Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That article is a load of rubbish. It's not profound enough.

McGinniss is desperate to defend his fabricated evidence in the MacDonald case because money talks. If he is ever proved wrong it makes him look like an idiot. It's not good for his image.

All the prosecution can come up with now is a lot of manufactured evidence about pajama fibers and pajama pockets. They don't want the real culprits to be arrested.

Why didn't the FBI use a real blood expert in the MacDonald case instead of a former insurance salesman and con artist like Stombaugh. They must think that American juries can be easily fooled. Malone and his theory without facts about fibers coming from dolls has been described as a "total liar" by a lawyer in another murder case, and that was proved. I don't think discipline in the FBI is quite what it should be. Malone remains unpunished, of course.

This is a sensible reference from a former defense response to all that pajama pocket nonsense which is supposed to be real proof of MacDonald guilt:

"A conclusion equally plausible with the government’s theory is that Jeff
MacDonald, upon finding his wife’s bloody body in the master bedroom, and while removing the bath
mat and trying to move Colette as he testified happened, at some point began trying to frantically unbind
the pajama top that was wrapped around his wrists. As he was attempting to do this the pajama pocket
could easily have been torn away from the top, but only after it had already come in contact with both
Colette’s blood which was all around her body, and blood of Kimberley’s blood type which was on the
bath mat covering Colette. This explanation is consistent with the evidence. It is no more or less likely
than the government’s speculation about it. Hence, the torn pajama pocket evidence is neutral. Contrary
to the myth perpetrated by the government over the years, it is not probative of Jeff MacDonald’s guilt."
 
Pajama Top Pocket

The significance of Terry Laber's trial testimony was evident in the FACT that no rebuttal witnesses were called by the Defense. The explanation provided in Henri's post ignores several key FACTS.

1) The area on the pajama top where the pocket was originally located was soaked in Colette's Type A blood.

2) The pocket was found at Colette's feet on top of an upturned corner portion of an area rug. The corner portion of the rug had no blood on it.

3) The pocket, on the other hand, had Colette's blood on it in 6 locations. The stains were on the face of the double-layered fabric and no stains were found on the opposite side of the pocket. This indicated that Colette's blood stained the pocket BEFORE it was torn from jacket.

4) During the 4/6/70 interview with CID investigators, MacDonald claims that his pajama top was torn in the living room, but neither the pocket nor a single fiber from his pajama top was found in the living room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Henri McPhee said:
That article is a load of rubbish. It's not profound enough.

McGinniss is desperate to defend his fabricated evidence in the MacDonald case because money talks. If he is ever proved wrong it makes him look like an idiot. It's not good for his image.

All the prosecution can come up with now is a lot of manufactured evidence about pajama fibers and pajama pockets. They don't want the real culprits to be arrested.

Why didn't the FBI use a real blood expert in the MacDonald case instead of a former insurance salesman and con artist like Stombaugh. They must think that American juries can be easily fooled. Malone and his theory without facts about fibers coming from dolls has been described as a "total liar" by a lawyer in another murder case, and that was proved. I don't think discipline in the FBI is quite what it should be. Malone remains unpunished, of course.

This is a sensible reference from a former defense response to all that pajama pocket nonsense which is supposed to be real proof of MacDonald guilt:

"A conclusion equally plausible with the government’s theory is that Jeff
MacDonald, upon finding his wife’s bloody body in the master bedroom, and while removing the bath
mat and trying to move Colette as he testified happened, at some point began trying to frantically unbind
the pajama top that was wrapped around his wrists. As he was attempting to do this the pajama pocket
could easily have been torn away from the top, but only after it had already come in contact with both
Colette’s blood which was all around her body, and blood of Kimberley’s blood type which was on the
bath mat covering Colette. This explanation is consistent with the evidence. It is no more or less likely
than the government’s speculation about it. Hence, the torn pajama pocket evidence is neutral. Contrary
to the myth perpetrated by the government over the years, it is not probative of Jeff MacDonald’s guilt."
Click to expand...

Don't you also believe that Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman hired to kill Colette and the girls because Jeff MacDonald punched an alleged Mafia member in the mouth? I remember you mentioning that...

So much for the credibility of your opinions. :rolleyes:
 
Stombaugh

Paul Stombaugh had a decorated career in the FBI which spanned 25 years. Stombaugh testified in over 300 cases, he analyzed hair and fiber evidence in the JFK case, and he frequently lectured on hair and fiber analysis at Quantico. Stombaugh was brilliant at the 1979 trial and many trial observers felt that his testimony was the main reason why MacDonald was convicted on three counts of murder.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
JTF said:
4) During the 4/6/70 interview with CID investigators, MacDonald claims that his pajama top was torn in the living room, but neither the pocket nor a single fiber from his pajama top was found in the living room.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Click to expand...

Dr. MacDonald never did say that the pajama top was torn in the living room so why is it so suspicious, and such a great surprise, that no pajama fibers were found there? Anybody who is not a simpleton would be able to see that. JTF has got it wrong again.

As far as I can remember Dr. MacDonald never said that he walked through four people to get to the bedroom either as Shaw was quoted saying at the Article 32. It sounds like a dodgy dossier to me.

The matter was discussed at the article 32 in 1970 with Army CID agent Shaw. He was the goon who thought Colette murdered the two little girls:

A No, because he states it was ripped in the living room. He started down the hallway and he wound up unconscious on the hall floor. There are no fibers in the living room--we found none--let's put it that way, and we searched very diligently for fibers in the living room or the couch and in the kitchen and dining room we found none. We did find one group of fibers, or threads, I am not sure which, at the entrance to the hallway, floor to the living room. We found a great many fibers all over the bedroom floor. I was asked before where most of them were found, but in fact they were found through the traveled area of this bedroom floor.
Q Captain MacDonald never said it got ripped; he said it somehow got entangled over his arm in the living room in the struggle and he staggered into the hallway and became unconscious, is that your recollection also of his story?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then he regained consciousness and went into the bedroom and then took off the top or freed his hands?
A He said to me in the only personal statement I heard him make, that he has no recollection of it going over his head because he has no recollection of the top being pulled over the head, but he did say at one point that the pajama jacket was wrapped somehow around his wrist and that someone was punching him and he was trying to fend off the punches with the top in his hands and when he regained consciousness, he went through these four people and wound up on the floor of the hallway and regained consciousness, he stood up and walked to his wife's body, pulled the pajama jacket off his hand and placed it on her body in an attempt to keep her warm and treat her for shock. So that is what I heard him say.
Q But he never said the jacket was ripped?
A I don't believe he used that term. I would have to read the transcript of his statement again.
Q If fibers were found in the hallway near the living room, isn't it possible this got there from his falling down there and lying there with his hands entwined in the jacket for a period of time--we don't know how long--before he got up to go in the bedroom? Couldn't they have gotten there that way?
A If that happened, yes, they could have.
 
Last edited:
Keeping Stories Not So Straight

The documented record demonstrates that Jeffrey MacDonald was all over the map in regards to what occurred on 2/17/70. His pajama top was ripped in the living room, it was ripped in the master bedroom as he was removing it from his wrists, he was attacked by two black males and one white male, he was attacked by two white males and one black male, he didn't go into the kitchen, he went into the kitchen and may have washed his hands in the kitchen sink, and the list goes on and on.

The list is so prodigious that part of the Government's post-hearing exhibits list includes two booklets worth of MacDonald's contradictions. MacDonald's story changed as his knowledge of the Government's case increased. These changes, however, couldn't explain why his wife's blood was found on his torn pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE it was torn or why fibers from his torn pajama top were found under bodies, bedcovers, pillows, and his daughter's fingernail or why bloody fabric impressions matching the pajama cuffs of Jeffrey AND Colette MacDonald were found on a piece of bedding used to transport Colette AND Kimmie back to their bedrooms or........

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Dr. MacDonald never changed his story. It's true that at times he was not terribly sure whether Helena Stoeckley's boots were beige or light colored but that could be explained by the fact that it all happened so quickly. Forgive my ignorance, but I have never seen an exact reference where Dr. MacDonald said he was attacked by two black males, though in the circumstances that was entirely possible. There were other black males besides Dwight Smith who were named as suspects by Ted Gunderson and by Detective Beasley in their reports of the MacDonald case.

It was never proved that there was blood on the pajama top before it was torn in order to imply a violent argument. The supposed blood evidence on the pajama top was never presented to the court from the prosecution lawyers by a qualified blood expert. Pajama fibers are pajama fibers, and they prove nothing. There are grave doubts that there were any pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon which the fraudster lawyer Blackburn was so keen to sway the jury with in his closing argument at the MacDonald trial.

The mystery black fibers, never identified, on the wooden club murder weapon and around Colette's mouth have been disregarded just because Judge Dupree in his wisdom said in an appeal they would not sway a jury

There isn't a particle of evidence that Kimmie and Colette were transported to their bedrooms, apart from a few blood spots collected by very inexperienced Army lab technicians. Dr. Thornton always said that he wanted to check the blood evidence himself, but he was never allowed to by Judge Dupree. Dr. Thornton had been told by the FBI that mistakes had been made in blood typing by the Army CID lab in the past. That could have happened in the MacDonald case.

There was an interesting miscarriage of justice case in the UK a couple of days ago which reminded me of the MacDonald case. The boyfriend of a murdered teenage girl was put in prison for six years in about 2001 after the police honestly thought they were right. After a campaign by the BBC TV Rough Justice show, now discontinued, he was released on appeal. Then in 2010 there was a DNA hit from a DNA computer of previously unidentified DNA found on the murder weapon which belonged to somebody called Ahmed who had recently been convicted of a sexual assault. Ahmed has now been convicted and imprisoned for that murder.

As the lawyer Jaggers in the Charles Dickens Great Expectations novel said " Take nothing on looks, take everything on the evidence. There is no better rule."
 
Put Up Or Shut Up

HENRI: You certainly have the right to ignore the mass of data demonstrating MacDonald's guilt, but this is a forum that focuses on critical thought. For the past decade, you've posted the SAME dubious claims on several other forums, but as of late, this forum has been the lone venue for your disjointed arguments.

I would advocate that you go back to posting on other MacDonald case forums. As I have in the past, I will be happy to respond to each and every one of your convoluted, conspiracy-minded posts. IMO, your bizarre advocacy pieces are better suited for forums whose entire focus is the MacDonald case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Henri also thinks Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. He pretty much abolished any semblance of credibility with that one post. I doubt anyone is even bothering to read his posts anymore.
 
desertgal said:
Henri also thinks Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. He pretty much abolished any semblance of credibility with that one post. I doubt anyone is even bothering to read his posts anymore.
Click to expand...

I have never said that Helena Stoeckley was a Mafia hitman. I have said that she was a snitch and a very reliable snitch at that. When she provided information about drugs the police were always very interested. There were rumors that Helena was used as a snitch also by the Army CID, and by the FBI.

I do have my doubts about Allen Patrick Mazerolle and his pal Rizzo who both came from the New York area. I would be interested to know if their names are on any FBI computer. The rest of the Stoeckley group were accomplices who might not have known about any Mafia connection. The point is that I think Helena had knowledge in relation to the MacDonald murders crime.

I never used to believe in conspiracy theories,, like the MacDonald case, or Lockerbie, but it amazes me that the American public can be so gullible about 9/11. Ask yourself who made many millions from the 9/11 disaster, or from the banking crisis. Was it the American taxpayer or single mothers? I suppose it's like Neville Chamberlain once said, the public and the House of Commons only understand straight lines.

JTF always seems so proud that Army CID agent Bill Ivory was introduced into the Hall of Fame. I have always said he should be in the Hall of Infamy.

This is what I have previously written about Bill Ivory. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic:

This is how thoroughly Bill Ivory investigated Helena Stoeckley with regard to the MacDonald murders:

Q How about her manner of demeanor? Did she strike you as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes, she struck me as being frank.
Q Candid and open. Is that right?
A Right.
Q And you though a person who did not know the names of the persons she lived with as being frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her inability to tell you the last name of the owner of the automobile that she used for the evening was also frank, candid and open?
A Yes.
Q And you thought that her telling you that she could not remember where she was for approximately four hours, because she was smoking marijuana is a frank, candid and open answer?
A That's the answer she gave me, and I couldn't get anything else.
Q Well, I appreciate your difficulty in the interview, Mr. Ivory. I don't underestimate that for a moment. What I am asking you is did you honestly take that as a frank, candid and open answer that she said because of marijuana she was not able to remember her whereabouts?
A I could not--I could only take it as face value as what she gave me.
Q Well, the face value of that statement is a lie, since you know that marijuana doesn't have that effect on persons.
A I've never tried it. I do not know.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Did you issue any further instructions to the MPs in and about and around this building about not opening or shutting or closing any door?

MR. BLACKBURN: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

I don't think Bill Ivory was a good and astute detective:

Q And of course you have no way of telling, as you have already pointed out, as to whether any of those bodies of Kristen and Kimberly--their blood--came in contact with each other while on the stretcher?
A To my knowledge, they did not, sir.
Q How do you have any knowledge on the subject, sir?
A To my knowledge, they did not.
Q What is your knowledge on the subject?
 
Last edited:
Defense Reply Memo Is Garbage

After re-reading Gordie's 37 page butt wiper, it is clear that he wants to get out of Dodge. When you claim that MacDonald never said the intruders were hippies or that Britt's documented lies are merely "inconsistencies," you're waving the white flag. This reminds me of Dershowitz telling reporters that the Defense will "never give up" and then skipping town after the conclusion of 1992 oral arguments before the 4th Circuit Court. Dershowitz knew that he and Silverglate got their asses kicked by Murtagh/Depue at oral arguments, so he wasn't going to wait around for the news that the 4th Circuit denied MacDonald relief. Two years later, Dershowitz went on to bigger and better things by representing another psychopath (e.g., O.J. Simpson) in a high profile murder case.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
I do have my doubts about Murtagh and very little confidence in him. It is quite reasonable to suggest that Murtagh coached, and even paid witnesses, to lie about their involvement in the Jimmy Britt business as Murtagh did with false MacDonald case testimony with regard to the ice pick, and also paying witnesses to lie in the Lockerbie case.

I also believe Murtagh was willing to use forensic fraud in his will to win in court.

For people to suggest on other forums that they believe Fred Kassab and his lunatic theory without facts that MacDonald may have molested his daughters is absolutely outrageous. There wasn't an iota of medical, autopsy, or any other evidence to back up that opinion, which was never an expert opinion.

Dershowitz was up against biased and possibly corrupt and malicious judges in the MacDonald case. I believe America may now have corrupt government, and corrupt bankers, which is probably why al-Qaeda and the Mexican drug cartels have been described as CIA assets There are some funny goings on in the Pakistan military and intelligence service and its relationship with the CIA with regard to drugs as well. It's the rule of lawyers and not the rule of law in America, and this applies to the MacDonald case. American corrupt politicians, but not journalists, are above the law.

A criminal defense attorney often has to represent guilty people. It's not a crime. At least Dershowitz wasn't prosecuting an innocent man or woman as Murtagh did in the MacDonald case, or as also happened in the Darlie Routier case. The reason OJ got away with it was more to do with the incompetence of juries rather than cunning and trickery by defense lawyers.

Of course Dr. MacDonald will never give up if he is innocent. I'm beginning to believe these conspiracy theories like the assassination of President Kennedy and 9/11 and the MacDonald case. I think it's the manipulation of American public opinion so that trillions are spent and wasted on Middle East wars and bank bailouts. Who is being cheated?
 
Kassab's Theory

I assumed that the first time that the general public was made aware of Freddy Kassab's theory that inmate was molesting Kimmie was when Bob Stevenson allowed Christina to post Freddy's thoughts on her website.

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

Despite owning the book for two decades, I only recently ran across the following excerpt from Janet Malcolm's THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER. The following is a dialogue between Malcolm and Dr. Michael Stone.

I asked him, "Isn't it possible that bad things were done to MacDonald in his early years? That his childhood wasn't all that idyllic, and that he repressed what happened?"

"Yes."

"If you knew that to be so, would you feel more benign toward him?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because he's a liar. Because he's not man enough to say, "I committed those murders because I was under the influence of amphetamines. I didn't know what I was doing. Colette was taking a course in psychology, she was going to wear the pants in the family. This was threatening to me; I felt left out. I was beginning to fondle the older girl too much, and she caught me'- this is Colette's stepfather's theory; he told me about it during the trial -'so in a moment of frenzied feeling that ruined my whole life, I just killed the whole lot of them.' If he could say all that, I'd still want him put away for the rest of his life, but at least I'd have some respect for the fact that he could be honest about what happened. No way. He can't do that. He's not built to do that."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
All that was wild speculation from Fred Kassab and it was never legally admissible in court. You must speak only as to facts in a courtroom and not to opinions, except expert opinions. I think the legal term for it is incompetent, or pure speculation. It was never mentioned at the Article 32, or at the Grand Jury, or at the 1979 MacDonald trial, or at any subsequent appeals.

The Fred Kassab and Joe McGinniss amphetamine psychosis theory was disproved at a Court case in California in 1987.

The first time I heard of all that child molesting nonsense was at the time of the Parole Hearing in about 2005 when Colette's brother Bob Stevenson appeared on radio and repeated what Fred Kassab had said about the matter. I think that was criminal libel by Bob Stevenson and Dr. MacDonald should have taken legal action if he had the money. Stevenson had no real proof at all.

A prosecutor must be whiter than white and not manufacture evidence, or prosecute innocent people, or be a shady lawyer like Murtagh.

The MacDonald lawyers have attempted in the past to use prosecution misconduct as a ground for appeal. I think they had a good case like the way the black wool fibers and blonde synthetic hair-like fibers were covered up by the prosecution. I suppose you can't use poor police work as a ground for appeal.

Judge Dupree distinctly said at the 1979 trial that if the prosecution disregarded the Brady law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence then he would order a retrial. There was a long list of exculpatory evidence that was never disclosed to the judge or jury by the prosecution which was subsequently disregarded by Judge Dupree on appeal. I suppose Murtagh thought the Brady law didn't apply to him.

The trouble is once an innocent person is wrongly convicted it is not an easy task to get out of prison. It's just the same in the UK. The lazy and incompetent police are not much help.

In desperation Dr. MacDonald once tried to accuse Segal of incompetence as a ground for appeal to which Judge Dupree replied that he thought Segal was an astute lawyer. I must admit I would not like to have Segal as a lawyer if my life was on the line. His closing argument at the 1979 trial was an example of how not to do it. It was far too academic and long and rambling for an average North Carolina jury. He should have cut, cut, cut.

Segal did it to the best of his ability, but as he once remarked he was up against the most extraordinary inventions of the prosecution in the MacDonald case.
 
Last edited:
I'm currently reading 'A Wilderness of Error', having finished 'Fatal Vision'. I'm puzzled. I thought AWoE was going to be a rebuttal or refutation of Fatal Vision, but so far it is not. It is rambling, disjointed, and the facts that are presented seem to support the case against MacDonald! Perhaps there's more specific rebuttal later on, I'm less than halfway through, but so far I don't see the point of this book. I'm also disappointed, as I was expecting a detailed, thorough examination of the blood and other evidence.
 
WOE Is A Worthless Research Tool

TIKTAALIK: I hear ya. When I spoke to Morris in 2011, he told me that the book was going to focus on why this case continues to fascinate the general public, but now I know he was conning me. Not only is WOE short on fact and long on supposition/theory, it doesn't put a dent in the massive case presented by the prosecution at the 1979 trial.

The only part of the prosecution's case that WOE covers is a long-winded and unimpressive rebuttal to the Pajama Top Theory. Morris doesn't seem to understand that you cannot create a pattern. It either exists or it doesn't. Morris was silent when I pointed out to him that in 1974, FBI forensic technician Shirley Green was able to find a matching stab wound/puncture hole pattern using THREE separate techniques. In addition, Green was able to replicate the pattern 5 years later using the SAME three techniques.

WOE is an attempt at an end run around the evidence that led to MacDonald's conviction. Its reliance on the claims of a serial fabricator (e.g., Helena Stoeckley) points to Morris' laziness and lack of critical thinking skills. There is no evidence linking Stoeckley to the crime scene (e.g., no DNA, no hairs, no fibers, no fingerprints) and Morris ignores the FACT that she recanted half of her dubious confessions.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
The odd thing about it so far to me is that after presenting what could be evidence that might provide some doubt, the book immediately presents evidence that refutes that and incriminates MacDonald. I appreciate that it's not completely one-sided, but it's not doing him any favors. Some examples off the top of my head are the revelation that the woman supposedly standing by the side of the road that morning did not meet MacDonald's description (she was wearing a black raincoat and had short hair); that MacDonald denied the female intruder had white boots and said they were brown, whereas Stoeckley's were definitely white; that Stoeckley was wearing a purple velour suit with a purple silk vest when supposedly seen; that a single investigator managed to get the coffee table to fall on its side one time when it was blocked by the rocking chair, but that no one ever managed to get the magazines to fall into such a position that the table could have landed on them; and there's more. I'm 3/4 into it now and the blood evidence has not been dealt with at all. Since this is what seems most convincing to me, I'm a bit concerned that the book's not going to cover it.
 
Colonel Rock managed to get the coffee table to land in the same position which Ivory had previously said was impossible. We don't know Helena's boots were definitely white. Mazerolle was wearing velveteen clothes which are similar to mystery black fibers. The blood evidence was presented by very inexperienced, or hair and fiber men. It was not an expert opinion.

I agree that the woman seen wandering down the road when the military police were responding to the emergency call is not conclusive evidence. It's just that it was a bit odd at about 4am in the morning. It was a useful piece of of information for the defense lawyers at the time of the Article 32 proceeding in 1970. There is a witness statement on the internet somewhere from a woman that the killer gang were later seen in a car at a restaurant early in the morning and blood was noticed in the bathroom there. That witness was never called to the 1979 trial.

Shirley Green's and Stombaugh's pajama folding theory without facts was never scientifically correct and it was disproved by Dr. Thornton. Judge Dupree made the tetchy remark to Murtagh at the trial that he would never believe it could be folded in three different ways himself, but his own opinion would never be conveyed to the jury.

This is part of what Dr Thornton said about the pajama folding experiment at the 1979 trial:

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q Can we say in lay person's terms that she did it differently than the way he described the holes?
A Yes.
Q All right. Hereafter, let's use my terms and then see if that will work better. What, if anything else, did you base your opinion on?
A Hole 36 was originally designated by Mr. Stombaugh as inside-out or an exit hole. In Ms. Green's reconstruction, it is designated as outside-in or an entrance hole. Again, just with respect to that one particular discrepancy, I think that it negates the validity of this reconstruction.


More from Dr Thornton with regard to Ms Green:

Q I asked you whether you had read testimony of Shirley Green in regard to the reconstruction experiment that she said she did in terms of putting 48 probes into holes in the--rather, taking 48 holes in the pajama top and making them fit into 21 holes.
A Yes.
Q And I asked you at that time the question of whether you had an opinion as to whether or not she did in fact do what she said she did, and you said you had an opinion in that regard.
A Yes.
Q And what was that opinion?
A I consider her reconstruction to be impossible. I consider it to be conceptually unsound and contrived.

Q Is it possible, based upon your knowledge, information, and training, for Ms. Green, using the information that she had, to have made the reconstruction of the pajama top as she did? Is it possible for her to have done that and done it correctly--moving the 48 holes into 21?
A No.

I think Judge Dupree was quite sharp with Murtagh about that ludicrous pajama folding experiment, which I find a bit surprising for a judge who was so pro-prosecution biased in the MacDonald case.

The trouble is that North Carolina jury were too stupid, and too violently prejudiced against Dr MacDonald, to see through that Army CID and FBI pajama folding con trick.

This is part of what Judge Dupree said about the pajama folding matter. The Court in this is Judge Dupree:

THE COURT: If he told me that you could arrange 48 places and arrange those same 48 so they would still go into those 21 holes other than the way that they say they arranged them in this case, I wouldn't believe it. But, now, thankfully, I don't have to make that decision, nor will that opinion ever be expressed to this jury.

MR. MURTAGH: Your Honor, if there is another way to reconstruct it--and if it was tough enough to do it one way--I think this is merely the conservative nature of the laboratory examiner. It is like the hair could have come--the same thing with respect to the threads.

THE COURT: If I have ever heard a man disclaim, not one time but fifty, old Stombaugh kept saying that, "I only said it could be."

MR. MURTAGH: That is right, sir.

THE COURT: Now, you have been up here so long I forgot what you came for.

MR. SEGAL: A break, Your Honor. I said "purported expert." I am sorry for that. I really did not intend any derogatory inference by that. But my point was responding to the Government's objection that it is speculation
 
Last edited:
WOE Is A Mess

TIKTAALIK: Unfortunately, Morris does not cover the blood, pajama fiber, or bloody fabric impression evidence in any detail. Since the book's publication, his standard line has been that none of the evidence is worth anything due to the mistakes made by the CID in the original investigation. This is another example of Morris' perpetual laziness and ignorance of basic forensic analysis.

The mistakes made by the CID in no way altered the fact that fibers from MacDonald's torn pajama top were found under bodies, bedcovers, pillows, under Kristen's fingernail, and adhering to the club. Morris doesn't seem to understand the significance of Colette's blood being found on her husband's pajama top in 10 locations BEFORE the garment was torn. He also doesn't find it odd that none of MacDonald's blood was found in the living room where he claims he was stabbed by hippie intruders.

Morris also has no rebuttal to the fact that 5 bloody cuff impressions from the pajamas of BOTH Colette and Jeffrey MacDonald were found on a bedsheet used to transport Colette from Kristen's room to the master bedroom. To this day, MacDonald claims he never touched the bedsheet and he acknowledged to CID investigators that it would be unlikely that drug-crazed home invaders would take the time to transport both Kimmie and Colette back to their respective bedrooms.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom