering monster ever took one in an attempt to show innocence?

 

[JTF]

Polygraphs

WASAPI: Here ya go.

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

The final tally? Two refusals, one inconclusive, one flunked and one passed.

REFUSED: Inmate refused to take a polygraph exam for the CID in 1970, and for the late, great Vincent Bugliosi in 1973.

INCONCLUSIVE: In the Spring of 1970, polygraph expert John Reid concluded that inmate's polygraph results were inconclusive.

FLUNKED: Several weeks after Reid's examination, polygraph exam Cleve Backster concluded that inmate flunked his polygraph exam.

PASSED: In 1985, inmate passed a polygraph exam administered by David Raskin.

 

[byn63]

by 1985 I believe inmate had convinced himself that Colette and Kimberley MADE him kill them so he is "factually innocent" although that term was not yet coined. I truly believe that inmate thinks/thought that Kimberley destroyed his swinging singles days because her pending arrival caused him to HAVE to get married (totally ignoring his part in that situation) and he believes that Colette "ruined" his life by getting pregnant (again ignoring his part in the process) and forcing him to get married. Back in the day, when my dad would discuss (in front of us kids) that a girl/woman was pregnant outside of marriage he would always say "HE was just poking fun and SHE took it serious" lol took me years before I found out what he meant. My point is that I can so totally see inmate having that attitude towards the situation "I was having some fun and she took it too far" as if the woman can/could control it. There are plenty of signs that his ego was of that nature.....

 

[Henri McPhee]

This may have already been discussed. I apologize if I missed it.

I know that lie detectors are not admissible in court. However, I wonder if the murdering monster ever took one in an attempt to show innocence?

This matter of polygraphs was discussed at the MacDonald v McGinniss case in California in 1987 with MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick. I didn't know until recently that Gary Bostwick is still going as a lawyer in California. He seems to deal with media and privacy cases among other things, and even appeals. MacDonald should have kept Gary Bostwick as his lawyer though Bostwick would still have been up against the brick wall of biased Judge Fox, and the rubber stamper judges at the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court. I believe Gary Bostwick is regarded as one of the best lawyers in America, I think in the top ten.

This is part of Bostwick's cross-examination of polygrapher Backster at that McGinniss court case in 1987:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/backster_1987-08-11.html

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Did you talk to anyone in the professional field about Dr. Raskin's lie detector test of Dr. MacDonald?
A No.
Q When did you train Dr. Raskin?
A I would be guessing now. It would be, I'd say, back in around 1972 or '73, back in New York City before he moved to San Diego.
Q Have you attached a polygraph machine to plants?
A Yes. In fact, yes. That's a short answer.
Q Do plants tell the truth or lie?
A That hasn't been my area of inquiry.
Q What have you been inquiring into?
A Well, in attaching one third of the polygraph, actually the galvanic skin response, to a plant leaf, I found over the years that I have been interested in that, that the plant would seem to be showing electrical responses that related to the emotions of the people in the area. And this is a completely new area in science; and it's been explored quite nicely before lectures--before about 30 different universities and honor societies of science; and I've traveled all over the world talking about it.
Q Now, did you talk to Dr. MacDonald about that on the occasion that you examined him?
A No. I didn't talk to him, but he made an interesting comment about it just before his ex-amination.
Q What was the interesting comment?
A The comment was something about the fact that I'm the person that was testing plants.
This struck me as being unusual.

THE COURT: He said that you were the person?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he mentioned that to me, that he was aware of that.

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And have you appeared on the Johnny Carson Show on some occasions, talking about attaching polygraph machines to plants?
A Only one taping of Johnny Carson which was, I believe, reshown because it had Raquel Welch on it, not because I was on it.
Q And did the plants react to Raquel Welch on the show?
A No. I know a number of people who did, but I don't know whether the plants did.
Q Could you look at Page 619 of Exhibit 402, that's the book?
A Yes.
Q What he's saying here about--in the first full paragraph on Page 619, about the fact that you polygraph plants, and being on the Johnny Carson Show; that's true, isn't it? Essentially?
A Well, where is the part about Johnny Carson?
Q The first full paragraph on Page 619.
A 619. Okay. Well, he says "He's on the Johnny Carson Show all the time." That is not true.
Q But it was shown several times; right?
A Once, and once it was repeated, yes.
Q And did you talk with Mr. Segal about the fact that you were bigger in your field than John Reid?
A No. I would not have said that, because I wouldn't necessarily have believed that at the time--
Q Did you talk--beg your pardon. Go ahead.
A John Reid passed away in 1982. So I think I could say that now.

 

[byn63]

by 1985 I believe inmate had convinced himself that Colette and Kimberley MADE him kill them so he is "factually innocent" although that term was not yet coined. I truly believe that inmate thinks/thought that Kimberley destroyed his swinging singles days because her pending arrival caused him to HAVE to get married (totally ignoring his part in that situation) and he believes that Colette "ruined" his life by getting pregnant (again ignoring his part in the process) and forcing him to get married. Back in the day, when my dad would discuss (in front of us kids) that a girl/woman was pregnant outside of marriage he would always say "HE was just poking fun and SHE took it serious" lol took me years before I found out what he meant. My point is that I can so totally see inmate having that attitude towards the situation "I was having some fun and she took it too far" as if the woman can/could control it. There are plenty of signs that his ego was of that nature.....lather rinse repeat of my own!

 

[JTF]

Interesting

I've always found it interesting that John Reid trained Cleve Backster who later trained David Raskin. Any polygraph expert worth a salt would tell you that the freshest exams carry far more weight than exams which occur years later. The exams conducted by Reid and Backster are FAR more reliable than the Raskin exam which occurred a whopping 15 years after the murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

I've always found it interesting that John Reid trained Cleve Backster who later trained David Raskin. Any polygraph expert worth a salt would tell you that the freshest exams carry far more weight than exams which occur years later. The exams conducted by Reid and Backster are FAR more reliable than the Raskin exam which occurred a whopping 15 years after the murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

I agree....good point!

 

[Henri McPhee]

I've always found it interesting that John Reid trained Cleve Backster who later trained David Raskin. Any polygraph expert worth a salt would tell you that the freshest exams carry far more weight than exams which occur years later. The exams conducted by Reid and Backster are FAR more reliable than the Raskin exam which occurred a whopping 15 years after the murders.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The problem with the Backster polygraph is that it was taken soon after MacDonald was recovering from his collapsed lung, and other injuries.

Personally, I have always regarded polygraphs as junk science . Polygraphs are not regarded as evidence in UK courts and in most states in America. The police in America seem to love polygraphs, but the police and FBI in America don't seem to know how to solve difficult murders, and they have defective police departments there.

The matter was discussed with MacDonald lawyer Gary Bostwick, and Backster at the Joe McGinniss case in 1987 in California:

Q I'd like to read to you from the case that the judge just took judicial notice of. It says that "Respiratory problems and high stress levels will affect the accuracy of a polygraph examination." You don't disagree with that; do you?
A If the judge meant that--

THE COURT: Wait just a minute. Let's clarify this now. I don't know who--is that a witness' testimony or what is that quote?

MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, that is from the case itself, the opinion by Judge Cynthia Hall and the citing of the article by Heileman on the deceptive certainty of the lie detector.

THE COURT: Are these her words?

MR. BOSTWICK: These--two things. First, they are her words describing a witness, an expert witness' testimony upon which the opinion relies, and her words describing the results of an article in the Hastings Law Journal which is footnoted.

THE COURT: Very well. All right.

THE WITNESS: What was your question, please?

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Are you disputing the fact that respiratory problems and high stress levels can affect the accuracy of a polygraph examination?
A They can create inconclusive results.
Q But that they cannot affect the accuracy?
A They would not affect error; they would create inconclusive results where the charts could not be properly interpreted.
Q Have you ever made a mistake in conducting a polygraph exam?
A I'm sure I have; but I'm also sure that it has not been brought to my attention, where it is a case that qualifies, as far as the reliability estimate and rating is concerned, as in a case of a triple murder.
Q But you don't know of any errors you've made; is that right?
A In a case of that quality, I know of none that's been brought to my attention.
Q Do you know of any errors you've made in 39 years of conducting polygraph exams?
A Yes. I'm sure I have.
Q Do you remember any of them?
A Oh, not offhand. I guess they are the things you try to forget, but they were inconsequential cases.
Q You didn't bring a list of those with you?
A No, no. I don't carry that with me.
Q Were you aware of the fact that when you took Dr. MacDonald's examination, that he was still suffering from a collapsed lung?
A I'm not sure that I was aware of that at the time, but, again, this would not have a selective effect on controls and not relevants, or relevants and not control questions.

 

[desmirelle]

<snip of fecal matter>

Personally, I have always regarded polygraphs as junk science . Polygraphs are not regarded as evidence in UK courts and in most states in America. The police in America seem to love polygraphs, but the police and FBI in America don't seem to know how to solve difficult murders, and they have defective police departments there.

<snipping more fecal matter>

Name ONE state in the United States of America that allows POLYGRAPH RESULTS into court as evidence.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Name ONE state in the United States of America that allows POLYGRAPH RESULTS into court as evidence.

I have always been under the impression that polygraph results could be used into court in Arizona, but I don't live in America and I don't know the legal technicalities.

There is more informed legal waffle about the matter on the internet:

Anonymous
Written Aug 8, 2013
The premise of the question is not really correct.* Polygraph tests are admissible in certain states and in federal court at the discretion of the trial judge.*
*
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone stipulates to their use and agrees to admit the results into evidence.* They may put different limits on how they can actually be used as admissible evidence.* California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.* Georgia allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees. Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.*
*
The states in which polygraphs are always inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.* In these states, even if both parties stipulate to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very very rare scenarios). Some states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause to obtain search warrants
*
*
Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion and must undergo review pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert).* There have been several cases in which polygraph results have been admitted into evidence over the objections of an opposing party after the court found it satisfied the Daubert threshold.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Name ONE state in the United States of America that allows POLYGRAPH RESULTS into court as evidence.

I have always been under the impression that polygraph results could be used into court in Arizona, but I don't live in America and I don't know the legal technicalities.

There is more informed legal waffle about the matter on the internet:

Anonymous
Written Aug 8, 2013
The premise of the question is not really correct.* Polygraph tests are admissible in certain states and in federal court at the discretion of the trial judge.*
*
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone stipulates to their use and agrees to admit the results into evidence.* They may put different limits on how they can actually be used as admissible evidence.* California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.* Georgia allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees. Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.*
*
The states in which polygraphs are always inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.* In these states, even if both parties stipulate to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very very rare scenarios). Some states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause to obtain search warrants
*
*
Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion and must undergo review pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert).* There have been several cases in which polygraph results have been admitted into evidence over the objections of an opposing party after the court found it satisfied the Daubert threshold.

Are you really using some old anonymous internet quote instead of going and finding legitimate citations? What makes you think it is "informed" legal anything?

One can find absolutely anything on the internet. It is truly sad that you come to this forum, of all places, and support your statements with some random old quote from an anonymous poster on some unknown website somewhere. It says a lot about the statements you are trying to support, and you too, actually.

 

[byn63]

I am trying to figure out what failing a polygraph has to do with the recovery from injuries? Especially considering inmate only had a partially collapsed lung that he created himself and no other injuries of note. inmate could have been released from the hospital within days if there had been anywhere to release him to since the apartment remained a crime scene. Try to force a pattern doesn't work, yet henri tries and tries....in this instance he is trying to make inmate a victim, but the patterns just don't match!

The victims in this case were Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy.

 

[JTF]

Frantic With Worry

Despite his client's poor performance during the 4/6/70 CID interview and his subsequent refusal to take a polygraph exam, Bernie Segal somehow convinced inmate to take a polygraph exam in May of 1970. John Reid was then considered one of the elite polygraph examiners in the country.

Reid's reputation may have been the main reason why inmate performed poorly during the examination. In a 1985 interview in Playboy Magazine, inmate reasoned that the inconclusive results were due to the fact that he was "frantic with worry."

Interviewer Jeffrey Elliott should have asked inmate, "what was worrying you about the examination?" but failed to do so. Elliott's lack of a follow-up question was not surprising for he was already in negotiations with, wait for it, Fred Bost to write a book that would argue for inmate's innocence.

Elliott then decided to immerse himself in a book project in Africa, Bost had a brief flirtation with Prince Beasley as his co-author, but ultimately decided on Jerry Allen Potter being the guy to help him write his work of fiction.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Despite his client's poor performance during the 4/6/70 CID interview and his subsequent refusal to take a polygraph exam, Bernie Segal somehow convinced inmate to take a polygraph exam in May of 1970. John Reid was then considered one of the elite polygraph examiners in the country.

Reid's reputation may have been the main reason why inmate performed poorly during the examination. In a 1985 interview in Playboy Magazine, inmate reasoned that the inconclusive results were due to the fact that he was "frantic with worry."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Fred Bost had right judgment in the MacDonald case. The problem with polygraphs is that guilty people pass them and innocent people are convicted by them. That is enough to make anybody frantic with worry if it means they are to be executed, or to spend the rest of their life in prison. It's a serious matter for them.

There is a bit about this matter at this website

www.justicedenied.org/polygraphs.htm

Most people don't understand that a polygraph is only a machine that reads physiological responses, such as heart rate, body sweat, and is not a device that miraculously "knows" when someone lies. Poor responses can occur for many reasons. Some people can trick the machine, polygraph results are subject to operator error, and people respond to stress in many different ways. Law officers have been known to trick suspects by using a mimeograph machine that ejects a paper with the report that the suspect is lying. Usually the accused is asked to come down to the local police department and submit to polygraph. The person who is ignorant about polygraphs will often eagerly go to the station and let himself be hooked up to the machine believing he'll pass.

Not likely. Police will also often conduct an intimidating interrogation while a polygraph test is in progress, and suspects have reported that officers standing by would pressure them the whole time. Then when the suspect fails the test, the police have their "probable cause."

The number of people who report telling the truth on polygraph tests only to find themselves called liars, plus those who freely admit to having lied and gotten away with it, is troubling, especially since so many people seem to be impressed when told that someone passed or didn't pass the test. There's also the wrinkle that a person will respond truthfully when he or she believes something untrue. If I believe something, it is true for me. So it seems to be with most people. The truth is not established, but my belief is recorded as an honest answer. There is also the fact that people may respond with anger, sorrow and agitation when the subject of the test has to do with a crime. Add to that each person's trigger words, like mother, God, sex, and any number of things, and the unreliability of these tests rises.

People sometimes have emotional responses when they deliberately lie and sometimes do not emotionally respond to telling the truth. A polygraph machine is simply not a lie detector. It will register false positives and false negatives and will vary from one test to the next.

To use polygraphs as lie detectors is to indulge in pseudo science. There is no way to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth if we can't match it against hard evidence and in that case the test is useless because you have the evidence.

 

[byn63]

Fred Bost had right judgment in the MacDonald case.

No, he did not. Fred Bost was wrong, dead wrong in this case.

The problem with polygraphs is that guilty people pass them and innocent people are convicted by them.

You really don't care how many times you post hugely wrong comments do you? In the United States of America polygraph's do not have any bearing on a conviction as they ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

You are correct that guilty people pass polygraphs - inmate did eventually pass a polygraph. Of course the one closest to the murders of Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy he FAILED! He was not convicted on the strength of this polygraph - it was not even mentioned at trial.

That is enough to make anybody frantic with worry if it means they are to be executed, or to spend the rest of their life in prison. It's a serious matter for them.

more BS commentary here....inmate, for example was not frantic when he took his first polygraph and failed it. That first polygraph was paid for and arranged by the defense. The results were not known to the prosecution for years. In 1975 (time of indictment) and 1979 (time of trial) the Death Penalty was not in use so there was no reason for inmate to be concerned about being executed. Besides inmate thought he was smarter then the rest of the world and he would get away with his horrific crimes. He was wrong.