Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[Rolfe]

Murtagh seems to have been very heavily involved in the MacDonald case. "Competent advocate successfully prosecutes man with a shedload of evidence against him" isn't much of an accolade in general though.

His involvement in Lockerbie was quite peripheral, although he did hang around at the trial and groom the relatives into believing that the Crown had the right men.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. As always, you take what people say and twist it into something it isn't. It's dishonest and tiresome. I'm out.

I don't know why I'm bothering but I'll give it one go. What does "valid path to the facts of the Macdonald" mean if not what I interpreted it to mean?

I never claimed to have those facts. I commented on the Book TV episode and found searching for controversial evidence turned up a fair amount.

What is it you are complaining about? I found Morris credible and don't believe the claim "he's a con artist". I found the issues Morris brought up were important, mainly that police and prosecutors latch on to a single narrative and it affects their objectivity. I also found credibility in what Morris had to say about the belief the public has was tainted by a number of things.

Why did the author of "Fatal Vision" lose a lawsuit to MacDonald if that book was such a credible source of information on the case.

You have not addressed those issues. Instead you chose an ad hom argument claiming I hadn't read the books on this case therefore what I posted need not be addressed.

 

[desertgal]

I don't know why I'm bothering but I'll give it one go. What does "valid path to the facts of the Macdonald" mean if not what I interpreted it to mean?

I'm not sure why I'm bothering either, except that I once respected your opinions, so I'll give it another go.

I never insisted that reading all the literature was the only valid path to some facts of the MacDonald case. If that is how it came across, I apologize. But it is, certainly, a better way to familiarize oneself with ALL the facts, pros and cons, than watching a single televison show with an author whose book has been widely criticized as less than credible.

I never claimed to have those facts. I commented on the Book TV episode and found searching for controversial evidence turned up a fair amount.

That does not take into account how much or little of that controversial evidence is validly controversial. Did you research that?

What is it you are complaining about? I found Morris credible and don't believe the claim "he's a con artist".

Yet, you are willing to believe Joe McGinniss is a con artist without reading and comparing any of the pertinent literature? You don't find that just a little hypocritical?

I found the issues Morris brought up were important, mainly that police and prosecutors latch on to a single narrative and it affects their objectivity. I also found credibility in what Morris had to say about the belief the public has was tainted by a number of things.

Did you stop to question, or research, how valid Morris' comments were, or just take them at face value? Do you know?

Why did the author of "Fatal Vision"…

His name is Joe McGinniss. Fatal Vision is universally considered to be one of the most comprehensive accounts of a single crime ever written, and it took McGinniss years of research and effort to accomplish it. Whether you agree with him or not, being dismissive of anyone's hard work by refusing to call them by name is simply childish. How many comparable books have you written?

…lose a lawsuit to MacDonald if that book was such a credible source of information on the case.

And therein you reveal your own wilfull ignorance, because McGinniss DIDN'T lose a lawsuit to MacDonald. MacDonald's lawsuit cited an alleged breach of verbal contract, and did not address the validity of either the content of the book, McGinniss' conclusions or the jury's verdict. The trial resulted in a hung jury, and McGinniss' publisher elected to reach an out of court settlement with MacDonald instead of paying the possibly much higher expense of further trials.

IOW, the lawsuit was not about the credibility of the information in the book. It was MacDonald throwing a legal hissy fit because McGinniss didn't write the "I Luvs Me Some Jeffy" tome MacDonald wanted him to.

And not once during any legal proceeding, including that trial, have MacDonald or his attorneys cited a single factual error in Fatal Vision, a book MacDonald otherwise publicly screamed buried him. Not once, even when they had ample opportunity to discredit McGinniss' conclusions. Don't you have to ask yourself why not?

You have not addressed those issues. Instead you chose an ad hom argument claiming I hadn't read the books on this case therefore what I posted need not be addressed.

Meh. Having a balanced view of the subject is helpful to any debate. You have to look at it from all sides to get there, though. It's called critical thinking.

JTF, I have to agree with Rolfe. Your posts are very difficult to read, and it discourages people from reading them. Use of the quote function would be a big plus.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't know why I'm bothering but I'll give it one go. What does "valid path to the facts of the Macdonald" mean if not what I interpreted it to mean?

I never claimed to have those facts. I commented on the Book TV episode and found searching for controversial evidence turned up a fair amount.

What is it you are complaining about? I found Morris credible and don't believe the claim "he's a con artist". I found the issues Morris brought up were important, mainly that police and prosecutors latch on to a single narrative and it affects their objectivity. I also found credibility in what Morris had to say about the belief the public has was tainted by a number of things.

Why did the author of "Fatal Vision" lose a lawsuit to MacDonald if that book was such a credible source of information on the case.

McGinniss began the Fatal Vision project with the idea that MacDonald was innocent, or might be innocent, and pitched himself as the right person to help get the story out. He won MacDonald's trust and the access that came with it.

At some point during the project, McGinniss realized that MacDonald is guilty, but he continued to exploit MacDonald's trust so he could complete the book. He therefore solicited MacDonald's cooperation under a false pretext. That's what the lawsuit is about, and it is why McGinniss is under a cloud with regard to ethics. But that has nothing to do with MacDonald's guilt or innocence.

From everything I have read, MacDonald's supporters are in the same position as Amanda Knox's haters. They have constructed a vague theory from conjecture and unreliable information, but it doesn't add up, and they never try to make it add up. They avoid a detailed analysis of the crime scene. They don't claim to know what happened. Their position is that the obvious story told by the most reliable evidence must be wrong because other evidence seems to contradict it.

I watched the CSPAN clip. I notice that Morris talks about police errors and confirmation bias. These are a problem in many cases, and they are a problem in the MacDonald case. He is on safe ground.

What he doesn't talk about are the details of the crime scene, particularly the blood evidence, because that would lead him onto unsafe ground. Despite investigative blunders, and despite the fact that the investigation took place before DNA evidence became available, the police caught a huge break in the MacDonald case. All four members of the MacDonald family had a different blood type. Investigators could match every bloodstain to a specific family member. And when they did so, they were able to piece together a plausible reconstruction of what happened that night, one that matches the blood evidence, which completely undermines MacDonald's account.

 

[desertgal]

McGinniss began the Fatal Vision project with the idea that MacDonald was innocent, or might be innocent, and pitched himself as the right person to help get the story out. He won MacDonald's trust and the access that came with it.

At some point during the project, McGinniss realized that MacDonald is guilty, but he continued to exploit MacDonald's trust so he could complete the book. He therefore solicited MacDonald's cooperation under a false pretext. That's what the lawsuit is about, and it is why McGinniss is under a cloud with regard to ethics. But that has nothing to do with MacDonald's guilt or innocence.

It's worth noting that McGinniss does not, in Final Vision, deny that he continued to exploit that trust. BUT he does, and has always, insisted that he never promised MacDonald the book would be favorable to MacDonald, and he did have waivers signed by MacDonald that allowed him full editorial control. Of course, only he and MacDonald know the truth of the matter, but McGinniss HAS been upfront about his dubious ethics on that one point. Which lends to his credibility.

 

[JTF]

Kiss

This case is frequently described as being overly complex and MacDonald advocates have used this tag to jump all over the map when presenting their arguments for inmate's innocence. The reality is that this case is quite simple. As soon as MacDonald told CID investigators that he took off his pajama top after "finding" Colette on the master bedroom carpet, the ballgame was over. Why?

1) Twenty Four fibers sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top were found under Colette's body.

2) One of those fibers was found directly under her head and was protruding from the carpet in pigtail fashion.

3) Twenty Two fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on top of the master bed.

4) Six pajama fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on the master bed pillow.

5) A pajama fiber was found by the headboard of the master bed. The word PIG was written on the headboard in Colette's blood. No ridge lines were found which indicated that the autor wore gloves when constructing the word.

6) A bloody pajama fiber was found entwined with a bloody head hair from Colette on a multi-colored bedspread. This bedspread was found bundled with a blue bedsheet near the closet in the master bedroom.

7) A finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in this bundled bedding and it was stained with Colette's blood.

8) Multiple pajama fibers and massive blood stains from Colette and Kimmie were found on the blue bedsheet.

9) Three bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet. MacDonald claims he never touched the blue bedsheet.

10) Two bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to Colette's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet. Massive blood stains from Colette and these bloody fabric impressions indicated that she had been carried in that bedsheet from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

11) Fourteen pajama fibers were found under Kimmie's blankets. MacDonald claimed that he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" Kimmie in her bed.

12) A 20.5 inch warp yarn sourced to MacDonald's pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

13) A pajama fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow.

14) Two pajama fibers were found under Kristen's blankets. MacDonald claims he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" Kristen in her bed.

15) A bloody pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail.

16) Four Type A blood stains that continued across a tear on MacDonald's pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pajama top before it was torn.

17) Six Type A blood stains found on the face of the pocket of MacDonald's torn pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pocket before it was torn from the garment.

18) The torn pajama top was found on Colette's chest and subsequent analysis determined that the stab wound pattern in Colette's chest matched the pattern of puncture holes in the pajama top. The only viable conclusion that could be drawn from this analysis is that the ice pick pierced the pajama top as it lay on Colette's chest.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[JTF]

Great Article

Enjoy.

http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/wilderness_of_errol.php?page=1

 

[desertgal]

This case is frequently described as being overly complex and MacDonald advocates have used this tag to jump all over the map when presenting their arguments for inmate's innocence. The reality is that this case is quite simple. As soon as MacDonald told CID investigators that he took off his pajama top after "finding" Colette on the master bedroom carpet, the ballgame was over. Why?

1) Twenty Four fibers sourced to MacDonald's torn pajama top were found under Colette's body.

2) One of those fibers was found directly under her head and was protruding from the carpet in pigtail fashion.

3) Twenty Two fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on top of the master bed.

4) Six pajama fibers sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on the master bed pillow.

5) A pajama fiber was found by the headboard of the master bed. The word PIG was written on the headboard in Colette's blood. No ridge lines were found which indicated that the autor wore gloves when constructing the word.

6) A bloody pajama fiber was found entwined with a bloody head hair from Colette on a multi-colored bedspread. This bedspread was found bundled with a blue bedsheet near the closet in the master bedroom.

7) A finger section of a surgeon's glove was found in this bundled bedding and it was stained with Colette's blood.

8) Multiple pajama fibers and massive blood stains from Colette and Kimmie were found on the blue bedsheet.

9) Three bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to MacDonald's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet. MacDonald claims he never touched the blue bedsheet.

10) Two bloody pajama cuff impressions sourced to Colette's pajama top were found on the blue bedsheet. Massive blood stains from Colette and these bloody fabric impressions indicated that she had been carried in that bedsheet from Kristen's room to the master bedroom.

11) Fourteen pajama fibers were found under Kimmie's blankets. MacDonald claimed that he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" Kimmie in her bed.

12) A 20.5 inch warp yarn sourced to MacDonald's pajama top was found on top of Kimmie's pillow.

13) A pajama fiber was found under Kimmie's pillow.

14) Two pajama fibers were found under Kristen's blankets. MacDonald claims he was not wearing his torn pajama top when he "found" Kristen in her bed.

15) A bloody pajama fiber was found embedded under Kristen's fingernail.

16) Four Type A blood stains that continued across a tear on MacDonald's pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pajama top before it was torn.

17) Six Type A blood stains found on the face of the pocket of MacDonald's torn pajama top demonstrated that Colette bled on that pocket before it was torn from the garment.

18) The torn pajama top was found on Colette's chest and subsequent analysis determined that the stab wound pattern in Colette's chest matched the pattern of puncture holes in the pajama top. The only viable conclusion that could be drawn from this analysis is that the ice pick pierced the pajama top as it lay on Colette's chest.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

The crux of the case. Can you thoroughly comprehend this, SG, and then still argue that "controversial evidence" less relevant to the bare question of whether MacDonald killed his family supports his innocence?

Of course, Norris doesn't argue that MacDonald is innocent. He argues that MacDonald is falsely imprisoned because he was "railroaded". Norris refuses to address the existence of the evidence above at all. Don't you have to ask yourself why not?

Jeffrey MacDonald has been given more opportunities to prove his case than probably any other convicted felon in America. It's staggering, the amount of times he's tried and failed. I'm curious as to what else you believe the justice system (not to mention the taxpayers paying for this ridiculous ongoing farce), in America should do to accomodate MacDonald?

And to what end? A new trial? The evidence listed above would still stand, and almost certainly guarantee a guilty verdict. Why? Because the original jury cited him guilty because of this evidence, which does not lie, not because of what you have deemed "controversial evidence". That same verdict has been consistently upheld because of this evidence, which does not lie, not because of what you have deemed "controversial evidence". He was not railroaded.

And Joe McGinniss did not attempt to con anyone with the contents of Fatal Vision and Final Vision. Maybe you could try, you know, actually reading both before passing judgement on the contents? Just a thought.

How about Colette MacDonald? Maybe we should accomodate her version of the case-the evidence cited above-instead? Seems only fair at this point.

The truth does not lie. Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really, really did.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Enjoy.

http://www.cjr.org/critical_eye/wilderness_of_errol.php?page=1

That is indeed an excellent summary, perfect for SG or anyone who wants to understand why the case against MacDonald is solid despite the fumbles of police and first responders.

Why do educated, intelligent people continue to support MacDonald? It's an interesting phenomenon that I have seen in a number of cases, one being that of Michael Peterson, a novelist. The evidence shows clearly that he murdered his wife, and he probably got by with murdering another woman many years earlier. But he is charming and well-schooled, just the kind of man who can beguile people like Edward Jay Epstein or Errol Morris. Peterson's supporters have secured his release from prison pending another trial. They explain the blood evidence at the crime scene as the result of an owl attack that caused the victim to fall down a flight of stairs.

Another example is Jack Unterweger, an erudite sex killer who convinced intellectuals he had reformed, and got them to support him in a successful bid for clemency. He celebrated his new lease on life by ending the lives of several women.

The most famous example of course is Roman Polanski, the poor, misunderstood rapist. But he is such a fine movie director!

It's not quite so easy to understand why highbrows rallied to the defense of James Hanratty, a cockney misfit. In that case, I think, the motivation was political. Hanratty was one of the last men to be hanged in the UK. His supporters were opponents of the death penalty who aimed to show it had claimed the life of an innocent man.

They had quite a lot to work with. The case against Hanratty was based on witness testimony, and another suspect had confessed repeatedly to the crime. Hanratty's supporters waged a campaign to clear his name, and the controversy persisted for many decades.

Finally, in 2002, Hanratty's corpse was exhumed for the purpose of obtaining a reference DNA sample. It matched semen from the rape victim's panties as well as DNA found on a handkerchief used to wrap the murder weapon. Hanratty was well and truly nailed.

But, his supporters refused to accept this finding as valid. They had invested too much in their effort to clear him.

 

[desertgal]

The most famous example of course is Roman Polanski, the poor, misunderstood rapist. But he is such a fine movie director!

I believe the continued support of Polanski has less to do with his occupation, and more to do with the fact that he is Sharon Tate's widower.

 

[Rolfe]

That linked article has a pertinent quote. MacDonald's story about the drugged-up hippies was an excuse of "the dog ate my homework" school. That's what I thought when I looked at JTF's web site, and I have to say I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

Some people need to realise that just because some police procedure wasn't correct, that doesn't mean the suspect was factually innocent.

Rolfe.

 

[yodaluver28]

I believe the continued support of Polanski has less to do with his occupation, and more to do with the fact that he is Sharon Tate's widower.

I think most people who remember Sharon Tate's murder feel for her mother, who fought hard to get the law passed allowing victim impact statements at sentencing and parole hearings in California, and her sister, who personally shows up and testifies against the release of Sharon's murderers every single time they come up for parole. RP never did any of that, he was too busy on the lamb for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Most if not all of the sympathy people felt towards Polanski after the murder evaporated as soon as they discovered what he'd done to that girl, which was far worse than his supporters are usually willing to admit.

The vast majority of those who support him now seem to do so because of his work as if that alone should make him above the law. Read the letters and petitions from people like Martin Scorcese and Frédéric Mitterrand, who defended him after he was finally arrested in Switzerland in 2009. All they talked about was the effect the arrest would have on an "international art icon", "artistic culture" and what not. They never said a word about Polanski's rape victim nor about Tate and her baby's murder. It was all about him. It's the same with MacDonald's groupies, the victims don't matter. They might as well have never existed, it's only the sociopath that matters because the groupies get something, however nebulous and indefinable, from them.

 

[JTF]

Exculpatory, My Foot

In the past 15 years, the only "new" forensic evidence put forth by the defense has been the DNA tests on 28 hair exhibits in this case. The test results were basically a wash with 5 inculpatory exhibits and 3 exculpatory exhibits. At the September evidentiary hearing, the defense was short and sweet in regards to the exculpatory nature of the 3 hair exhibits. The defense argued that unsourced hairs equals hippie home invaders. There are several problems with that specious argument.

1) None of the hairs matched the DNA profile of an intruder suspect.

2) All 3 hairs contained a club root which indicates that the hairs were naturally shed.

3) One of the hairs was a pubic hair, yet Colette was not sexually assaulted.

4) One of the hairs was allegedly found under Kristen's fingernail, but the hair was not observed at her autopsy nor was it a part of her fingernail scrapings during the original hair/fiber analysis conducted by the CID. The lone documentation of this 5mm hair occurred 6 months after the murders by CID lab technician Janice Glisson. This strongly indicates that the presence of that hair in Kristen's fingernail scrapings was due to contamination.

5) None of the hairs were bloody indicating that they were naturally shed.

6) The MacDonald residence had prior tenants.

7) The MacDonald family allowed their neighbors to use their washer and dryer.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[Bob001]

...
The vast majority of those who support him now seem to do so because of his work as if that alone should make him above the law.
....

I am in no way defending Roman Polanski. But it seems pretty clear that at the time of his crime, he had reached a plea deal that spared the victim from testifying in court. He had spent time in jail for evaluation, had been released, and expected to be sentenced to probation in exchange for a guilty plea. But he learned that the judge was planning to throw out the deal and send him to prison for years, then deport him. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he ran. Consider it "self-deportation." It's pretty clear that the case should have been handled differently from the beginning, and almost certainly would be handled differently today. Polanski later apologized to the victim and settled a civil suit with her. She herself has said she doesn't think he should go to prison. At some point a case like this -- where the victim herself is saying "Enough!" -- has to be over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Geimer

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am in no way defending Roman Polanski. But it seems pretty clear that at the time of his crime, he had reached a plea deal that spared the victim from testifying in court. He had spent time in jail for evaluation, had been released, and expected to be sentenced to probation in exchange for a guilty plea. But he learned that the judge was planning to throw out the deal and send him to prison for years, then deport him. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he ran. Consider it "self-deportation." It's pretty clear that the case should have been handled differently from the beginning, and almost certainly would be handled differently today. Polanski later apologized to the victim and settled a civil suit with her. She herself has said she doesn't think he should go to prison. At some point a case like this -- where the victim herself is saying "Enough!" -- has to be over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Geimer

I would agree that extraditing Polanski should not be a priority for US law enforcement. It's not a good use of resources at this late date.

But I can't stomach the Hollywood hotshots who shill for this guy. A lot of ordinary people have spent 30 years in prison for what he did. Polanski's supporters seem to be arguing for a special dispensation on the basis of his talent, and I don't agree with that.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I agree about the use of the quote function; it makes the posts much more readable.

JTF, what is the deal with that bloody palm print? I read Fatal Vision years ago and have always been of the belief that MacDonald is as guilty as they come, but I have never heard of that palm print before.

 

[JTF]

No Evidence Of A Bloody Palm Print

In 1997, MacDonald's advocates put forth the claim that an unidentified bloody palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed. CID Exhibit D-270 states "Red-brown stain from left edge of bed footboard in east bedroom," and Exhibit W-5 states "one partial latent palm print on the footboard." There is not a single lab document that describes the unidentified print as a bloody palm print and if the print had any discernable ridge lines, it would have been labeled as a patent palm print. Considering that palm print samples obtained at autopsy from Colette MacDonald were of poor quality, there is a reasonably good chance that the palm print found on the footboard was Colette's.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[JTF]

Conflation

The first public mention of this alleged bloody palm print was in the updated version of Fatal Justice. Two years after the release of this book, I corresponded with FJ co-author Fred Bost via letters and phone contacts.

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

In 1999, his explanation for the bloody palm print seemed reasonable to me, but the government quickly squashed that claim when they charged Bost and co-author Jerry Allen Potter with conflating two separate CID exhibits (e.g., CID Exhibits D-270 and W-5). To this day, the defense has been unable to produce a single document that states that a bloody palm print was found on the footboard of the master bed.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. It's also true that anyone can be right most of the time simply by endorsing whatever allegations the authorities make.

It's true that most convictions are sound. Most criminals aren't very clever. And I think that includes MacDonald. What I find so peculiar, especially in a sceptics' forum, is the number of people who approach any discussion of a possible miscarriage of justice from the position that because most convictions are sound they can simply declare that the conviction being challenged is sound.

I mean, I've had the conversations. It comes down to, no, I don't know anything about the case or the evidence, but since most convictions are sound I'm absolutely going to call you a raving conspiracy nutter if you have doubts about one specific case.

What's that all about? "Most" is not the same as "all".

I even get the feeling that part of the purpose of this thread is to have a dig at the people who are specifically questioning the guilt of Amanda Knox, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the West Memphis Three, Lindy Chamberlain, whoever. Oh look, here's a convicted person who actually did it, what do you say to that then? Just shows how wrong you are!

And still JTF fails to make an appearance to discuss the Lockerbie conviction in an appropriate thread, despite declaring a vehement opinion about it here, where it can't be challenged.

Rolfe.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's true that most convictions are sound. Most criminals aren't very clever. And I think that includes MacDonald. What I find so peculiar, especially in a sceptics' forum, is the number of people who approach any discussion of a possible miscarriage of justice from the position that because most convictions are sound they can simply declare that the conviction being challenged is sound.

I mean, I've had the conversations. It comes down to, no, I don't know anything about the case or the evidence, but since most convictions are sound I'm absolutely going to call you a raving conspiracy nutter if you have doubts about one specific case.

What's that all about? "Most" is not the same as "all".

I even get the feeling that part of the purpose of this thread is to have a dig at the people who are specifically questioning the guilt of Amanda Knox, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the West Memphis Three, Lindy Chamberlain, whoever. Oh look, here's a convicted person who actually did it, what do you say to that then? Just shows how wrong you are!

And still JTF fails to make an appearance to discuss the Lockerbie conviction in an appropriate thread, despite declaring a vehement opinion about it here, where it can't be challenged.

Rolfe.

I can understand how MacDonald incites deep revulsion. He is the epitome of a lying, manipulating, self-serving sociopath. It's easy to cast Murtagh as a hero, a man whose principles and integrity are above reproach. But he might be just another lawyer who wants to win, who only cares about the truth if it serves his purpose.