Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[JTF]

The Landlord Needs A Hug, A Cookie Or Both

Not surprisingly, when backed into a corner by the documented record, the landlord of MacFantasy Island resorts to name calling (e.g., calling me a liar) and delves even deeper into his own fantasy world. For example, when the prosecution presents their evidentiary arguments, the number of exhibits has no bearing on the inculpatory nature of those evidentiary items.

The same logic applies to the arguments put forth by the defense. Every exhibit presented by the defense is considered by the team to be exculpatory. It is then up to the jury to decide which evidentiary items carry significant weight. The landlord demonstrates his penchant for making things up by claiming that every murder case has over a thousand evidentiary items.

In terms of his obsession with the Stoeckley group, the landlord throws out the book on how to link a suspect to a murder scene by stating that he believes that the suspect is guilty. Any investigator worth a salt knows that he or she needs a sourced evidentiary item and/or a CREDIBLE eyewitness to the murder to charge an individual with that crime.

The belief system employed by the landlord is a means to an end for he KNOWS that there isn't a single piece of sourced trace evidence and/or credible eyewitness testimony to this mass murder. He certainly has the right to believe that Stoeckley was a credible witness and/or that unsourced evidence found at the crime scene was deposited by members of the Stoeckley group, but that stance has been shot down several times by the appellate courts.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

That's a load of bollocks again from JTF. That's a lie to say there were one thousand inculpatory items. There are a thousand items in every murder case, only a few of which are relevant.

No henri, it is not a lie. The prosecution PRESENTED OVER 1,100 PIECES OF EVIDENCE VIA 28 WITNESSES BOTH LAY AND EXPERT. This a FACT. Every piece of evidence presented was INCULPATORY. That is how a trial works. IF they had NOT been inculpatory, then Bernie Segal would have fought to keep them from being entered. On the blood evidence alone he did not even cross-examine at least one witness. THAT is a tactic used by lawyers who know they cannot dismiss or defeat the evidence so they attempt to lessen the impact by not drawing any additional attention to it.

JTF posts the truth and henri just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true. stomping your feet and having a temper tantrum because you have absolutely nothing to counter the facts with does not make your inane and often inarticulate arguments any more persuasive. Just because you don't like the FACTS doesn't mean you get to ignore the FACTS.

Just because Fred Bost thought that Smitty, or Dwight Smith, was not involved is not firm evidence. That's just an opinion and belief from Fred Bost. Fred Bost was never a hard detective, even though he talked a lot of sense about the MacDonald case when he was alive.

No FB was not a detective and nobody that I know of has ever claimed he was a detective. FB believed Smitty was not involved because the ACTUAL LE personnel fully investigated him and found that not only was there no evidence of him at the scene, he had an alibi, and he passed a polygraph.

Can you not recall where you were two nights before you may have been interviewed by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation?

Who the hell is the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation? Smitty was interviewed by LE such as Fayetteville PD and the FBI.

IF you don't believe that a drugged out hippie could be unaware of their actions, movements, behavior then you obviously have never dealt with someone who was truly drugged out. Get real, druggie's not recalling where they were and what they did is not at all uncommon or suspicious.

Yes, to answer your question, I can recall where I was 2 nights ago, and for that matter 2 weeks ago and 2 months ago as well. HOWEVER, I do not take drugs and therefore I have a clear memory of what I have done, but again we are not talking about US we are talking about heavy drug users.

 

[Henri McPhee]

No henri, it is not a lie. The prosecution PRESENTED OVER 1,100 PIECES OF EVIDENCE VIA 28 WITNESSES BOTH LAY AND EXPERT. This a FACT. Every piece of evidence presented was INCULPATORY. That is how a trial works. IF they had NOT been inculpatory, then Bernie Segal would have fought to keep them from being entered. On the blood evidence alone he did not even cross-examine at least one witness. THAT is a tactic used by lawyers who know they cannot dismiss or defeat the evidence so they attempt to lessen the impact by not drawing any additional attention to it.

That's a load of bull. Most of the so-called 'inculpatory' items of evidence were things like the Valentine cards and overturned coffee table which proved nothing. The so-called pajama fiber on the murder weapon which Blackburn so influenced the jury with in his closing argument turned out later to be a black wool fiber with no known source. Details of Macdonald's sex life were never discussed at the trial because that violated the rules of evidence and procedure, and it was inadmissible in court.

The blood evidence was presented to the court by the then very inexperienced army CID lab blood men Laber and Craig Chamberlain. All they testified to was that there was blood at the crime scene, which was hardly surprising. I agree that it was a mistake by Segal not to cross-examine Laber because the simple -minded jury then got it into their head that because there was blood at the crime scene then MacDonald must be guilty. Segal was much more aggressive with Chamberlain. Segal kept asking Chamberlain if he had ever made mistakes until 'corrupt bias ' Judge Dupree told Segal to tone down his questions.

The so-called incriminating blood evidence was presented to the court by Stombaugh of the FBI lab who was a hair and fiber man, and who had never testified about fabric impressions before. That was an irregularity, and that was Judge Dupree's fault. Only real experts can present their opinions to a court.

Dwight Smith, or Smitty, and Pat Reese were interviewed by the SBI after the MacDonald murders. As far as I know the SBI is the State Bureau of investigation, or as I say the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation. Dwight Smith said he could not remember where he was on the night of the MacDonald murders which looks to me like the previous night. An astute detective would then say to himself what's going on here? Cannabis does not affect your memory. There is no proof Dwight Smith was on any memory destroying drugs at the time.

I don't know if Pat Reese was this mysterious 'Wizard' but I do know the matter was never investigated.

 

[byn63]

That's a load of bull. Most of the so-called 'inculpatory' items of evidence were things like the Valentine cards and overturned coffee table which proved nothing. The so-called pajama fiber on the murder weapon which Blackburn so influenced the jury with in his closing argument turned out later to be a black wool fiber with no known source.

No henri it IS NOT A LOAD OF BULL. The nonsense you are spouting is BULL. First of all the Valentine Cards sitting upright on the chest in the dining room ARE NOT among the 1,100 pieces of evidence we are discussing. Secondly, IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE TRANSCRIPTS AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS you would learn that the PJ fiber found on the murder club was removed and placed in a pill vial during the analysis process. This fiber is inculpatory and just because it was removed from the club and stored in a separate container DOES NOT DIMINISH ITS VALUE. The UNSOURCED BLACK WOOL FIBERS ARE NOT AMONG THE INCULPATORY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER unsourced does not equal useless.

Get this straight henri - EVERY SINGLE SOURCED PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTS TO INMATE AS THE SOLE PERPETRATOR. INMATE WAS CONVICTED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS GUILTY. Your continued arguing points that even the defense does not argue is immature and ignorant. Knock it off! It is long past time for you to put up or shut up!

Details of inmate's sex life were never discussed at the trial because that violated the rules of evidence and procedure, and it was inadmissible in court.

What does inmate's sex life have to do with what we are discussing? It is NOT one of the over 1,100 pieces of inculpatory evidence. It has nothing to do with his conviction. You bringing it up just reminds everyone what a low-life narcissistic sociopathic bastard you have chosen to champion and has no relevance to the discussions AT ALL.

The blood evidence was presented to the court by the then very inexperienced army CID lab blood men Laber and Craig Chamberlain.

What does their experience or lack there of have to do with ANYTHING we are discussing? Not a damn thing! The FACT is that they testified to the amounts, locations, types of human blood that were found at the crime scene. Since inmate and his family all had different blood types it was easy for investigators to "read the scene". The FACT that Bernie let so much of this testimony go into the record without cross examination served to (1) Make it clear that the testimony was damaging to inmate, (2) showed that his story was not the truth, (3) told the jury and the Judge as well as the Courtroom watchers just how brutal and savage inmate had been in his actions.

I agree that it was a mistake by Segal not to cross-examine Laber because the simple -minded jury then got it into their head that because there was blood at the crime scene then inmate must be guilty.

The jury was not simple-minded and I find your comment insulting, ignorant, inane and belligerent. The jury did not decide that inmate was guilty "because there was some blood at the crime scene" and you know it. You are more like inmate than I originally imagined your "some blood" is as stupid as him telling the operator that "some people" had been stabbed. We are talking about the blood of a pregnant woman named Colette, the blood and brain serum of a 5 year-old little girl named Kimberley, and the blood of a 2 year-old little girl named Kristen all of whom were slaughtered by the one person that should have protected them with his own life.

The so-called incriminating blood evidence was presented to the court by Stombaugh of the FBI lab who was a hair and fiber man, and who had never testified about fabric impressions before. That was an irregularity, and that was Judge Dupree's fault. Only real experts can present their opinions to a court.

No henri, Stombaugh's only discussion of blood was blood stains that were found on fabric. The pj top was torn AFTER Colette's blood was on it - FACT. The pj pocket was torn off in the bedroom making inmate's claim of using it as a shield in the living room even more ridiculous.

Stombaugh was an expert. Judge Dupree accepted him as an expert just as other jurists had in the past and others would do so after inmate was convicted. Whether he had or had not testified about fabric impressions in the past is irrelevant. Also, YOU seem to forget that your man-crush experts agreed with major portions of Stombaugh's testimony so obviously he was right. YOU are the one who is not qualified to deem a person expert or not. Since Judge Dupree found Stombaugh to be an expert then he WAS an EXPERT and you stamping your feet and having a fit will not change it. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE FACTS DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DISMISS THEM.

henri, try and grasp this concept: Inmate was indicted. He was then taken to trial before which he was still presumed innocent until proven guilty. AFTER trial, he was found guilty times 3 (1 first degree, 2 second degree murder counts). he has been before the courts more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence and his conviction still stands. HE IS GUILTY. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE - GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

 

[JTF]

Trolling For Fun

The landlord continues to demonstrate that his lone goal in posting on true crime boards is to elicit a specific response for enjoyment purposes. I would wager that he does not believe in MacDonald's innocence as evidenced by his repetitive responses to debunked claims leveled by the defense.

His attempts at making end runs around the mass of inculpatory physical evidence are laughable. For example, he ignores the FACT that over 100 fibers sourced to inmate's torn pajama top were found at the crime scene. Compare that to the 19 unsourced fibers from several different garments and one quickly realizes that the landlord is playing a shell game on multiple true crime threads.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Why would Stombaughl detach a couple of pajama fibers from the murder weapon and put them in a pill box and then photograph them and then leave behind black wool fibers with no known source on the murder weapon? It smacks of manufactured and fabricated evidence in order to deceive a Court. Stombaugh and Malone of the FBI lab were crooks.

There were pajama fibers at the crime scene it's true but that didn't prove anything. There were pajama fibers and blood at the exact same spot in the hallway where MacDonald said he fell unconscious, but the jury were never told that because Murtagh insisted that evidence presented at the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 should not be presented to the Court because it was ten years old.

There is some background information to this in an affidavit by Segal:

www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/aff-segal-1990-10-13.html

38. On August 21, 1979, at a bench conference, Judge Dupree denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on the government's failure to turn over Brady materials. However, Judge Dupree again admonished the government, stating:

But now, I'll say this: I have always taken the position that if the Government has anything that classifies as Brady material and they do not give it to you, they are certainly going to get reversal. I have instructed them to do it, but now I am not going into their files and in a case as big as this, I am not going to take three days off to see what they've got and whether or not you are entitled to it -- I'm not going to make that. That's their risk. If they've got stuff, they're going to do it. (emphasis added) (Attached hereto as Exhibit 28
)
39. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of CID laboratory technician Janice S. Glisson which reference her findings of blond synthetic hair-like fibers on a clear-handled hairbrush (designated by the CID as Exhibit "K") taken from the MacDonald home. (Attached-20-hereto as Exhibit 29) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

40. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten inventory notes and laboratory notes of FBI lab technicians James Frier and Kathy Bond, which document the existence of black, green, and white wool fibers found in debris taken from the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the FBI as exhibits Q-88 and Q-100) and the wooden club murder weapon (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-89). (Attached hereto as Exhibit 30) I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

41. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel an unsigned typed FBI laboratory report dated March 14, 1979, and numbered "90103084 S RR IZ." (Attached hereto as Exhibit 31) I have carefully reviewed this typed report and state with certainty that I never saw it prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case, nor was I aware until now that the FBI had conducted a re-examination of certain pieces of evidence in early 1979.

42. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes of Army CID laboratory technician Dillard O. Browning, which document the existence of fibers within the debris taken from underneath the body of Colette MacDonald (designated by the CID as Exhibit E-303) that did not have the blue pajama top as their source. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 32) I have carefully reviewed these hand written notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

43. I have been shown by Dr. MacDonald's present counsel what have been represented to me as being handwritten laboratory notes that were provided under the Freedom of Information Act to Dr. MacDonald's attorney, Anthony P. Bisceglie, by former FBI lab technician Paul M. Stombaugh. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 33) These handwritten notes indicate that the FBI's lab examiner discovered within FBI exhibit Q-79, which was the debris taken from underneath the trunk of Colette MacDonald's body, the existence of fibers that did not have the blue pajama top (designated by the FBI as exhibit Q-12) as their source. I have carefully reviewed these handwritten notes and state with certainty that I never saw them prior to, nor during, the trial of Dr. MacDonald's case.

 

[desmirelle]

Thank you for pointing out that Bernie Segal cared so little about the outcome of the trial (and by extension his client's life) that he failed to go examine the evidence that was available to him and the defense team prior to the 1979 trial. He [Segal] wanted the evidence contaminated by shipping it cross country where the chain of command could be compromised and he could disqualify it in that manner (IMO). Failing that, he seemed to think that just saying "I don't remember this" would win them a retrial. That sounds more like a plan with a guilty client rather than an innocent one. Can't win with his [Mac's] sterling character (serial cheater, bad temper - beat up other kids in school, Colette to death at the house), so we'll do the last resort - pound on the table.....

 

[JTF]

Predictable

I want to thank the landlord of MacFantasy Island for continually providing corroboration for ALL of my talking points. His current post is simply a regurgitation of a post he made a few months ago. In the past 15 years, he has repeated this same exact claim at least 30 times.

He believes and/or hopes that the documented record will suddenly vanish and he will be magically vindicated for putting forth erroneous claims. For example, the government's 1991 response brief to the 4th Circuit Court included proof that Shirley Green catalogued evidentiary items, not Kathy Bond.

The defense was unable to produce a salient rebuttal and that issue died a quick death. Four years later, Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter tried to resurrect this issue in Fatal Justice. Bost/Potter then endured a smattering of egg yoke on their faces for they clearly did not read the government's 1991 response brief in its entirety.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[BStrong]

Never has one man had so much love for another man and got so little back in return.

Henri's man crush was found guilty, is guilty and will die in prison.

That's got to be hard to swallow for JM's #1 fanboy.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Never has one man had so much love for another man and got so little back in return.

Henri's man crush was found guilty, is guilty and will die in prison.

That's got to be hard to swallow for JM's #1 fanboy.

I wouldn't assume Henri is a man.

 

[BStrong]

I wouldn't assume Henri is a man.

You are 100% correct.

 

[desmirelle]

Given that Henri's prior aliases were Arthur & Albert (Webb & Thorp, if memory serves, byn or JTF might know for sure) and Henri posted that Henri is not 'gay' nor has a 'man crush', Henri is self-identifying as male, so we'll be respectful and address him in his preferred pronoun he/him/his......

 

[BStrong]

Given that Henri's prior aliases were Arthur & Albert (Webb & Thorp, if memory serves, byn or JTF might know for sure) and Henri posted that Henri is not 'gay' nor has a 'man crush', Henri is self-identifying as male, so we'll be respectful and address him in his preferred pronoun he/him/his......

I might need to go with a question mark, just to give ? the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I want to thank the landlord of MacFantasy Island for continually providing corroboration for ALL of my talking points. His current post is simply a regurgitation of a post he made a few months ago. In the past 15 years, he has repeated this same exact claim at least 30 times.

He believes and/or hopes that the documented record will suddenly vanish and he will be magically vindicated for putting forth erroneous claims. For example, the government's 1991 response brief to the 4th Circuit Court included proof that Shirley Green catalogued evidentiary items, not Kathy Bond.

The defense was unable to produce a salient rebuttal and that issue died a quick death. Four years later, Fred Bost and Jerry Allen Potter tried to resurrect this issue in Fatal Justice. Bost/Potter then endured a smattering of egg yoke on their faces for they clearly did not read the government's 1991 response brief in its entirety.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The EXPERT examiner at the FBI lab, Frier, reported that black wool fibers with no known source were on the murder weapon and that there were no pajama fibers. That information was never given to the jury, or to Segal, because Murtagh and Stombaugh wanted it covered up. It's scandalous. The forensic significance of all this for the Simple Simons who think I am trying to derail the thread is that Blackburn in his closing argument told the jury that pajama fibers on the murder weapon was the conclusive evidence against MacDonald.

Kathy Bond was Frier's assistant at the FBI lab. She once reported that there were "pajama-like fibers" on the wooden club murder weapon. That's hardly conclusive. Shirley Green at the FBI lab was mainly involved in the conceptually unsound pajama folding experiment which was supposed to incriminate MacDonald, though she does seem to have done some sort of catalogued evidentiary items.

This is what Shirley Green said about the matter:

The primary laboratory examiner Mr. Frier was responsible for the final and conclusive examinations concerning hairs and fibers.

www.crimearchives.net/1979_macdonald/affidavits/1991-02-13_EDNC_aff_green.html

 

[JTF]

Can't Even Get The Little Things Right

In terms of the landlord's latest regurgitation...

Frier did not classify the two unsourced fibers found on the club as being "black wool." His specific classification was two dark woolen fibers which included a mixture of black/blue/purple. What Frier did not know was whether the two unsourced fibers came from the same source. In 1990, chemical composition analysis proved beyond all doubt that the two fibers came from different sources. This placed the defense in a bind for they were attempting to link unsourced fibers to a single source (e.g., clothing worn by Stoeckley).

The landlord ignores the chain of custody documentation AND lab notes constructed/initialed by Shirley Green that prove beyond all doubt that two seam threads from inmate's torn pajama top were also found on the club. Dillard Browning mentions in his notes that the two fibers were adhering to the club in Colette's blood. Kathy Bond may have assisted Frier in other cases, but she was not involved in this case. I challenge the landlord to produce a single lab note from the 1979 fiber re-analysis that was written/initialed by Bond. Good luck with that.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Henri McPhee]

Dillard Browning at the Army CID lab got it wrong. The question needs to be asked here, how could such a blatant error have been made?

www.crimetraveller.org/2017/08/an-i...tain-jeffrey-macdonald-a-critique-of-the-case

 

[desmirelle]

Unlike you, Henri, I can answer a question. The error was made because Captain Jeffrey Robert Macdonald THREW OUT all items of clothing belonging to Colette, Kimberley, and Kristen along with anything that belonged to them (save the dolls his beleaguered in-laws had). No points here, Henri, since he made it impossible for the comparison to be done because of his own actions (throwing them out), he doesn't get the benefit of calling foul in this instance. The clothing and personal items of three-fourths of the household were thrown away like garbage by your murdering man crush and now wannbe Thin Blue Liners ignore this fact when blabbing about the case.

 

[Henri McPhee]

You are mistaken and unfair. I agree it was a mistake for MacDonald to throw out the dolls after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970 where he had been cleared. He had no way of knowing at the time that blond synthetic hair -like fibers had been found at the crime scene which came from Helena Stoeckley 's wig. This was covered up by the Army CID lab and never presented to a court. It was only discovered by the defense much later on under the Freedom of Information Act. Malone of the FBI lab then manufactured that information to say it came from MacDonald dolls and not a wig with his trust me I'm in the FBI.

I don't know where you get the information that Kassab had MacDonald dolls but if he did have any they were never used as evidence.

There is a part 1 of that accurate and fair article about the MacDonald case at:

www.crimetraveller.org/2017/07/innocent-man-part-i-trial-of-jeffrey-macdonald-critique-of-the-case

 

[desmirelle]

Oh, so you can make up anything you like and claim random internet postings are relevant, but let me point out FACT and you say I'm 'mistaken and unfair'? Wrong again, Henri. Your man crush threw out the personal items of his victims. He did it after the Article 32 hearing while moving from Fort Bragg and transitioning the Army. It was a mistake of the Army not to impound these items for further analysis, but it wasn't MY mistake and it is fair, just and equitable that I point out that Mac himself made the comparisons impossible. And if you make it impossible for the items to be sourced, you don't get to complain that the sourcing doesn't happen. That's life.

 

[JTF]

Still Waiting

Still waiting on that initialed lab note by Kathy Bond. Considering that you've failed to address any of my numerous challenges, my expectations for you meeting this current challenge are slim and Slim left town. The only thing your link proves is that the cognitive process of MacDonald advocates are in lock step.

For example, the author of the landlord's new favorite article also claims that Kathy Bond assisted Frier in the re-analysis of fiber evidence in this case. His lone source for this claim is Fatal Justice, yet as I mentioned in a prior post, Bost/Potter did not read the government's 1991 rebuttal to that false assertion. The totality of this guy's research material consisted of books and articles written by MacDonald advocates.

Let's talk turkey, none of MacDonald's various advocates have produced a single SOURCED evidentiary item that links the Stoeckley Seven or the New York Four to this crime. No DNA, fibers, hairs, prints, or bloody footprints matched exemplars obtained from these 11 suspects. The odds of 11 different people partaking in a home invasion and not leaving a trace of their presence at the crime scene are beyond astronomical.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com