Is Jeffrey McDonald Guilty? [Archive] - Page 8 - Crime Library Message Boards

caphill

02-13-2006, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: You must have information that Peter Kearns and Jack Pruett did not have in 1971. Please point out in the documented record where the clear-handled hairbrush was identified as being Helena Stoeckleys. Please point out which of the rambling, Gunderson led "confessions" which includes a Stoeckley reference to bringing a hairbrush to 544 Castle Drive. Good luck. You're going to need it.

JTF.

Go to Christina site and read the affidavit of John Murphy. If you are able to click on the supra you can see a copy of the lab notes from Glisson.

Glisson handwritten inventory listed items( IIRC it 1971)

Rec'd in prop. sealed cb b.

Ext A = 324 one sm white cardboard pill box sealed 6 black tape & attached to MP prop tag cont. head hairs taken from head & her hairbrush (of Helena Werle Stoeckley)

Ext B =325 one sm film cannister cont. hairlike sealed (stapled) plastic bag cont. hairs from nightgown of Kimberly MacDonald

There is a continuation of Glisson referring to comparisons to other exihibts.

Glisson notes indicate that samples A and B were providec to her by Kearns.

Where did Kearns get Helena's hairbrush and hair. Why was the hair and fibers found on Kimerbly nightgown not made a part of evidence? Why wasn't the Helena hairbrush and hairs not made a part of evidence.

It was the defense finding these lab notes that instigated the affidavit from Glisson where she excused the omission of these items because Kearns sent another reguest for her report and he only asked for certain exhibits and that did not include Ext A and B.

Somewhere on this thread you can find the supra and click on it and you can the copy of the lab notes.

JTF

02-13-2006, 03:20 PM

Caphill: The clear-handled hairbrush found in the dining room is not the same hairbrush that you referenced in the CID lab notes. The CID obtained a hairbrush from Stoeckley and later Detective Jim Gaddis, obtained head hair samples from Stoeckley for comparison purposes.

JTF.

caphill

02-13-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: The clear-handled hairbrush found in the dining room is not the same hairbrush that you referenced in the CID lab notes. The CID obtained a hairbrush from Stoeckley and later Detective Jim Gaddis, obtained head hair samples from Stoeckley for comparison purposes.

JTF.

Why didn't CID have the "mystery" Helena hair in evidence? Did Jim Gaddis testify or is there an affidavit that he writes that he had her hair brush and her samples were used as a comparison sample. Who testified to any of those A and B samples. The only hairbrush discuss in those notes of Glisson were the bluehandled, the white handled and the clear handled. It was confusing to followed which brush was which. Regardless, none of the 3 brushs were listed on the final lab report because Kearns didn't want them listed. His instructions were to only give a report of specfic items that excluded many things. I thought the 22 long blond wig hairs was labeled k and Glisson report say Ext A matched Ext K.

Where was the introduction of Ext B which was hairs and fibers from the nightgown of Kim. Was that finding of forensics also never showed to the defense?

Where can I find the affidavits or testimony about Helena hairbrush being collected and her hair samples. Of course if she was wear a wig it would be unlikely she would be dropping her own hair at the scene.

Did Kearns ever testify at the Grand Jury or the trial.?

rashomon

02-13-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Glisson handwritten inventory listed items( IIRC it 1971)

Rec'd in prop. sealed cb b.

Ext A = 324 one sm white cardboard pill box sealed 6 black tape & attached to MP prop tag cont. head hairs taken from head & her hairbrush (of Helena Werle Stoeckley)

Ext B =325 one sm film cannister cont. hairlike sealed (stapled) plastic bag cont. hairs from nightgown of Kimberly MacDonald

There is a continuation of Glisson referring to comparisons to other exihibts.

Glisson notes indicate that samples A and B were providec to her by Kearns.

Where did Kearns get Helena's hairbrush and hair. Why was the hair and fibers found on Kimerbly nightgown not made a part of evidence? Why wasn't the Helena hairbrush and hairs not made a part of evidence.

Caphill, again you have mixed things up here: Helena's hairbrush was used for comparison purposes. Therefore that hairbrush was not found at the crime scene and of course not made 'a part of the evidence'.
And btw: Glisson seems to have found no match between Helena's hair and the hairs found in the MacDonald home, surely you must have noticed that?

And in regards to the hairs found on Kim's nightgown: at the time Glisson made her analysis, only comparison examples taken from the victims' clothing could be used, because original hair samples had not been taken. It was only when the bodies were exhumed later that Stombaugh was able to obtain the original samples. And if memory serves, Stombaugh's analysis finally proved that the hair on Kim's nightgown turned out to be her own hair.

rashomon

02-13-2006, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Why didn't CID have the "mystery" Helena hair in evidence? Where was the introduction of Ext B which was hairs and fibers from the nightgown of Kim. Was that finding of forensics also never showed to the defense?

There was no 'mystery hair' of Helena at all:
Of course Helena's own hair (comparison examples which, in case you should have missed it, did not match the hairs found at the crime scene) is listed in the CID records. I'm not 100 per cent certain, but I think it is somewhere around E-320.
And of course an unmatched comparison example is not made part of the evidence. I think you are mixing things up here.

And as for Kim's hair entangled around a button on her nightgown: this turned out to be her own hair. See my prior post on this topic.

stinkerbelle

02-13-2006, 04:29 PM

should have been not ought to have been;)

rashomon

02-13-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Bearclaw

Sorry to intrude everyone....Rash! I posted some info on the C & J thread that you started. I am trying to get some answers from A & E.
I don't want either you or Beej to leave the boards! Are you able to stay on this message board to post after the 15th?
TW (Kate)
Bearclaw/TW/Kate - thanks so much for posting the A&E e-mail address on the JMD forum over there! I'm going to ask them too what this is all about: shutting out posters from countries outside the US and Canada. Isn't this completely contradictory to the idea of the internet being such a great communicative tool, enabling people all over the globe to share their thoughts and ideas?
But I suspect that A&E's interests are purely commercial: people outside the US and Canada are of no interest as possible 'customers': they can't view A&E, and therefore can't view the TV commercials inserted in the shows. And it's the TV commercials which bring in the big bucks (or euros, the situation is exactly the same here in Europe).
Bearclaw/TW/Kate, I'd like to stay in contact with you, and since this board here enables private messages, it would be great if you stayed on here, or dropped by once in a while!

Rash (Angela)

JTF

02-13-2006, 05:53 PM

Caphill: The AFIP only used Mito DNA on 2 of the 13 exhibits. Hair fragments #7 and #8 from Glisson Lab Note R-11 were too small for Nuclear DNA testing techniques. Speaking of Glisson, her expertise was in blood analysis, but Dillard Browning was in the process of completing her training in hair analysis when the MacDonald case evidence was sent to Fort Gordon. Browning had so much work to do that he gave Glisson the opportunity to analyze some of the hairs found at the crime scene. Glisson originally listed the hair found in Colette's left hand as a head hair, but later realized that it was a limb hair, and Browning confirmed that fact when he looked at the hair. Paul Stombaugh agreed with Glisson and Browning when he looked at the hair in 1974. He categorized it as the distal portion or tip of a limb hair. In terms of the Q79 pubic hair found under Colette's body, the CID did not have a sample of Jeff's pubic hair when they looked at the hair in 1970. Prior to the Grand Jury hearing, Jeff provided a pubic hair sample to the FBI and that sample was matched to Q79 by Michael Malone in 1990. Despite their problems with Malone's saran fiber analysis, the MacDonald defense team has never questioned his analysis of the pubic hair from FBI Exhibit Q79.

JTF.

JTF

02-13-2006, 06:03 PM

Caphill: Jim Gaddis obtained a head hair sample from Stoeckley after running his hand through her hair during a brief embrace. That sample was compared to the hairs from Stoeckley's brush and the head hairs found at 544 Castle Drive. Stoeckley's head hair did not match any of the head hairs found at the crime scene. As a matter of fact, every single head hair found at the crime scene was identified as coming from Mildred, Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, or Jeffrey.

JTF.

caphill

02-13-2006, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
That’s a good question by caphill about whether Kearns ever testified in court with regard to the MacDonald case.

I have never seen any transcript of Kearns being cross-examined in court. It does seem a bit strange as Kearns seems to be the CID agent who was put in charge of the MacDonald case investigation after the Article 32 proceedings in 1970. It may possibly be that Kearns did testify but the transcript isn’t on the internet. I’m pretty sure Medlin and Browning testified at the 1979 trial because their testimony is mentioned in Segal’s closing argument, but the transcripts are not on the internet for the time being.

I must admit I’m a bit confused about the hairbrushes as well. Glisson seems to have confused a lot of people including the forensic experts on the MacDonald case. The AFIP forensic lab remarked on the poor labels and marks of the MacDonald case forensic evidence. Presumably there is some scientific certainty somewhere as to the ownership of those hairbrushes and whether the hairbrushes definitely belonged to Colette.

I believe police officer Gaddis believed Helena was involved in the MacDonald murders. Gaddis did testify at the 1979 trial but whenever Segal closely questioned Gaddis about Helena, Murtagh objected, and Judge Dupree sustained that objection, so that Segal had to change the subject. The attitude of Dupree was that Helena was “untrustworthy” and was making everything up out of whole cloth.

I think Bunny’s attitude that if it’s eventually proved that intruders were involved in the MacDonald murders then Dr MacDonald must have been involved with them is strained logic. It’s nonsense, like the CID theory that Colette murdered the two little MacDonald girls and that Kim was in the master bedroom.

I agree with JTF that it does seem strange that Segal and Wade Smith never cross-examined so called blood man Terry Laber at the 1979 trial. Segal did cross-examine blood man Craig Chamberlain and that cross examination became a bit heated. Judge Dupree had a chat with the lawyers to tell them to control their tempers. The interesting aspect of the Craig Chamberlain testimony to me was how inexperienced Chamberlain and Laber were at the time.

Segal nearly managed to get to the point where they admitted in court that they weren’t qualified to do blood typing and that mistakes were made in the blood spot investigation. That was most unfair on Dr MacDonald. There ought to have been experts in the blood investigation as well as the fingerprint examination. The CID forensic lab, like the FBI lab, was living on its great name.

It is impossible, unless someone has unlimited time, to figure out the different exhibit numbers as they seem to change from the Article 32 to the reinvestigation to trial. I believe designed to confuse. Kearns seems to be the "voice" and defender now of the CID investigation and the Kassabs. He was in Washington DC in the initial investigation. As far as I can determined he got involved after charges were dismissed by the military. It seems he became a part of the continuing investigation of CID in trying to get MacDonald case to the Grand Jury.

From the few things I have seen of his work has been the quest of trying to find out with whom MacDonald had sex before , during and after his marriage. He was supposedly at the trial in 1979.

When he was so angry about Britt coming forth, he was making disparaging remarks about Britt and said he had a dust up with him at the trial. He said the dust up was mostly him. Britt had no involvment in the case other than transporting Helena from SC and being around while she was in his charge. What reason would Kearns have for a disagreement with Britt at the trial?

He freely acknowledges and I think proud to have the credit for giving Christina a lot of the infor on her site including the crime scene pics and the nude death pics of the bodies before the autopsy. It is amazing that hairs from the victims were not in CID possession for comparison purposes and CID would exhumed the bodies with the supposed purpose of collecting more hair.

They is very little to be found of any affidavits, testimony etc. that includes him. He couldn't have actually taken the photos of the crime scene and the death pictures if he was working out the District CID office at that time. Either he never testified or he choses to not have Christina post his testimony. He certainly wasn't shy about releasing to Christina the nude death photos of the two children and Colette.

Christina has posted an email from Mrs. MacDonald where she takes exception to some things Christina has on her site and questions the legality of possession of some the things posted. I was surprised to see the Grand Jury transcripts. I was under the impression the Grand Jury hearings were closed. This was the first I have ever seen Grand Jury transcripts posted on the internet.

I haven't really followed this case since I read the Fatal Justice years ago. The renewed interest was the parole hearing followed by Britt coming forth. Kearns was introduced on LKL as a lead investigator of the case or something to that effect. Since that time it seems many of the anti MacDonald forums have cliques of Kearns supporters. The tone of the posts is reminiscent of the angry and defensive tone Mr. Kearns displayed on LKL.

The increased personal character attacks I assume have heightened since Britt's affidavit threatened the opening up of this case. It seems you and I are the only ones on this thread that is brave enough to take the personal insults for having a different view. I think the purpose of this thread didn't include anyone who wanted to discuss the evidence presented and what should have been presented. Certainly any discussions of the legal aspects of the motions and appeals is not a welcomed subject here.

caphill

02-13-2006, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Jim Gaddis obtained a head hair sample from Stoeckley after running his hand through her hair during a brief embrace. That sample was compared to the hairs from Stoeckley's brush and the head hairs found at 544 Castle Drive. Stoeckley's head hair did not match any of the head hairs found at the crime scene. As a matter of fact, every single head hair found at the crime scene was identified as coming from Mildred, Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, or Jeffrey.

JTF.

That is amazing isn't it? 15-20 different guys were roaming around that house immediately after the murders. Some were sitting around on the furniture and in the kitchen making pots of coffee.

You think that there would have been some of their hairs or fibers found in the living room and kitchen. I guess any hairs or fibers in the living room area was carried home with them on their clothes? I don't know or have any answers why any of those guys didn't shed a hair or two.

JTF

02-13-2006, 06:55 PM

Caphill: It had been raining for most of the evening and if I'm not mistaken, the military police officers who arrived at the crime scene were wearing headgear. Do you buy a scenario where a physically fit 26 year old man struggles with 3 armed men in the living room, yet not 1 head hair is shed from any of the armed men? Compare that to the 2 head hairs from Colette that were found on the master bedroom bed and appeared to have been forcibly removed. Colette fights to the point where her head hairs are dislodged, yet the only thing that the big, bad Green Beret dislodges in his "fight" was his ego. It reminds me of his often quoted statement about feeling "ashamed" because he couldn't "save" his family. Pathetic.

JTF.

Bunny2

02-13-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Since the government, if my understanding is correct, will have to address the record of prior proceedings and these prior proceeding are accusatory to Murtagh of suppression of evidence...The courts determined that no evidence was wrongly suppressed in this case, either by Murtagh or anyone else.There is such confusion on the labels and what exhibit is what? Intended to be confusing.Different entities (CID, FBI, trial) put different exhibit numbers on items to clarify them as their own, much as exhibits marked at trial might be "So-and-So's Exhibit #XX." It's a testiment to Brian Murtagh's brainpower that according to CM who talks with him now and then, he not only has each of the exhibit numbers memorized and can rattle off the findings, etc. for each one.What was the deal with the Stoeckely hairbrush and hair? When was a hair brush collected from Helena. Did the defense know about this hair brush?Gaddis says: "On April 24th, 1971, I obtained some samples of [Stoeckley's] hair without her knowledge by passing my hand through her hair. I also obtained some hair from her hair brush that day. The hair and the fingerprints were given to the CID."It is now known that that black wool, green and white wool fibers and the synthetic hair were not reported.Yes, that's been known now for what, 20 years or so?

I don't doubt that there were many more unreported unsourced items than just this, since unsourced items are so common to every household that they often do go unreported. Yet even in the short time they were there, the investigators and medics left evidence of themselves, so how is it that six or more drug-crazed, frenzied "intruders" left not a trace of anything that could be sourced to any one of them? As you knew already, it's not the unsourced items which are significant, it's the sourced ones, and in this case the sourced items helped to show a jury that MacDonald did indeed murder Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.The 22long blond wig hairs...What "wig" hairs? I asked you this before, but I must have missed your answer. JTF has already pointed out on the other Mac thread here that nowhere in Glisson's notes does she refer to these fibers as having come from a human wig.Stoeckley and the testimony of the 6 or more witnesses as to what she told them, along with 40 witnesses that saw a women and 3 men meeting the description given by MacDonald in the neighborhood right prior to and right after the murders, is very convincing and strong circumstantial evidence.Only, perhaps, to those who haven't bothered to study the evidence to see the truth behind your statements.

Bunny2

02-13-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by caphill
He was found lying on the floor next to Colette with his head on her shoulder.Ah, and that is something that interests me. When medics arrived, Mac was in a pose meant to suggest that he had fallen unconscious next to Colette. He claims that he "came to" as Mica was giving him mouth-to-mouth, that he then saw Colette and said "Jesus Christ! Look at my wife!"

Now let's examine that for a minute. By his words, he seems surprised and shocked to see Colette in that condition; he tries to give the impression that he was out cold, woke when medics arrived and OMG!!! LOOK AT MY WIFE!!! But of course within hours (and six weeks later at the April 6 interview) his stories give a different impression as he describes making his "rounds" through the house, going from room to room, knowing his family was dead or dying but still treating them, etc., and finally calling for help, then falling unconscious beside Colette. Why, then, was it such a surprise to him to see her that way when he woke when the medics were there, if he'd already seen her that way several times as he made his rounds through the house?

Another question that arises is: In the milliseconds between the instant he became "unconscious" (at which point he would have lost muscle control) and the instant he hit the floor, how in the world did his legs manage to shoot out from under him and end up straight out, and his arm to fly out sideways and land on Colette's chest, and his head to turn to the left so that it could land neatly upon Colette's shoulder?He had blood around his mouth where he tried mouth to mouth.Some people said they saw no blood around his mouth; others said they saw blood that looked as though he had wiped his hand across his face.Why wasn't there any minute fibers found in the wounds on Colette chest if he had been repeating stabbing her through his pj top.Can't remember offhand who was questioned about that (Dr. Wright? Someone at trial? I just don't remember), but I remember someone saying that the icepick, by virtue of its rounded shape as well as its sharpness, could simply have gone between the fibers, sliding by them instead of cutting them. I'm not sure, but the same person may have said something similar in regards to the Old Hickory knife, which was apparently very sharp and may simply have sliced the fibers in such a clean way that few, if any, fibers would have been found in the wounds. The only other thing I seem to recall reading is that the wounds were not checked for this sort of thing during the autopsies or they were not all checked. This was such a small issue in the case that the details haven't stayed with me, so if anyone knows more about the facts on this I'd be grateful to see it.

stinkerbelle

02-13-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by caphill

That is amazing isn't it? 15-20 different guys were roaming around that house immediately after the murders. Some were sitting around on the furniture and in the kitchen making pots of coffee.

You think that there would have been some of their hairs or fibers found in the living room and kitchen. I guess any hairs or fibers in the living room area was carried home with them on their clothes? I don't know or have any answers why any of those guys didn't shed a hair or two.
who says no fibers or hairs were found in any other rooms?

and lmao...yes, MPs sitting on the couch were able to remove (with their butts no less) only the hairs of helena and greg and the fibers from macdoneit's pj top. perhaps they then scooted across the bedroom floor (again on their bums) and deposited all the pj fibers on the floor? goodness, that's quite the visual. i'll be sure to drop mica a line about it and ask if that's what really happened.

stinkerbelle

02-13-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: It had been raining for most of the evening and if I'm not mistaken, the military police officers who arrived at the crime scene were wearing headgear. Do you buy a scenario where a physically fit 26 year old man struggles with 3 armed men in the living room, yet not 1 head hair is shed from any of the armed men? Compare that to the 2 head hairs from Colette that were found on the master bedroom bed and appeared to have been forcibly removed. Colette fights to the point where her head hairs are dislodged, yet the only thing that the big, bad Green Beret dislodges in his "fight" was his ego. It reminds me of his often quoted statement about feeling "ashamed" because he couldn't "save" his family. Pathetic.

JTF.
no mistake JTF. macdoneit himself said he "came to" and saw a circle of helmets or something like that.

Bunny2

02-13-2006, 11:02 PM

In your studied opinion, where do you think those 22 inch "wig" hairs came from .Where in Glisson's notes do you see any reference to a 22 inch synthetic fiber being from a wig?One of the first MP's on the scene sees a woman at 3am standing less than 1/2 mile in the rain with long hair and a floppy hair.Mica said the woman was wearing a dark raincoat and a dark rain hat and that he didn't remember seeing any boots, so what about this alleged sighting leads you to believe this was Stoeckley, since it didn't match MacDonald's description of the supposed female intruder? Also, I believe a neighbor who was loading or unloading a trailer at that time saw and heard nothing at all. Mica's partner didn't describe any female on the corner, no other patrols saw anything, and evidence shows there were no "intruders" in the house.MacDonald says he saw a woman with long blond hair and 2 white guys and a black guy wearing a field jacket with military stripes.MacDonald also said there were two black males, not just one. So why pick and choose as to which of his stories to believe? Is it just because you want so badly for Stoeckley and her gang to have been there, even though Mac's descriptions matched many, many people?Of course they said they had nothing to do with the murders. What would one think they would say?At least 699 people said they had nothing to do with the murders. You think there were 699 "intruders" in the apartment?...fingerprints could not be sourced...palm print that could not be matched...There were many fibers...that could not be matched...Unsourced items are so common to every household that they are considered to be forensically insignificant, so insignificant in fact that they are often not even reported. Please write it down if you can't remember it from day to day.There was a bloodly palm print that could not be matched.Did you read Murtagh's response to the parole board where he addresses this issue?If you look at the blood list you see numerous O blood in the master bedroom.Where?This assessment was written without knowing about the many hairs and fibers on and around the bodies that could not be sourced to the MacDonald family, no information about the 22 inch blond wig hairs...We have yet to see any evidence at all that unsourced 22-inch "wig" hairs were found. That aside, did you forget that MacDonald already argued to a jury that the presence of unsourced items meant that "intruders" had been in his house, but the jury rejected his arguments? Why do you keep bringing up the same "unsourced" issue, when Mac himself already argued this to a jury and got nowhere?I didn't know the first responders has testified the bureau drawers were opened. There is earth shaking to me that someone would close those drawers in a murder scene where Jeffrey has said there were intruders."Earth-shaking," eh? Yet the presence of MacDonald's pajama fibers strewn throughout the master bedroom and underneath the victims' bodies and in the bedclothing and under his baby daughter's fingernail and even on the murder weapon itself means nothing to you? 48 perfectly round, cylindrical holes matching 21 holes in Colette's chest means nothing to you? MacDonald's bloody footprint in Colette's blood exiting (but not entering) Kristen's room is insignificant to you? All those countless lies MacDonald was caught in in regards to his stories about how things happened, that means nothing to you? Not believable.

JTF

02-13-2006, 11:44 PM

Bunny: Prosaic explanations culled from the documented record have a brief, calming effect on MacDonald advocates. Some of them even seem to acknowledge the feasibility of the facts contained within the CID/FBI reports for a day or so. This eventually gives way to the continual beat of the MacDonald propoganda drum. Time to post the "truth," you all know what the truth is don't ya? Candle wax drippings, limb hairs, wool fibers, accomodating drug-crazed hippies, etc., etc., etc.,

JTF.

caphill

02-14-2006, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Ah, and that is something that interests me. When medics arrived, Mac was in a pose meant to suggest that he had fallen unconscious next to Colette. He claims that he "came to" as Mica was giving him mouth-to-mouth, that he then saw Colette and said "Jesus Christ! Look at my wife!"

Now let's examine that for a minute. By his words, he seems surprised and shocked to see Colette in that condition; he tries to give the impression that he was out cold, woke when medics arrived and OMG!!! LOOK AT MY WIFE!!! But of course within hours (and six weeks later at the April 6 interview) his stories give a different impression as he describes making his "rounds" through the house, going from room to room, knowing his family was dead or dying but still treating them, etc., and finally calling for help, then falling unconscious beside Colette. Why, then, was it such a surprise to him to see her that way when he woke when the medics were there, if he'd already seen her that way several times as he made his rounds through the house?

Another question that arises is: In the milliseconds between the instant he became "unconscious" (at which point he would have lost muscle control) and the instant he hit the floor, how in the world did his legs manage to shoot out from under him and end up straight out, and his arm to fly out sideways and land on Colette's chest, and his head to turn to the left so that it could land neatly upon Colette's shoulder?Some people said they saw no blood around his mouth; others said they saw blood that looked as though he had wiped his hand across his face.Can't remember offhand who was questioned about that (Dr. Wright? Someone at trial? I just don't remember), but I remember someone saying that the icepick, by virtue of its rounded shape as well as its sharpness, could simply have gone between the fibers, sliding by them instead of cutting them. I'm not sure, but the same person may have said something similar in regards to the Old Hickory knife, which was apparently very sharp and may simply have sliced the fibers in such a clean way that few, if any, fibers would have been found in the wounds. The only other thing I seem to recall reading is that the wounds were not checked for this sort of thing during the autopsies or they were not all checked. This was such a small issue in the case that the details haven't stayed with me, so if anyone knows more about the facts on this I'd be grateful to see it.

Read the autopsies.

caphill

02-14-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Bunny: Prosaic explanations culled from the documented record have a brief, calming effect on MacDonald advocates. Some of them even seem to acknowledge the feasibility of the facts contained within the CID/FBI reports for a day or so. This eventually gives way to the continual beat of the MacDonald propoganda drum. Time to post the "truth," you all know what the truth is don't ya? Candle wax drippings, limb hairs, wool fibers, accomodating drug-crazed hippies, etc., etc., etc.,

JTF.

What is not addressed is Judge Fox order the to US attorney to now respond all the claims in MacDonald latest motion that includes all prior proceedings. These prior proceedings are the appeals that that did not recognize the claims of suppressed evidence. Murtagh first response to the motion granted by the 4th Circuit was there was o "foundation" to MacDonald claims. Judge Fox disagreed , found merit in MacDonald claims and ordered the US attorney to respond and answer by March 30th.

Murtagh lost the battle to continue to ignore the evidence that was uncovered over the years by the defense. These fibers found under the body, on the body, on the murder weapon, the 22 inch blond synthetic hairs strands, the other synthetic fibers , the lab work notes that indicated these items were in the lab and omitted from the lab's report of evidence.

The days of churning and rechurning just what was presented to the jury in 1979 as the "real" picture of the crime scene is over. The order from Judge Fox now opens the door for the previously suppressed evidence to brought out and put on the table for review. It took many years and many attempts but MacDonald won his last appeal motion.

The lab work notes shows clearly there many items denied the defense. Whether Glisson called the synthetic items hair like, fibers, "just stuff" or debris doesn't matter. What matters is she did not list these things on the final lab report for the eyes of the jury. The black wool fibers found on the mouth of Colette, on the murder weapons and under her body were not disclosed. There were also green, white and other fibers and threads not disclosed. The gig is up and now Murtagh has to defend why the government had sets of evidence collected at the murder scene and then took concerted efforts to hide from the defense.

To hide evidence is a violation to a defendant's rights to fair trial. To present false testimony or omit evidence that is known to exist violates the defendant's rights to fair trial. To intimidate a witness is a violation of a defendant rights to a fair trial.

Britt's statements of hearing this intimidation of a witness is certainly a "he said and he said" situation. The trustworthiness of Britt's statments will be weighted against the trustworthiness of the disbarred Blackburn and against the trail of what happened in court when Helena certainly changed her testimony from what
she had told the defense she was willing to testify. That is proven by Segal asking Judge Dupree to allow him to declare her a hostile "surprise" witness. That is a known and accept legal call when a witness changes their testimony on the stand from previous statements made to the defense. There is report of testimony in voir dire from an officer of the court that Helena said she changed her testimony because she was afraid of all those "damn prosecutors" sitting there.

Whether he is believed or not, his sworn statements were deemed reliable enough to at least got MacDonald's motion granted and MacDonald heard for the first since his trial in 1979.

This is undeniable whether or not anyone likes or agrees with the 4th Circuit ruling and Judge Fox's order to the US Attorney.

JTF

02-14-2006, 07:24 AM

Bunny: There you go. Like the sun setting in the evening, Charlie Sheen accessing hookers on the weekends, and Kathryn MacDonald using the phrase "factual innocence" on television.

JTF.

JTF

02-14-2006, 07:42 AM

Caphill: Are you referring to the autopsies of Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen MacDonald? The same autopsies which depict massive, overkill wounds that are in stark contrast to the superficial wounds on Jeffrey MacDonald? The same autopsies which demonstrate multiple stab wounds on all 3 victims while their bodies were inert, yet no such stab wounds on the target of an alleged home invasion? The mind boggles. Common sense wanders.

JTF.

Deb B

02-14-2006, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
It wasn't Dr MacDonald's fault, or a crime by him, that he wasn't murdered along with his wife and daughters. Dr MacDonald didn't have much choice, or say, in the matter.

I think Dr MacDonald has said in the past, rather bitterly, or ironically, or sarcastically, that his biggest crime in the court of public opinion was not being murdered himself on the night of the MacDonald murders.

I think he's said that his biggest regret was his inability to protect his family - that he was a wuss that night - got his feet stuck in an afgan. Unvoiced regret: he got caught for killing his family, consequently the lashing out at those responsible for bringing him to justice. Interestingly, he doesn't seem to direct any of his anger at those he claims are actually responsible for killing his family.

Bunny2

02-14-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Judge Fox disagreed , found merit in MacDonald claims...Hmmm...I just read the order again and nowhere did I find that Fox states he found "merit" in MacDonald's claims. Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but what I read was "...the court concludes that it does not 'plainly appear from the motion, attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings' that the movant is not entitled to relief" which has a somewhat different meaning to me than it apparently does to you.The order from Judge Fox now opens the door for the previously suppressed evidence to brought out and put on the table for review...The lab work notes shows clearly there many items denied the defense....Whether Glisson called the synthetic items hair like, fibers, "just stuff" or debris doesn't matter. What matters is she did not list these things on the final lab report for the eyes of the jury. The black wool fibers found on the mouth of Colette, on the murder weapons and under her body were not disclosed. There were also green, white and other fibers and threads not disclosed. The gig is up and now Murtagh has to defend why the government had sets of evidence collected at the murder scene and then took concerted efforts to hide from the defense.Cappy, didn't you know the courts already determined that no evidence was wrongly suppressed, and that Mac already put these arguments before the court, many, many years ago?

To help you understand the case a little better, here's just a brief rundown from the 4th Circuit's 1992 decision:

"In 1983-84, in preparation for MacDonald's first collateral appeal, counsel requested and received copies of investigation files from the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the Department of Justice, and the FBI. The files contained lab notes of CID Chemist Janice Glisson describing the blond synthetic hairs and lab notes reflecting the presence of black and green wool fibers. All documents were date stamped upon receipt by MacDonald's counsel, providing evidence that these particular lab notes were actually received in 1983-84. In fact, that portion of Janet Glisson's lab notes discussing the blond synthetic hair was tagged and annotated by defense counsel, showing that a member of the defense team had at least seen and considered the evidence. These are the same documents which present counsel for MacDonald now introduces as newly discovered evidence."

More:
"Our first determination, then, is whether MacDonald has shown cause for not raising this newly discovered evidence in his prior habeas petition. We easily conclude that he has not. Lab notes relating to the blond hairs, now claimed significant in corroborating MacDonald's account of the murders, were seen and passed over by counsel in the previous habeas appeal. As found by the district court, a law clerk had tagged the relevant lab report and brought it to the attention of the legal team working on the first habeas petition. Members of the team considered its evidentiary significance and made a tactical decision not to use the evidence. Such deliberate bypass clearly cannot survive abuse of the writ analysis on a second habeas appeal."

More:
"MacDonald similarly fails to show cause for not raising in his first habeas petition the lab notes pertaining to the dark wool fibers. The lab notes were in the possession of MacDonald's counsel in 1983-84, prior to the filing of the first petition, as evidenced by a date received stamp. Even though these notes may not have been known to MacDonald's counsel, abuse of the writ is not confined to deliberate decisions to bypass information. '[A] petitioner can abuse the writ by raising a claim in a subsequent petition that he could have raised in his first, regardless of whether the failure to raise it earlier stemmed from a deliberate choice.' McCleskey, 111 S.Ct. at 1468. Thus, if a petitioner should have known and understood the significance of evidence through reasonable investigations prior to filing a first habeas petition, such petitioner has no cause for not then raising the claim. We find that MacDonald's first habeas counsel, through reasonable and diligent investigation, should have discovered the lab notes in their possession. No external force, beyond the control of MacDonald and his defense team, interfered with discovery. We will not excuse as cause failure to review and consider the significance of evidence within counsel's possession."

And finally:
"We are persuaded that this is precisely the type of collateral appeal the Court through McCleskey intended to obstruct and deter. Here, over twenty years after the event of the crime, MacDonald reopens his case with specious evidence. While we are keenly aware of MacDonald's insistence as to his innocence, at some point we must accept this case as final. Every habeas appeal MacDonald brings consumes untold government and judicial resources. Furthermore, successive appeals of little merit must cruelly raise and then disappoint the hopes of one, like MacDonald, faced with a long term of incarceration. We feel that our review of MacDonald's case through the mechanism of the abuse of the writ doctrine has been thorough and fair. Any evidence truly pointing to MacDonald's innocence would have prompted a review on the merits by this Court."

audpaud

02-14-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

I think Dr MacDonald has said in the past, rather bitterly, or ironically, or sarcastically . . .

But what about austere and unsmiling???:confused:

audpaud

02-14-2006, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by caphill
It seems you and I are the only ones on this thread that is brave enough to take the personal insults for having a different view. I think the purpose of this thread didn't include anyone who wanted to discuss the evidence presented and what should have been presented. Certainly any discussions of the legal aspects of the motions and appeals is not a welcomed subject here.

Brave?:confused:

Well, I guess that's one way to look at your motivations for defending the undefendable? Perhaps that's the closest I'll get to an answer on why anyone would attempt to stick up for the good doctor despite the overwhelming evidence.

You see yourself as brave? :confused:

Bunny2

02-14-2006, 01:31 PM

Christina has uploaded something very interesting for Valentine's Day.

I'll bet Kathryn won't think much of MacDonald's "gift" to her!

What a dog Mac is and always will be...

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/price_of_postage_stamp.html

byn63

02-14-2006, 01:55 PM

The courts ruled there was no suppression of evidence. I've read here and else where several macalites trying to claim "Brady" issues without any real knowledge of the facts. The following is provided (please pay attention):

Brady vs. Maryland 373 US 83 (1963)

This USSC decision established that prosecutors have a duty to disclose all material evidence favorable to the defense that may be in its possession. Since 1963 it has evolved to require disclosure of several categories of "favorable evidence".

This ruling established that prosecutors have a due process affirmative duty to disclose to a defendant all material evidence possessed by the prosecution team. (prosecution team includes LE working on behalf of prosecution).

due process: provision under the 5th and 14th Amendments guaranteeing that a person's life, liberty, or property will not be taken without *due process. (*fundamental fairness)

Failure to disclose becomes a Brady violation. There are THREE components to a Brady violation.

1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accussed because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching;

2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the prosecution either willfully or inadvertently; and

3) prejudice must have insued.

prejudice: is produced when suppressed evidence is material. evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been provided to the defense.

There are SIX categories of "favorable evidence":

1) evidence mitigating punishment;

2) evidence directly opposing guilt;

3) evidence in-directly opposing guilt;

4) evidence supporting defense testimony;

5) evidence supporting a defense motion that would weaken the prosecution case;

6) evidence impeaching a prosecution witness's credibility.

what is NOT Brady material

rumor and speculation: is not evidence that must be revealed.

inculpatory evidence: evidence against defendant or tending to convict.

neutral evidence: does not convict or exonerate.

immaterial evidence: not reasonably probable to produce a different result.

:read:

audpaud

02-14-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Christina has uploaded something very interesting for Valentine's Day.

I'll bet Kathryn won't think much of MacDonald's "gift" to her!

What a dog Mac is and always will be...

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/price_of_postage_stamp.html

:eek: Woof! WoofWoof! :eek:

Bunny2

02-14-2006, 03:20 PM

Bunny2

02-14-2006, 03:21 PM

Hey, Byn, just wanted to thank you for the great rundown on "Brady," etc. It's now in a special place in my notes...thanks!!

stinkerbelle

02-14-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
It sounds to me as though Kearns has been reading Dr MacDonald’s private mail from prison and has now decided to use Christina and her website in order to put psychological pressure, and psychological warfare tactics on Dr MacDonald’s wife, in the hope that she will withdraw her support from him, or she’ll have some kind of domestic row with him.
oh yes, the big conspiracy to convict (and now keep in prison) the almighty jeffrey macdonald! lmbo, how would kearns get ahold of macdonald's mail? they were not sent to christina by kearns but by the women whom jeffrey macdonald lied to and used and ultimately threw away. glisson week last week, kearns this week, who's gonna be your whipping boy for next week?

Kearns used the same kind of trickery on Fred and Mildred Kassab, as caphill has recently mentioned. Kearns and another CID agent went to visit Fred and Mildred Kassab in the New York area in the early 1970s and told the Kassabs lurid stories of Dr MacDonald having been seen kissing a woman and having sex during the article 32 proceedings in 1970. This was obviously bound to upset the Kassabs, and Colette’s brother Bob Stevenson, and Kearns knew it would turn them against Dr MacDonald whatever the evidence in the MacDonald murders case. They were very emotional people.

the kassab's had already come to their own conclusion that macdoneit was guilty before kearns decided to share other info not directly related to the case (i.e. not evidence). i'm sure it did upset them, as mildred said something like, "not only did he kill her, he wasn't even a good husband to her when she was alive." and you seem to be saying the kassab's were "very emotional people" in the same "tone" macdonald uses when describing his wife and older daughter as "very feminine"; i.e. a disparaging tone. i would hope that if someone slaughtered you, dear artie, that someone in your family might be emotional on the subject too.

stinkerbelle

02-14-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Deb B

Interestingly, he doesn't seem to direct any of his anger at those he claims are actually responsible for killing his family.

amen sista! and also no anger at britt keeping his silence all these years when he could have (supposedly, of course) come forward with his "explosive" evidence at trial and saved jeffrey macdonald from years and years in prison. just more proof IMO of his sociopathy; he just doesn't get that normal people do not and would not act that way. bless you jimmy britt! rather than spending my whole life behind bars for something i didn't do, you only let me stay there 25 years! uh yeah. :rolleyes:

Bunny2

02-14-2006, 10:04 PM

Hey, Artie, didn't you know that it was already decided that Brady wasn't violated in this case? I thought for sure you'd have known that by now.

The issue was dealt with way back in 1975, and the court determined that "The [Appellant's] requests, however, go far beyond the usual Brady doctrine in order to seek review of all evidence of any kind in the possession of the Government so that he may determine if any of the evidence is favorable to his cause. He is, in effect, seeking the Government's help in developing his case;..."

It was again dealt with in 1991 by the court: "In a case such as this one, where the allegedly suppressed evidence was discussed only in a few isolated notations buried in hundreds of pages of handwritten lab notes, Brady does not require the prosecution 'to peruse through all of its evidence with an eye to the defendant's theory of the case and then to specify to the defendant the evidence which supports that theory.'"

JTF

02-14-2006, 11:18 PM

Bearclaw: I have no idea. I wasn't aware that there was any problem.

JTF.

margiej

02-15-2006, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Bearclaw
Excuse me again, Folks, but JTF, and Rash? I sent both of you a private message.

JTF? I am wondering if you know if Beej posts on this board beause there are a few of us who want to give both Beej and Rashomon an address that they can use to stay with the A & E board.

Thanks for your help in advance.

Twriterall/Kate

Is she the one who lives in Australia? It's a shame they can't continue posting on the A&E board after the 15th.

margiej

02-15-2006, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
It wasn't Dr MacDonald's fault, or a crime by him, that he wasn't murdered along with his wife and daughters. Dr MacDonald didn't have much choice, or say, in the matter.

I think Dr MacDonald has said in the past, rather bitterly, or ironically, or sarcastically, that his biggest crime in the court of public opinion was not being murdered himself on the night of the MacDonald murders.

His biggest crime is not being a man and taking responsibility for the murder of his wife and family, who he bludgeoned and stabbed to death. His vision has always been off a bubble when it comes to the court of public opinion. He wouldn't know public opinion from his old wrinkled arse. He is a murderer. That is his biggest crime.

byn63

02-15-2006, 07:25 AM

yes Artie - Brady is the law of the land. duh! that is why I posted a run down of EXACTLY what Brady requires of the prosecution AS WELL AS what constitutes a Brady Violation. As bunny pointed out to you earlier, no Brady violations were found in US vs JRM. The prosecution DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO HELP THE DEFENSE OUTLINE THEIR CASE. The fact that Bernie Segal did a less than stellar job in preparing an attempted defense against the overwhelming evidence is NOT repeat NOT the prosecution team's fault.

btw - I culled the Brady vs. Maryland information from a legal training bulletin written by a DDA. I did not make any substantive changes to the material. Although I did try to use plain English.

Bunny2

02-15-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
There is also no doubt also in my mind that Murtagh’s prosecution strategy was to hide any exculpatory evidence, or evidence which the prosecution couldn’t explain, and then say...MacDonald must be guilty because there is no exculpatory evidence.But of course you conveniently are completely unable to answer the question of what item or items you feel were "hidden" that would have exonerated MacDonald. There were none, as we found out many, many years ago.The MacDonald lawyer Bisceglie gives an explanation of all this...The witnesses and the jury and the evidence and the appeals courts give a much better explanation at:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

Bunny2

02-15-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In my amateur lawyer opinion Segal’s defense strategy was correct. Segal attempted to obtain the Brady material which should have been given to him under American law. This was denied to him.You're mistaken. Read the case documents and you can see for yourself that Brady wasn't violated in the MacDonald case. Any professional lawyer can see that the hidden evidence would have impressed any jury, and probably cleared...MacDonald at the same time.Sorry, but again you're mistaken. MacDonald had already argued to a jury that the presence of unsourced items pointed to intruders, but the jury rejected his arguments. I believe Colonel Rock was fair and just at the 1970 Article 32 proceedings.What did you think of his advisor Beale having a friendly relationship with the accused? Rather a conflict of interest, methinks. But that aside, as McNamara wrote, Rock seems to have applied an illegal standard of proof, i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But thank goodness he did, since if things had gone otherwise, Mac probably would be a free man today. Bet ol' Mac just hates to hear or see the name "Rock" now. heeheeThe problem was as soon as Segal got close, Murtagh and Blackburn would object, and Judge Dupree would sustain the objection.Dupree's sustaining or overruling of objections was apparently done without error, or at least I've never been able to find anything in any court decision that states otherwise.

Bunny2

02-15-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
If Murtagh and Blackburn hid Brady material from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial, as they did, and it’s been proved, then that’s against the law.Brady wasn't violated in this case, as you knew before you posted.It doesn’t seem much of a risk if Murtagh and Blackburn have never been convicted, or punished for it.That's because there was no reason to convict or punish.I also think Bunny is missing the point about hidden forensic evidence in the MacDonald case. The hidden forensic evidence wasn’t forensically insignificant and it was hidden.It was indeed forensically insignificant, and of course the courts found that there was no wrongful suppression of evidence.This is what the MacDonald lawyer Bisceglie had to say...This is what the jury had to say: guilty, guilty and guilty yet again of the horrendous and brutal murders of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

This is what the appeals courts had to say about the MacDonald appeals: denied, denied, denied, denied, denied, denied, denied.

stinkerbelle

02-15-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
This is what the jury had to say: guilty, guilty and guilty yet again of the horrendous and brutal murders of Colette, Kimberly and Kristen.

This is what the appeals courts had to say about the MacDonald appeals: denied, denied, denied, denied, denied, denied, denied.
bunny, this reminds me (in more than one way) of a line from one of john grisham's books that says, "you must be stupid, stupid, stupid". lmbo!

caphill

02-15-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

I think Bunny is still missing the point. Brady material is the law of the land. If Murtagh and Blackburn hid Brady material from the MacDonald defense at the MacDonald trial, as they did, and it’s been proved, then that’s against the law. American judges ought to pull their socks up about that and Murtagh and Blackburn must be punished.

Judge Dupree at the 1979 trial described any refusal to give the MacDonald defense Brady material by the Government as “that’s their risk”. It doesn’t seem much of a risk if Murtagh and Blackburn have never been convicted, or punished for it.

This is what Judge Dupree said at the time. I don’t know how sincere he was about this but this is what he said :

“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 a reversal. I have instructed them to do it, but now as I’m not going into their files and in a case as big as this, I’m 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”.

I also think Bunny is missing the point about hidden forensic evidence in the MacDonald case. The hidden forensic evidence wasn’t forensically insignificant and it was hidden. This is what the MacDonald lawyer Bisceglie had to say about it in 1989:

“It demonstrates that Murtagh had concluded pre-trial that the handwritten bench notes were highly exculpatory and would have been material in producing a verdict of acquittal.
The first memorandum in the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution memo, which, in analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both the prosecution and defense cases concluded that unmatched hairs found in Colette MacDonald’s right hand “would aid the defense”. Clearly the discovery in particular of unmatched black wool fibers on Colette’s body and on the wooden club murder weapon, long blond wig hairs, in addition to other unmatched hairs and fibers would have more than merely “aided” the defense; it would have steamrolled the prosecution case.”

The appeal motions filed for relief because of suppressed evidence and court error were denied by none other than Judge Dupree, who refused to recuse himself and find in himself in judical error. It is amazing to me that he could sit on the panel to be in the position to make a decision to reverse his own prior court's verdict. That is the "fox" in the hen house.

stinkerbelle

02-15-2006, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by caphill

The appeal motions filed for relief because of suppressed evidence and court error were denied by none other than Judge Dupree, who refused to recuse himself and find in himself in judical error. It is amazing to me that he could sit on the panel to be in the position to make a decision to reverse his own prior court's verdict. That is the "fox" in the hen house.
well them's the breaks....sometimes the legal system rocks, sometimes it sucks. but it's what we've got and that's all there is to it. if you have problems with the way the appeals process works, i suggest you write your congressman. have a good day!:seeya:

Bunny2

02-15-2006, 05:59 PM

caphill

02-15-2006, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

well them's the breaks....sometimes the legal system rocks, sometimes it sucks. but it's what we've got and that's all there is to it. if you have problems with the way the appeals process works, i suggest you write your congressman. have a good day!:seeya:

Hate to burst your bubble, but MacDonald last motion to 4th Circuit was granted and sent down the District Court for review. After the initial review an ORDER was made to the United States US Attorney to answer MacDonald's motion, MacDonald attached exhibits and the record of the prior proceeding.

The US is now the defendent and has until March 30th to defend against the charges in the MacDonald motion that include witness intimidation, suppression of evidence and false testimony. All the things in the prior proceedings that were denied previously will now have to be addressed.

Murtagh will have to explain why the black wool fibers on the murder weapon, on Colette's mouth and on her chest were not put into evidence in 1979. The long 22 inch blond synthetic hairs, and other pink, green and white fibers and quite a few unsourced hairs will have to be explained as to why they never were put on the final lab report and presented at trial. It will have to be explained why the prosecution never turned over the lab work notes to the defense even when the defense made motions to get to see these lab notes that Murtagh had in his briefcase.

It doesn't matter that the previous motions were denied. What matters is the last motion was not denied. Murtagh responded in a motion of opposition to the Motion from MacDonald. Judge Fox denied the opposition motion from Murtagh and responded by an Order to the US Attorney to answer to the charges that he had knowingly suppressed evidence, that there is evidence of false testimony and there is a witness to intimidation by the prosecution of MacDonald material witness.

Lets wait and see how Murtagh can explain away the knowledge and proof the labs had fibers and hair evidence that was deliberately omitted from the final lab report. Lets see how he explains away the fact he would never release the lab work notes to the defense when this notes clearly listed the fibers and hairs that the prosecution did not want th jury to see. Lets see how he explains his witnesses giving false testimony when they said there were only 2 blue fibers on the murder weapon. That is not just an error that can be explained away when the witnesses own notes describes other fibers (black wooL) on the murder weapon and the mouth and chest and under Colette. There is more than just the black wool. Where is the mention of the 3 hairbrushs at the crime scene on the final lab report? Where is 3-4 inch hair in Colette's hand not matched to Jeff?

You think that not Brady material?

stinkerbelle

02-15-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Hate to burst your bubble, but MacDonald last motion to 4th Circuit was granted and sent down the District Court for review. After the initial review an ORDER was made to the United States US Attorney to answer MacDonald's motion, MacDonald attached exhibits and the record of the prior proceeding.

The US is now the defendent and has until March 30th to defend against the charges in the MacDonald motion that include witness intimidation, suppression of evidence and false testimony. All the things in the prior proceedings that were denied previously will now have to be addressed.

Murtagh will have to explain why the black wool fibers on the murder weapon, on Colette's mouth and on her chest were not put into evidence in 1979. The long 22 inch blond synthetic hairs, and other pink, green and white fibers and quite a few unsourced hairs will have to be explained as to why they never were put on the final lab report and presented at trial. It will have to be explained why the prosecution never turned over the lab work notes to the defense even when the defense made motions to get to see these lab notes that Murtagh had in his briefcase.

It doesn't matter that the previous motions were denied. What matters is the last motion was not denied. Murtagh responded in a motion of opposition to the Motion from MacDonald. Judge Fox denied the opposition motion from Murtagh and responded by an Order to the US Attorney to answer to the charges that he had knowingly suppressed evidence, that there is evidence of false testimony and there is a witness to intimidation by the prosecution of MacDonald material witness.

Lets wait and see how Murtagh can explain away the knowledge and proof the labs had fibers and hair evidence that was deliberately omitted from the final lab report. Lets see how he explains away the fact he would never release the lab work notes to the defense when this notes clearly listed the fibers and hairs that the prosecution did not want th jury to see. Lets see how he explains his witnesses giving false testimony when they said there were only 2 blue fibers on the murder weapon. That is not just an error that can be explained away when the witnesses own notes describes other fibers (black wooL) on the murder weapon and the mouth and chest and under Colette. There is more than just the black wool. Where is the mention of the 3 hairbrushs at the crime scene on the final lab report? Where is 3-4 inch hair in Colette's hand not matched to Jeff?

You think that not Brady material?
color me confused, but what the heck did all the above have to do with my post regarding your apparent dislike of the way our court system is run (which you quoted)? :shrug:

but in answer to your question, since i'm here, whether i (or bunny or byn or rash or JTF or YOU) think anything is brady material or not is moot; no court found that it was.

JTF

02-15-2006, 07:27 PM

Caphill: Do you actually think that by repeating the same nonsense over and over again, you will somehow wear down those of who rely on the documented record? We can be just as persistent and, unlike yourself, we have the truth on our side. The only forums in which the "evidence" listed by the MacDonald camp as "proof" of intruders can be heard, is in an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. The current motion to Judge Fox doesn't come close to garnering either scenario, but if you need to wrap yourself in a fantasy world, so be it.

JTF.

caphill

02-15-2006, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
The trial and subsequent proceedings were conducted according to law, and to the best of my knowledge no judicial or procedural errors by either counsel or Dupree were found.

You are right that any appeals that came to Dupree were denied and Judge Dupree did not find himself in judicial error or procedural error. When Judge Fox sat in for Judge Dupree when he died, Judge Fox carried the water for his close friend Dupree with the exception of allowing the evidence to be DNA tested in 1997. Judge Fox ,now senior District judge ,has ordered the US Attorney to address the claims of MacDonald of suppression of evidence, witness intimidation and other charges in the prior proceedings that were initially denied.

He gave the US Attorney a cut off date of March 30th to respond. I guess he has learned to give a deadline since his last order to them in 1997 still hasn't been met.

I don't think Murtagh can any longer deny there was suppressed evidence. He is just going to have to figure how to blame it on someone else and deny he was a part of the labs omitting the items submitted to them by him and Kearns. CID and FBI labs are subject to exposure in how that handled pertinent evidence.

I await Murtagh's rope a dope. I believe it would be in his best interest to hope Judge Fox vacates the verdict and this does not go to a retrial. A retrial will open up exposure to some very key players in the trial of misjustice that took place in 1979.

caphill

02-15-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Do you actually think that by repeating the same nonsense over and over again, you will somehow wear down those of who rely on the documented record? We can be just as persistent and, unlike yourself, we have the truth on our side. The only forums in which the "evidence" listed by the MacDonald camp as "proof" of intruders can be heard, is in an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. The current motion to Judge Fox doesn't come close to garnering either scenario, but if you need to wrap yourself in a fantasy world, so be it.

JTF.

You are resting on past laurels.

"we have the truth on our side" Who is "we "? What side?

Are you on the side of CID that mishandled the forensics and "managed" the lab reports" Are you on the side of the goverment that would not turn over the labs' work notes to the defense.

Do you support a prosecution that will win at any costs. Is that type of personal morals and legal ethics that are admired on your side of truth?

As one of the judges quoted Robet Louis Stevenson "The cruelest lies are often lies of silence. The lie of omission.

stinkerbelle

02-15-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by caphill
Judge Fox ,now senior District judge ,has ordered the US Attorney to address the claims of MacDonald of suppression of evidence, witness intimidation and other charges in the prior proceedings that were initially denied.

:read: you know, as JTF likes to say, reading is fundamental. judge fox's order on 1-27-06 states merely that the government must file an answer, motion or other response to the ice pick baby killer's motion to vacate, and this must be done on or before march 30. nowhere did i read where the judge ordered the US attorney to address any claims whatsoever but those that prompted the filing of murdermac's motion, i.e. the britt issue. :read:

Bunny2

02-15-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by caphill
All the things in the prior proceedings that were denied previously will now have to be addressed.Aren't you the same poster who proclaimed that MacDonald had been granted a new trial?

Mac has already filed 2255 motions in the past, and as you must know, the same sort of procedure was most likely followed then as now. He had to ask for permission to file, it was decided based on motions and answers what would happen next, and this strikes me as being no different at all from what is taking place currently.You think that not Brady material?The courts of law already determined that Brady was not violated in the MacDonald case.

Bunny2

02-15-2006, 11:26 PM

caphill

02-15-2006, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

:read: you know, as JTF likes to say, reading is fundamental. judge fox's order on 1-27-06 states merely that the government must file an answer, motion or other response to the ice pick baby killer's motion to vacate, and this must be done on or before march 30. nowhere did i read where the judge ordered the US attorney to address any claims whatsoever but those that prompted the filing of murdermac's motion, i.e. the britt issue. :read:

One must read the 51 page motion filed by Dr. MacDonald with exhibits and the record of prior proceedings to fundamentally understand what Judge Fox is referring to when he ORDERS the US Attorney to file an answer, motion or other response to the 51 page Motion .

This 51 page motion included a whole lot more than Britt's affidavit.

Murtagh wrote a 43 page opposition to say the Movant(MacDonald) is not entitled to relief. The 4th Circuit didn't agree with Murtagh's argument. Judge Fox response also informs the US Attorney that it does not plainly appear that Movant is not entitled to relief , as Murtagh contends.

If you only read what you want to hear that supports your opinion and don't read all the motions filed by both parties then you fundamentally can't have a full understanding of the current legal situation.

caphill

02-15-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
There was more than enough evidence to show the jury that Colette was wrapped in the master bedroom sheet while it was in Kristen's room, and that she was then carried by Jeffrey MacDonald into the master bedroom and stabbed as she lay on the floor covered with MacDonald's torn and bloody pajama top. It is beyond question that Kim was bludgeoned in the master bedroom and then was moved back to her bed and bludgeoned and stabbed again; I don't believe even the defense contended it.

You were exposed as a fraud on another message board; it's been shown that in order to present a false picture of events you've altered testimony when copying and pasting; and in my opinion your ostensible insistence that Kim was not moved despite the proof by the evidence that she was, and your endless repetition of other statements you know to be false, is only a pretense designed to bolster the game you play here of pretending to support a triple convicted murderer.Of course you do, since IMHO you're one and the same person.

What did you think about the two neighbors who came over to the house to see what was going on with the MPS, the ambulances etc. One was a chaplain and another a Capt and they were able to just walk in the house. Both have a sworn affidavit that they walked back to bedroom and Colette was covered with a sheet.

We know from the death scene pics on Christina's site that the pj top and the white towel had been moved to cover up Colette one bare breast and her bare midriff. There was a herd of men in and out of the bedrooms moving the bodies. The girls bodies had been moved prior to those pics being taken on the Christina site.

Do you think the Chaplain and the other neighbor were lying about seeing that sheet throw over Colette while the medics were getting Jeffrey rolled out of the house.

Bunny2

02-16-2006, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by caphill
What did you think about the two neighbors who came over to the house to see what was going on with the MPS, the ambulances etc. One was a chaplain and another a Capt and they were able to just walk in the house. Both have a sworn affidavit that they walked back to bedroom and Colette was covered with a sheet.Memory fails...Who are you talking about? Edwards and what Captain?

Regardless, it seems that you still have a lot of basic research left to do. Did you bother to read Ivory's or Mica's statements?:

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_ivory_1984aug30.html

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/html/affidavit_mica_1984sep01.html

Did you read either of the excellent C&J threads which also discuss the truth about this issue?:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=2261

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=2161

There was a herd of men in and out of the bedrooms moving the bodies. The girls bodies had been moved prior to those pics being taken on the Christina site.Actually, both of these statements are false, which, as usual, you knew before you posted. The real truth is that MacDonald was caught molesting his daughter and there was testimony that he'd molested many children, and he had a prior warrant out for his arrest back in Patchogue. There was also a videotape made of the murders, and two eyewitnesses came forward to say that they'd seen MacDonald murdering his family, but they'd been threatened by someone associated with the defense that if they talked, the Mafia would make sure they slept with the fishes.

Bunny2

02-16-2006, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by caphill
Judge Fox response also informs the US Attorney that it does not plainly appear that Movant is not entitled to relief...Which of course also means that it is not plainly clear that MacDonald IS entitled to relief.

Methinks you should probably heed your own words before admonishing others, Cappy. "If you only read what you want to hear that supports your opinion and don't read all the motions filed by both parties then you fundamentally can't have a full understanding of the current legal situation."

Since you've apparently begun to read the actual filings and motions, I hope you've come to understand at last that MacDonald was not granted a new trial as you claimed. Reading is indeed fundamental, isn't it.

JTF

02-16-2006, 02:52 AM

Bunny: Caphill seems drawn to attributing significance to prosaic legal documentation based on his own personal criteria. For example, if it is significant that the MacDonald defense motion was 51 pages long and the government's response was over 40 pages long, what does that say about the fact that Judge Fox's order was a whopping 1 page long? I would think that would mean that Judge Fox hasn't even come close to deciding on whether Jeffie Boy is going to get an evidentiary hearing or new trial.

JTF.

stinkerbelle

02-16-2006, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by caphill

One must read the 51 page motion filed by Dr. MacDonald with exhibits and the record of prior proceedings to fundamentally understand what Judge Fox is referring to when he ORDERS the US Attorney to file an answer, motion or other response to the 51 page Motion .
sigh....i have read the entire 51 page motion.

This 51 page motion included a whole lot more than Britt's affidavit.
yes it did, like a rundown of the entire case, which is apparently how motions such as this are written since all of them i have read are exactly like this. however, their reason for filing this motion was "newly discovered evidence that could not have been known at trial", which is the britt issue. all the other crap you and mac want to keep adding to it is old news; the courts have already ruled there was no suppression, no brady violation, etc. etc. etc.

If you only read what you want to hear that supports your opinion and don't read all the motions filed by both parties then you fundamentally can't have a full understanding of the current legal situation.
lmbo, you just keep sticking your foot in it, don't you? like macdoneit, you should quit while you're ahead.

stinkerbelle

02-16-2006, 06:58 AM

omg ROFL!!!

byn63

02-16-2006, 07:19 AM

:lol: bunny once again you nailed 'em! too funny!:lol:

byn63

02-16-2006, 07:34 AM

***big sigh***

cappy and artie just don't seem to like it when any of us cloud the issue with facts! For example:

FACT: Judge Dupree was NOT the only judicial officer to determine the merits (or lack thereof) in re: macdoneits appeals. Inmate 00131-177 has been heard by the United States Supreme Court more than any other murderer in US jurisprudence history.

FACT: The oft discussed E-5 or unidentified hair found in Colette's hand. How many times must cappy and artie be told that the hair was the DISTAL end or tip of a hair, that it was a limb hair, and that only HEAD AND PUBIC HAIRS are microscopically comparable? Besides, it is undoubtedly one of the items that was DNA tested. Only 12 more days left in February so the report will be out soon!

FACT: The trial was conducted FAIRLY, there is no evidence of judicial error or Brady violations. There is no evidence of suppressed evidence - and this is another of the facts that we seem to have to repeat over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I'm with JTF - reading is fundamental. MPO is there are a couple of posters that need to work on the COMPREHENSION and RETENTION skills that go along with reading.........................:read:

JTF

02-16-2006, 12:23 PM

Arthur: I posted the following information only 48 hours ago, but obviously you're attempting the wearing down technique again. Janice Glisson was an expert in blood analysis in 1970 and was in training via Dillard Browning to be an expert in hair analysis as well. Browning had so much on his plate when the evidence first arrived at Fort Gordon that he allowed Glisson to look at some of the hair evidence in this case. When she originally looked at the hair from CID Exhibit E-5, she thought it was a head hair and subsequently attempted to compare it to Jeffrey MacDonald's hair. She then realized that she couldn't make such comparisons because it was, in fact, a limb hair. Browning subsequently took a look at the hair and agreed that it was a limb hair. In 1974, Stombaugh concurred with Glisson and Browning and labeled it as the distal portion or tip of a limb hair. The fact that the MacDonald camp has continued to hang on to Glisson's inital analysis of the limb hair demonstrates how little they have in terms of "intruder evidence."

JTF.

byn63

02-16-2006, 02:54 PM

Excuse me bertie boy but first of all we KNOW you are not a Brit and we have really gotten tired of your attempts to claim it is so just to make inane comments. Secondly, ON THE JOB training is common for many forensic technicians, it is the way persons garner experience. The prosecution did not try to present Janice Glisson as an expert in hairs, which is one reason why her noted attempts to match E-5 were not/are not Brady material. They are in fact INSIGNIFICANT. Dillard Browning and Paul Stombaugh both reviewed E-5 and determined it was a portion of a limb hair, and it is certainly one of the exhibits that was DNA tested.

Also, where in the world do you come up with an ignorant comment that Dr. Craig Chamberlain and Terry Laber were not qualified to perform blood typing? Not only were they both qualified and skilled at the testing, they both testified at the 1979 trial. Even more remarkable - Segal didn't even ATTEMPT to cross-examine Terry Laber. That is VERY SIGNIFICANT! It means, to me and I am sure others, that he didn't want to draw any additional attention to the INCREDIBLY DAMAGING TESTIMONY!

byn63

02-16-2006, 02:59 PM

since this board is likely to be "offline" tomorrow I wanted to post this:

Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen may you rest in peace. I hope that you are aware that there are many of us here that continue to keep your memories alive. It was 36 years ago that your lives were ended so brutally by that narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic man, yet we fight as if it were yesterday. We will continue to work together to be sure he stays in prison until he breathes his last.

:rose: :rose: :rose:

audpaud

02-16-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by byn63
since this board is likely to be "offline" tomorrow I wanted to post this:

Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen may you rest in peace. I hope that you are aware that there are many of us here that continue to keep your memories alive. It was 36 years ago that your lives were ended so brutally by that narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic man, yet we fight as if it were yesterday. We will continue to work together to be sure he stays in prison until he breathes his last.

I hesitated b4 posting, as byn's beautiful Post is such a fitting ending to this Thread . . . but just saw the announcement and am too curious wondering if this Thread is permanently closed?:confused:

I have a deep faith that Colette, Kim and Kris are resting in eternal peace/or a dimension that does include a faithful, devoted Husband and a devoted Daddy that takes them to Pony Rides.:rose:

I also pray for the macdonald defenders . . . that they discover what is missing in their lives/make up that causes them to defend a heinous and reprehensible vermin that is Jeffrey MacDonald.:(

byn63

02-16-2006, 05:05 PM

Eisman - the actor who emoted for the TV cameras attempting to show that he was injured when the Army attempted to get Inmate to give hair samples? The same Eisman who had nothing to do with the TRIAL? Dr. Craig Chamberlain and Terry Laber testified at TRIAL where it counted! So much evidence had yet to be tested and prepared for use at the Article 32 - you know that so why so you insist on quoting from the Article 32 when the work was barely even started let alone complete?

byn63

02-16-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

I hesitated b4 posting, as byn's beautiful Post is such a fitting ending to this Thread . . . but just saw the announcement and am too curious wondering if this Thread is permanently closed?:confused:

I have a deep faith that Colette, Kim and Kris are resting in eternal peace/or a dimension that does include a faithful, devoted Husband and a devoted Daddy that takes them to Pony Rides.:rose:

I also pray for the macdonald defenders . . . that they discover what is missing in their lives/make up that causes them to defend a heinous and reprehensible vermin that is Jeffrey MacDonald.:(

Audpaud - I like your additions! I'm sure many of us here will be thinking about Colette, Kimmie and Kristy tomorrow. Too bad I doubt that Inmate 00131-177 will! Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the DNA results were released tomorrow?

stinkerbelle

02-16-2006, 05:10 PM

JTF

02-16-2006, 05:26 PM

Byn: It's possible that the test results will be released tomorrow and it becomes sobering when you realize that at this time 36 years ago, Colette MacDonald was preparing for class with no idea of what was to come 8-9 hours later. She never could have predicted that she would be grappling, clawing, and striking out at her own husband in order to survive. Her will to survive and to protect her children, helped to convict Jeffrey MacDonald for her efforts resulted in the bedding evidence, the blood evidence on Kristen's bed/walls, and the 3 bloody footprints. Hopefully, the DNA test results will provide further proof that her efforts were not in vain.

JTF.

JTF

02-16-2006, 05:44 PM

Bunny: Excellent examples of why common sense coupled with documented fact, make for a devastating rebuttal to the ramblings of the groupies from MacFantasy Land. Well Tattoo, what do you think of hippie intruders wishing for ways to avoid stealing drugs from a hallway closet, levitating in the air to avoid leaving bloody footprints, and distorting the time/space continuum by having the ability to assault Jeff and Colette at the same time? Then again, we can grant any wish to groupies in MacFantasy Land. Boss, de oven mitts, de oven mitts!!

JTF.

margiej

02-16-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Byn: It's possible that the test results will be released tomorrow and it becomes sobering when you realize that at this time 36 years ago, Colette MacDonald was preparing for class with no idea of what was to come 8-9 hours later. She never could have predicted that she would be grappling, clawing, and striking out at her own husband in order to survive. Her will to survive and to protect her children, helped to convict Jeffrey MacDonald for her efforts resulted in the bedding evidence, the blood evidence on Kristen's bed/walls, and the 3 bloody footprints. Hopefully, the DNA test results will provide further proof that her efforts were not in vain.

JTF.

Rest in Peace Colette, Kim, Kris and Baby Boy. :rose:

You know, JTFs, I was thinking about Colette going into Kris's room, how the light in the bathroom was on and Colette had to pass by the bathroom door to get to Kris's room. How MacD was in Kim's room and when Colette passed by the bathroom door an eery ghostly MOVING shadow of the image of Colette must have presented itself in Kim's room for MacD to see. MacD had left her unconscious or dead he thought. I hope he wet his pj bottoms.

JTF

02-16-2006, 09:22 PM

Margie: Jeff may have been in the dining room when Colette entered Kristen's room. There were Type A and AB blood smears on the dining room floor which indicates that an object containing those 2 blood types was dropped on the floor near the entrance to the kitchen. The only 2 objects with ample amounts of Type A and AB blood on them were Jeff's pajama top and the blue bedsheet. I believe that for whatever reason, Jeff had the blue bedsheet in hand as he made his way to the kitchen, heard Colette staggering into Kristen's room, and subsequently went into Kristen's room for his final assault on Colette. Colette's will to live and to protect Kristen helped to put Jeff behind bars for the past 26 years.

JTF.

margiej

02-17-2006, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Margie: Jeff may have been in the dining room when Colette entered Kristen's room. There were Type A and AB blood smears on the dining room floor which indicates that an object containing those 2 blood types was dropped on the floor near the entrance to the kitchen. The only 2 objects with ample amounts of Type A and AB blood on them were Jeff's pajama top and the blue bedsheet. I believe that for whatever reason, Jeff had the blue bedsheet in hand as he made his way to the kitchen, heard Colette staggering into Kristen's room, and subsequently went into Kristen's room for his final assault on Colette. Colette's will to live and to protect Kristen helped to put Jeff behind bars for the past 26 years.

JTF.

The club also had A and AB blood on it. Could it have been dropped in the dining room, just for an instant then picked up again. I know he used the club on Colette in Kris's room. He also used the sheet to remove Colette from Kris's room. Was he going to the kichen to get Kris a bottle or to get the old hickory knife and ice pick? Just trying to get my mind wrapped around the events as they transpired. Thanks.

audpaud

02-17-2006, 04:21 AM

I find myself getting somewhat irked at your nonsensical replies, but must tell you that I mainly just end up feeling incredibly sorry for you.:shrug:

I can only guess that you have absolutely no idea how you and your arguments come across on a m/b? Or why you can't figure out why there are only two of you presenting these outlandish and irrational defenses for the murderer?:confused:

Please really think about what has led you to this juncture in your life and tell us?

Really.

JTF

02-17-2006, 04:24 AM

Margie: It's unlikely that the club was the source of the smudge-like stains on the dining room floor. William Ivory testified at the Grand Jury hearing that the stains appeared to be the result of something with Type A and AB on it, being dropped and subsequently dragged across the floor. There was no bloody outline resembling a club found on the dining room floor. In my opinion, Jeff stabbed Kristen to death, retrieved the blue bedsheet from Kimberly's room, was on his way to the kitchen when he heard Colette staggering down the hallway, he dropped the bedsheet on the dining room floor, he clubbed Colette to death in Kristen's room, retrieved the bedsheet from the dining room, and used it to transport Colette back into the master bedroom.

JTF.

JTF

02-17-2006, 04:34 AM

Scenes from the next episode of MacFantasy Island:

Boss, de oven mitts, de oven mitts!!

Easy, Arthur. I mean, Caphill. I mean, Tattoo.

Boss, how do we place 6 people in a cramped, darkened apartment and not leave any fingerprints or head hairs?

That is easy, Tattoo. Remember, we create the fantasy and Kathryn signs off on it.

Thanks for the explanation, boss.

JTF.

audpaud

02-17-2006, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by JTF
In my opinion, Jeff stabbed Kristen to death, retrieved the blue bedsheet from Kimberly's room, was on his way to the kitchen when he heard Colette staggering down the hallway, he dropped the bedsheet on the dining room floor, he clubbed Colette to death in Kristen's room, retrieved the bedsheet from the dining room, and used it to transport Colette back into the master bedroom.
JTF.

Not sure why I always thought that Poor Dear Kristen :rose: was last on the "dr.'s" rounds? Does your opinion mean that Colette saw her Baby dead b4 her Final Blows?

Just ghastly and horrific to contemplate . . . guess it would be much easier to babble about who had coffee in the kitchen and a strand of freakin' "wig" thread!?:rolleyes: :flamemad:

byn63

02-17-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

i feel kind of lame quoting this instead of posting something myself, but you said it better than i could have byn.

thanks stinkerbelle - I copied it here again

Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen may you rest in peace. I hope that you are aware that there are many of us here that continue to keep your memories alive. It was 36 years ago that your lives were ended so brutally by that narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic man, yet we fight as if it were yesterday. We will continue to work together to be sure he stays in prison until he breathes his last.

:rose: :rose: :rose:

margiej

02-17-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Margie: It's unlikely that the club was the source of the smudge-like stains on the dining room floor. William Ivory testified at the Grand Jury hearing that the stains appeared to be the result of something with Type A and AB on it, being dropped and subsequently dragged across the floor. There was no bloody outline resembling a club found on the dining room floor. In my opinion, Jeff stabbed Kristen to death, retrieved the blue bedsheet from Kimberly's room, was on his way to the kitchen when he heard Colette staggering down the hallway, he dropped the bedsheet on the dining room floor, he clubbed Colette to death in Kristen's room, retrieved the bedsheet from the dining room, and used it to transport Colette back into the master bedroom.

JTF.

So your theory is that Kris was already dead when Colette stumbled in. That would explain Kris's blood on Colette's hand. MacD was on his way to the kitchen when he dropped the blue sheet on the dining room floor and drug it. Then carried it back to Kris's room where he finished killing Colette. I guess I was hoping that at some point MacD saw Colette's walking shadow after he thought she was dead and it scared the bejeebers out of him. Oh, well.

audpaud

02-17-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
[B]The CID theory is that there was a violent argument between Colette and Dr MacDonald because Dr MacDonald had been "screwing around" with other women, and that Kim was injured in the master bedroom, and then Colette murdered the two little girls.

That's baloney and a first-class trial judge ought to have said it's baloney by now.

ummmm, and this makes macdonald innocent how?:confused:

I'm by no means an expert on this case, but if this is indeed true, I'm thinking that it proves that the CID had no "rush to judgement" on the true murderer and entertained other scenarios, right? Mothers have certainly murdered their children here in the USA and also across The Pond, as well---no baloney.

The important thing is that the evidence convicted the right person in the end.

audpaud

02-17-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
In a way Segal ought to have taken a firm line with Judge Dupree for ordering that biased psychiatric examination and hostile interrogation from those idiot New York psychiatrists Drs. Brussel and Silverman All the other psychiatrists and psychologists in the MacDonald case said they were fairly certain Dr MacDonald didn't do it.

That biased, and totally unfair Dr Brussel psychiatric report, was the only one ever seen by the jury at the 1979 trial.

Are these the psychiatrist you called "austere and unsmiling" a few pages back? If so, why?

audpaud

02-17-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

Has JTF ever heard of a burglar, or intruder, who didn't wear gloves even if those gloves were latex, surgical, or washing up gloves? Could that possibly be why there don't seem to be a lot of intruder fingerprints at the murder scene, or am I being naive about that?

Dr MacDonald explained what happened in 1974/5 at the Grand Jury :-

"And I didn't kill Kimmie and I didn't kill Kristy, and I didn't move Colette, and I didn't move Kimmie, and I didn't move Kristy, and I gave them mouth to mouth breathing, and I loved them then, and I love them now. And Colette didn't kill them either." [/B]

No, your are not being "naive", in regard to "burglars" wearing surgical gloves . . . naive is just not the right word. "Preposterous" comes to mind, as well as "desperate." It's been posted many times in this Thread alone--you can't have it both ways---your intruders are either an organized group of cold calculated murderers with gloves on OR whacked out acid is groovy bumbling burglar murderers. The Sharon Tate murders are a good example of whacked out intruders on a mission . . . The macdonald murders are a good example of a whacked out husband/father. Think about it.

As for macdonald's self serving Grand Jury statements---ummmm, it only took him what? 5 years to get some emotion? Quite a lot of rehearsal time for that "I loved them" crap. :flamemad:

audpaud

02-17-2006, 02:36 PM

Just noted the vote count climbing . . . 72 GUILTY vs 14 not guilty. Are there two new macdonald supporters? Would love to hear some fresh exonerating arguments.

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
This is part of Segal's cross-examination of so-called blood expert Terry Laber at the 1979 trial. Laber doesn't sound like a seasoned, real professional expert to me from his answers:And you look like a very careless researcher in this case, since not only do we have proof that you don't always quote what was actually written in the documents (and that you are barely familiar with even the most basic facts in the case after some seven or eight months of posting almost daily), but what you quoted here was in no way a "cross-examination" of Laber. It was direct examination by Murtagh, not cross-examination by Segal.

Segal didn't cross-examine Laber at all, in fact. No doubt this was either because Segal wasn't about to impress that damaging testimony upon the jury's minds even more than it already was, or because there simply was no contradiction to it. Certainly if Segal felt there was any contradiction to Laber's testimony, he wouldn't have hesitated to bring it up.

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by audpaud
Are these the psychiatrist you called "austere and unsmiling" a few pages back? If so, why?
Hey, audpaud...maybe you are starting to notice now what the rest of us have seen for ages: Mac supporters either completely ignore questions directed to them or they change the subject or they reply only that vampires and the Masons and the Mafia did it. Wonderful for the anti-Mac group, isn't it? :)

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 03:20 PM

I'm glad the board is open today. I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said, over and over again every year on this day, but will add my thoughts to those of others anyway: Kim and Kristen and Colette will NEVER be forgotten, and while Mac is primping and giving his interviews, etc., I hope he realizes that he will never be forgotten either: He has assured his place in history as one of the most brutal, unrepentant, narcissistic and psychopathic triple murderers who ever lived. May he never rest in peace, ever.

JTF

02-17-2006, 03:22 PM

Arthur: Not surprisingly, you're asking me questions that I've answered dozens of times, but considering that it's February 17th, here you go:

1) No woolen fibers were found INSIDE Colette's mouth. A woolen fiber was found NEAR her mouth and on her bicep.

2) There was little in the way of clothing comparisons for the woolen/acrylic fibers due to the fact that Jeffrey MacDonald discarded most of the family clothing items shortly after the Article 32 hearing. MacDonald admitted as much to Kearns and Pruett in 1971.

3) Pictures and home movies demonstrate that the MacDonald family had sleeping bags, sweaters, and wool caps in 1970. These items were also discarded by MacDonald shortly after the Article 32 hearing.

4) There were 15 body/limb hairs found at the crime scene and only DNA testing can produce a source for body/limb hairs. All 15 hairs have been DNA tested by the AFIP.

JTF.

bandit's mom

02-17-2006, 03:50 PM

So far I've only seen pretty ridiculous ranting from the MacDonald
supporters, so I give most of their nonsence little credence, but
I am curious. Is it true that Collete was ever under suspicion,
or is that just some lame attempt to attack a victim? What
on earth was the theory, that she killed her children and then
commited some bizarre, not to mention impossible, form of
suicide? That seems even more far fetched than the
"conspiracy theories".

JTF

02-17-2006, 04:20 PM

Arthur: I'm not accusing MacDonald of discarding clothing items as a means to "hide" evidence. He wasn't exactly a trace evidence expert, so you're attributing a non-existent motive to my post. I'm also not claiming that all the unsourced woolen fibers came from clothing worn by MacDonald. As I stated in my post, the MacDonald family owned woolen caps, sweaters, and lined sleeping bags. Considering that 4 of the 5 woolen fibers differed in chemical composition, I would assume that 1 of the fibers came from a sleeping bag, another came from a sweater, and so on and so forth. Transfer Theory of Locard would explain how the fibers got on Colette's body and the club. When Jeff placed Colette's bloody body and the bloody club on the master bedroom floor, fibers from the carpet transferred on to Colette's body/club. It's important to remember that the only "wool" retort from the MacDonald camp is Helena Stoeckley's history of wearing black clothing, but she claimed that she never went near Colette's body. Unless Stoeckley's clothing contained leaping fibers, the Transfer Theory of Locard is the most salient explanation for the location of the fibers.

JTF.

JTF

02-17-2006, 04:26 PM

BM: CID Agent Robert Shaw, considered the possibility that Colette may have been involved in the murder of Kristen, but it did not go beyond that stage. In the end, Shaw was convinced that Jeffrey MacDonald was the lone killer of his family.

JTF.

martin5

02-17-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by caphill
The appeal motions filed for relief because of suppressed evidence and court error were denied by none other than Judge Dupree, who refused to recuse himself and find in himself in judical error. It is amazing to me that he could sit on the panel to be in the position to make a decision to reverse his own prior court's verdict. That is the "fox" in the hen house.
People need to shut up about things they know nothing about and have no interest in learning. The judge who presides at the trial is the one who hears and determines the motion for a new trial. I know of no jurisdiction that handles it differently. Both the trial court's ruling on the motion for a new trial and the motion to recuse itself were subject to appellate review, were denied, and the judgement affirmed.

stinkerbelle

02-17-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
If black wool fibers were found near Colette's mouth and on her bicep and on the murder weapon and Dr MacDonald wasn't wearing black wool clothes then it's most unlikely those wool fibers came from Dr MacDonald.

If those MacDonald clothes were so forensically significant then it was grossly incompetent of the CID not to have taken those MacDonald clothes in as evidence.

but see that's the point. they were not forensically significant. the only person making them out to be significant, besides you, is macdonald.

did it never occur to you that the wool could have been in that apartment for quite some time (especially since colette was found laying on a shag rug, just the type to hold fibers)? not every item of evidence collected at a crime scene will have forensic significance to the crime (no matter what the show CSI says). i think it makes much more sense to assume that the wool came from the apartment itself, whether it was ever matched to anything or not, than to claim it came from one specific intruder simply because that person admittedly wore black clothing from time to time.

It's simply not good enough for Murtagh and the CID to put a man in prison for 25 years because fibers on the body of murder victims "probably" came from MacDonald clothes.
this doesn't even make sense. first you claim the wool fibers were hidden, then you claim they convicted him? or are you referring to pj fibers? if so, i believe that the evidence as a whole, including macdonald's preposterous story, is what convicted him.

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
If black wool fibers were found near Colette's mouth and on her bicep and on the murder weapon and...MacDonald wasn't wearing black wool clothes then it's most unlikely those wool fibers came from...MacDonald.You haven't given a smidgen of thought to what you write, that's obvious. You've paid no attention at all to the facts, and continue to robotically write the same things, over and over and over yet again, even things that have long been disproven.

As you've done repeatedly in the past, you fail to take into account such things as that MPs wore black-green wool inserts in their gloves, that they often took off the gloves and wore just the inserts, that Colette was likely face down on the floor when Mac unrolled her from the bedding, or that unsourced items are so common to every household that they're considered to be forensically insignificant, so insignificant that they're often not even reported. You fail to take into account even Stoeckley's own words, which I believe were that she wasn't even in the master bedroom, that she just kind of looked in, saw the horror, and went in another direction. You also continually ignore the fact that the whole "black wool" issue has already been dealt with and rejected, not only by the courts themselves but also by any thinking researcher who can see the facts behind it. Get some help, Artie, before it's too late (which it may already be.)It's simply not good enough for Murtagh and the CID to put a man in prison for 25 years because fibers on the body of murder victims "probably" came from MacDonald clothes.Another example showing conclusively that you are barely familiar with even the most basic facts of the case, or that you're a plain-and-simple fraud. What did you do, just paste that into a notepad so that you could simply copy it 1000 or more times into various posts? Instead of spending so much time trying to bait people, why don't you sit down and do some honest research for a change instead of simply repeating the same old nonsense over and over again.

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by martin5
People need to shut up about things they know nothing about and have no interest in learning. The judge who presides at the trial is the one who hears and determines the motion for a new trial. I know of no jurisdiction that handles it differently. Both the trial court's ruling on the motion for a new trial and the motion to recuse itself were subject to appellate review, were denied, and the judgement affirmed.
Just wanted to say hi and welcome, martin - good post!! Am I right in my guess that you might be a lawyer...?

stinkerbelle

02-17-2006, 05:04 PM

welcome martin and thanks for the info! somehow dupree's involvement post-trial makes some posters think that the macdonald case is the only case in which this has ever happened in the history of jurisprudence.

bandit's mom, shaw, like any good investigator, explored all avenues of the case, including the possibility that colette was involved in the murder of kristen. as JTF said, he eventually discarded that theory.

this is touted over and over again by artie/caphill as evidence that the investigators were stupid, but of course apparently they were smart enough to frame jeffrey macdonald and convince every single person involved in the case to keep this vast conspiracy a secret to this very day.;)

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I noticed that Murtagh, and the MacDonald prosecution, still seems to think the pajama top was torn in the living room which is written in the legal document with regard to this recent Jimmy Britt case. There is no evidence of the pajama top being torn there.As I recall, Mac himself apparently told Dr. Sadoff that the top was torn while he was struggling with "intruders" on the sofa. Of course, as is so typical of Mac, he told a different story to investigators, saying that the top was torn as he struggled with intruders in the hallway (the same area where the undisturbed clothing was). With Mac, you can't take anything he says at face value, though, since he's been proven to be a liar countless times. The real truth, as we can see by the evidence, is that his top wasn't torn in any struggle with "intruders" at all; it was torn by his wife Colette either in anger or in an attempt to defend herself from his murderous rage.

bandit's mom

02-17-2006, 05:38 PM

.

bandit's mom, shaw, like any good investigator, explored all avenues of the case, including the possibility that colette was involved in the murder of kristen. as JTF said, he eventually discarded that theory.

this is touted over and over again by artie/caphill as evidence that the investigators were stupid, but of course apparently they were smart enough to frame jeffrey macdonald and convince every single person involved in the case to keep this vast conspiracy a secret to this very day.;) [/B][/QUOTE]

It does seem an absurd possibility to me, based on what I
know of Colette's injuries. But, I suppose I can understand
the need to look at all options. I have absolutely no
doubt that MacDonald is guilty as sin and nothing I've seen
here has changed my mind in any way. The idea that there
was some conspiracy to put away the military's golden boy
is totally ridiculous. As I said before, while there's all kinds
of physical evidence pointing to his guilt, it's still common
sense that convinces me beyond any doubt. A small woman
and tiny children were butchered, while the killer got
wounded just enough to supposedly make it look good. But
it didn't work.

Bunny2

02-17-2006, 05:50 PM

Artie, I might suggest that you reread Martin's very good and concise post, as well as the many posts of others here and on other boards, since you seem to have a definite inability to retain information when you read it the first time. You might want to begin making notes if you have to do that in order to remember things, or read it out loud to yourself and tape it. Maybe that way you can avoid the constant waste of everyone's time in constantly repeating the same old, old song and dance.

stinkerbelle

02-21-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I would be interested in Martin’s opinions, and his professional firm advice, with regard to this recent Jimmy Britt case.
well since martin has not said "yes, bunny, i am a lawyer" i think you're kind of jumping to conclusions here. imagine that.

The Jimmy Britt case was discussed on Larry King Live on December 14, 2005. The lawyer Fulginiti said about this Jimmy Britt case that: ”I don’t think they’ll hear it. The standard just to hear it because this is called a Habeas Corpus petition is that the facts if proven, when viewed in light of the totality of the evidence, there would be no reasonable juror who would have found the defendant guilty. That’s a very high standard and it’s extraordinarily high, and I think that could be a reason for defamation.”
i'm not sure what your point is in posting this, since it seems contrary to what you keep saying.

fulginiti also said, in response to bernie's comment that the britt thing is, "... stunning, it is shocking. I think it has the basis for giving Jeffrey MacDonald some relief in this case.":

You know, I disagree. I think what we have here is information that's coming forward 25 years after the fact. I think anyone will concede that when somebody doesn't come forward before that fact, and then they're trying to give you specifics of conversations that occurred 25 years earlier, that information is not only stale, but somewhat suspect.

CID agent Shaw testified in 1970 that there were only half a dozen AB blood spots found in the master bedroom anyway and he was none too sure that they were AB (Kim’s) blood spots either.
considering shaw was a CID agent and not a lab tech, who cares what he thought about the blood type. apparently the jury believed it was kimmy's and that's what counts.

byn63

02-22-2006, 08:26 AM

stinkerbelle is quite right and you know that Artie/Bertie/Ramblin'Rose - The CID investigators did not determine the blood types that were found and where they were found. The CID Lab personnel from Ft. Gordon determined the blood types. There is absolutely no doubt that Kimmie was injured, probably fatally, in the master bedroom. The large amount of AB blood and brain serum found soaked into the carpet from direct bleeding AND the spatter of both on the inside door frame make that indisputable. You really need to work on your reading comprehension and retention skills. They seemed to have regressed even worse over the last few weeks. Really, its been less than two weeks since you attempted to argue with me about the testimony of Chamberlain, Laber and Flynn. I noticed you already forgot that Segal didn't even TRY to cross-examine Terry Laber. Why? mho is that he didn't want to impress the damaging testimony even more firmly in the minds of the jury.

:read:

audpaud

02-23-2006, 04:37 AM

WOW! 223 pages of two MacDonald supporters grasping at straws to excuse this murderer!:confused:

Still only 14 have voted "Not Guilty.":cool:

Any of the other 12 voters have a more rational argument in favor of their Not Guilty vote?:shrug:

byn63

02-23-2006, 03:08 PM

did they combine the two mac threads? :shrug:

would have been nice if they made a note of it; because this poll certainly wasn't this many pages in length..........:confused:

cami

02-23-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by byn63
did they combine the two mac threads? :shrug:

would have been nice if they made a note of it; because this poll certainly wasn't this many pages in length..........:confused:

Hey all you web sleuthers. How's it going? Just dropped in to say hi. Tick tock, tick tock, the days are counting down to the end of February and the dna results.....

I see the fire brigade is working overtime...carry on putting out those fires.

stinkerbelle

02-23-2006, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by cami

Hey all you web sleuthers. How's it going? Just dropped in to say hi. Tick tock, tick tock, the days are counting down to the end of February and the dna results.....

I see the fire brigade is working overtime...carry on putting out those fires.

cami! great to see ya girlie! hope things are going well, big {{{{hugs}}}} to you and your family!

and byn, evidently the threads have been combined, yes.

cami

02-24-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

cami! great to see ya girlie! hope things are going well, big {{{{hugs}}}} to you and your family!

and byn, evidently the threads have been combined, yes.

Actually, Mum is much improved and is leaving hospital tomorrow to come home. She's back, better than ever this time. I thank you all for your prayers and good thoughts for her.

bladesbabe2001

02-24-2006, 08:27 PM

Hello to everyone. I have been interested in this case for quite a while now,although my husband would say obsessed. I have been looking for info on the DNA report, I thought it was due out this month. Has anyone heard when it will be released to the public?

JTF

02-24-2006, 10:04 PM

Bladesbabe: Welcome to the board! Judge Fox created a DNA testing protocol in 1999, which involved the FBI videotaping the packaging of 15 hair exhibits. These exhibits were subsequently sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and due to legal motions filed by the MacDonald defense team and 9/11, the testing on the 15 hairs has been delayed several times.

In January of 2005, the government completed paperwork which involved payment to the AFIP for DNA testing of the hair exhibits. The total fee levied by the AFIP was for 90,500 dollars. Since many of the hairs were cut into smaller pieces for a "divisibility study," the total number of exhibits ballooned to 30. Twenty eight of the 30 exhibits were tested via Mito DNA and 10 of the exhibits were tested via Nuclear DNA.

The government and the MacDonald defense team were notified by the AFIP that the DNA test results would be announced this month. Considering the history of this case in regards to DNA testing, however, I would not be surprised if the announcement of the test results is delayed yet again. Hope this helps.

JTF.

stinkerbelle

02-25-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by cami

Actually, Mum is much improved and is leaving hospital tomorrow to come home. She's back, better than ever this time. I thank you all for your prayers and good thoughts for her.

thanks so much for the update cami...wonderful wonderful news!!!!

and welcome bladesbabe!

byn63

02-25-2006, 08:37 AM

hurray cami's mum IS coming home better than ever! great news indeed!

welcome bladesbabe! Remember obsession is in the eye of the beholder. For example, just because I took over 100 pages of trial testimony printouts on vacation last year (to read while I would not have computer access) and I often get up to check the boards at 3 or 4 in the AM on weekends doesn't mean I am obsessed! LOL! :lol:

Nice to have you join the discussions!:patriot:

martin5

02-25-2006, 10:51 AM

fibergirl is Bartoli. My God, the woman can't even keep her pronouns straight, in that she slips into first person on occasion. Are you people that blind?

martin5

02-25-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The trouble is no doll manufacturers have ever heard of a saran doll fiber "22" inches in length. Have you?

Yes. And your statement is untrue.

cantstandnuts

02-25-2006, 03:20 PM

It just seems to me this whole case reeks of corruption and coverup and I'm not sure if the guy is guilty or not (he does seem to have many narcissistic qualities, but that doesn't automatically make a person a murderer), but this sure was NOT a fair case.

Those responsible for investigating this case weren't honest, pulled all kinds of crap, and I think hindered any chance LE ever had for successfully and honestly trying this case.

Before someone jumps on me, I don't feel this way because of some stupid show on the case, either. It's called common sense and in this case, there wasn't complete investigation of other explanations...in fact, quite the opposite.

martin5

02-25-2006, 04:17 PM

Common sense is subjective. I, and most others, prefer to rely on the evidence.

rashomon

02-25-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by byn63
hurray cami's mum IS coming home better than ever! great news indeed!

welcome bladesbabe! Remember obsession is in the eye of the beholder. For example, just because I took over 100 pages of trial testimony printouts on vacation last year (to read while I would not have computer access) and I often get up to check the boards at 3 or 4 in the AM on weekends doesn't mean I am obsessed! LOL! :lol:

Nice to have you join the discussions!:patriot:
Welcome bladesbabe! :seeya:

Byn, you're a hoot! Too too funny - and so true, LOL!
"Obsession lies in the eye of the beholder" - I love that phrase!
For example, my husband sometimes asks me "Why do you people on this board still explore hairs and fibers? Isn't the MacDonald case a solved case? Wouldn't an unsolved case be far more interesting to discuss?"
Interesting question, but it is virtually impossible to explain this to someone who is no true crime buff himself, lol.

Cami: so glad to hear that you mom is coming home and doing better than ever!! Wonderful news!

rashomon

02-25-2006, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by martin5
fibergirl is Bartoli. My God, the woman can't even keep her pronouns straight, in that she slips into first person on occasion. Are you people that blind?
Is fibergirl posting here too? Where is the post where she slips into first person?
Fibergirl is a poster on the A&E forum too, and she presented herself as someone having done research on saran fibers together with Lucia Bartoli.
But fibergirl went ballistic when I quoted Lucia Bartoli's own e-mail to Christina where she said that she "had a relationship of friendship and love with the defenant."
"It was clean love, and no sex" fibergirl stated.
But hmm, I ask myself how could fibergirl have known what was going on in Lucia Bartoli's head?
And I always ask myself: what is the motive for a person to act like he/she does?
Therefore: what could be fibergirl's motive for being such an advocate for Lucia Bartoli?

martin5

02-25-2006, 08:37 PM

How many ways can one tell that fibergirl is Bartoli:

1. Besides the fact that she speaks with her “voice.”
2. Besides the fact that Bartoli was the saran fiber queen and now this person is speaking as if she went down to Mexico, etc. At no time has Bartoli every mentioned she had a partner.
3. Besides the fact that she is concerned with all this nit picky **** no one else but Bartoli cares about.
4. Besides the fact that she slipped into using “I.”
5. Besides the fact that she uses strange twists of phrases characteristic of someone who didn't learn english as a first language.
6. Besides the fact that she shares the BIZARRE habit of CAPITALIZING words for NO APPARENT REASON.

Really, it was apparent from her very first post who she was.

martin5

02-25-2006, 08:49 PM

Bartoli is no less a groupie than all the rest. She made a fool of herself. She wants people to think that it had nothing to do with a psychologically needy older woman having a crush and going after a younger psychopath and instead it was about platonic love, justice, black ops, and all that other nonsense. That is why she is pretending to be fibergirl. She should tell people she was suffering from mad cow disease at the time, cut her losses, never mention his name again, and go on with her life. No good can come from this charade.

stinkerbelle

02-25-2006, 09:51 PM

gosh martin, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

lmbo, j/k...i'm enjoying your posts immensely!

stinkerbelle

02-25-2006, 09:54 PM

forgot to say welcome to cantstandnuts!:)

martin5

02-25-2006, 10:16 PM

God forbid that someone state the obvious: Normal women do not glom onto men who are serving what is in de facto a lwop sentence for multiple murder, throw thousands of dollars at them, and talk like a jealous teenager.

JTF

02-26-2006, 01:02 AM

Martin: I like the passion and honesty in your posts. Your posts have a Peter Kearns-like quality to them. Having said that, I will stick up for Lucia Bartoli in the sense that she is not a groupie, and became involved in the case via her relationship with MacDonald's mother. Lucia worked extremely hard for MacDonald, she did not receive a dime from him, and she left the defense team for reasons that have nothing to do with romance. Lucia simply wanted MacDonald to stop sending case documentation to any groupie that requested it and to stop putting his mug on television. She basically told him that screaming from the rooftops about his innocence would not get him back in court. I've spoken to Lucia several times over the phone, found her to be an interesting person, and have agreed to disagree with her on certain issues in this case.

JTF.

rashomon

02-26-2006, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Martin: I like the passion and honesty in your posts. Your posts have a Peter Kearns-like quality to them.
Lol, maybe if fibergirl is Lucia Bartoli, then Martin is Peter Kearns, who knows. Just kidding :), but Martin certainly is as outspoken and astute as Peter Kearns.

Martin: I just went through fibergirl's posts on A&E, and wow, you're right: she does slip into first-person mode!

For example, Byn asked fibergirl about Bartoli on the A&E board:

"The SEARS Christmas Wish Book was
full of dolls that had saran wigs and various hair
lengths - so, doesn't it make it more likely that at
least on that issue she [Lucia Bartoli] may just be reaching a bit?"

Fibergirl's answer:

I couldn't afford to "reach".
She then goes on and on: "I" went there and there, "I" spoke to doll manufacturers", etc.

I first thought that this person was identifying so much with Lucia Bartoli's research on saran, and had done so much work herself, and that this was why she used the first-person mode.

And indeed, lol, this person obviously 'identifies' with Bartoli, if she is in fact Bartoli herself!

Another interesting thing: fibergirl wrote "Do Americans always ..."
Now would an American put it like that? We know that Lucia Bartoli is Italo-American, and in one of her e-mails she spoke of herself as 'Italian'. So she may have an American passport, but probably still feels like an Italian when certain issues are raised.
So again this could point to fibergirl being Lucia Bartoli.

Thanks so much for your very enlightening post, Martin! It would be great if you posted on the A& forum too - many of us here are over there also. And the good thing is that the nuisance ArthurThorp can't post over there anymore: he was thrown out because of his r*cist posts (which he wrote using the screen name AlbertWebb).

martin5

02-26-2006, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Martin: I like the passion and honesty in your posts. Your posts have a Peter Kearns-like quality to them. Having said that, I will stick up for Lucia Bartoli in the sense that she is not a groupie, and became involved in the case via her relationship with MacDonald's mother. Lucia worked extremely hard for MacDonald, she did not receive a dime from him, and she left the defense team for reasons that have nothing to do with romance. Lucia simply wanted MacDonald to stop sending case documentation to any groupie that requested it and to stop putting his mug on television. She basically told him that screaming from the rooftops about his innocence would not get him back in court. I've spoken to Lucia several times over the phone, found her to be an interesting person, and have agreed to disagree with her on certain issues in this case.

JTF.
Years later, and thousands of dollars poorer, she is still going on and on with her petty jealousies. She definitely is a groupie. And you had to be aware of fibergirl's farce. You not only said nothing, you played straight man to it.

cami

02-26-2006, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp

I don't know if Martin is Peter Kearns, but if he still thinks Dr MacDonald brutally murdered his wife, and Colette murdered their two little daughters because Dr MacDonald may have been having sex with other women then he must be off his rocker.

Kearns ought to provide some scientific certainty that Kim was ever in the master bedroom before he allowed Bob Stevenson and Kassab to spout their libelous nonsense about child molestation. There is no firm scientific evidence that Kim was ever in the master bedroom. It's all "could" be Kim's blood, like blue fibers "could" have come from pajamas That's not evidence.

Why didn't Kearns mention the black wool fibers on the murder weapon and on Colette's biceps, and on her mouth ,and which was never disclosed to the jury in 1979 because of Murtagh and Blackburn's dishonesty? Dr MacDonald wasn't wearing black wool that night. That is evidence.

There is no real evidence against Dr MacDonald. He was convicted on strained logic and judicial illusion and because the exculpatory forensic evidence which would have cleared him was never presented to the court in 1979, thanks to dishonest prosecutors.

Judge Dupree was mistaken and unfair. Dupree never fully comprehended the forensics in the MacDonald case and he was far too friendly with Proctor who was one of the lawyers who instigated Dr MacDonald’s prosecution.

What evidence has Martin at all that Dr MacDonald is a psychopath? Martin may sincerely believe Dr MacDonald is a psychopath, and he may sincerely believe the earth is flat, but there is no evidence to back it up. Don’t mention Drs Brussel and Silverman or my blood will boil. They were biased, plain wrong, and experts up for hire by the CID.

There needs to be a congressional inquiry into the MacDonald case. Their report ought to suggest improvements to the complete shambles at the FBI and CID, and the FBI and CID lab, and suggest appointing judges who are calm, judicial and judicially minded, and unbiased, for the sake of good judgment in high profile murder cases. They could also suggest appointing some detectives to the FBI who are qualified, and who have performed as detectives, and been promoted as experienced homicide detectives.

A congressional inquiry yet!!!! Get real Bertie. For that killer, yeah right. There should be a congressional inquiry into why he is still allowed to shoot off his mouth about government corruption and drug crazed intruders in the face of the overwhelming factual evidence of his guilt.

margiej

02-26-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by martin5

Yes. And your statement is untrue.

Welcome, Martin. I am so enjoying your posts.:D

byn63

02-26-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by margiej

Welcome, Martin. I am so enjoying your posts.:D

me too!

fibergirl definitely will not admit that there were in fact dolls with saran wigs with long hair - too bad I was a six year old girl with a passion for dolls in February 1970 with about 30 non-collectible play with types that probably left various length saran fibers in hairbrushes in my house. No matter what she says, she had to have missed something in her research since I owned several dolls that would have/could have left similar fibers. Plus, since the 24" fiber was curly, that means it would have a difference source from the other 2 (at a minimum needing 2 sources for 3 fibers).

JTF

02-26-2006, 10:33 AM

Martin: I admire your honesty, not your arrogance. I play straight man to no one. I've posted my interactions with Lucia for the benefit of posters on this and other MacDonald discussion boards. Posters can then decide if the information interests them and debate the merits of Lucia's research in whatever manner they see fit. If Lucia wants to post her thoughts on MacDonald case discussions boards, that's her right. If she wants to use a poster name like Fibergirl or Stalingirl or Mansongirl, so be it. The manner in which she posts is a non-issue. You don't see Kathryn posting on these boards now, do you? Unlike Kathryn's personal history/MacDonald case fairy tales, I agree with Lucia on certain facets of this case. I also disagree with her on several other aspects of this case, but at least she has read the record. Kathryn has not, despite claims to the contrary. I've researched this case for 21 years, corresponded with Fred Bost, Christina Masewicz, Dennis Rogers, and recently with Lucia Bartoli. I've decided to take full advantage of these contacts by being a good listener and then formulating my own opinions on the data they provide me. I could really care less how they present this information. I put much more stock in the content of the information and in the subsequent discussion on whether or not the information has any validity.

JTF.

martin5

02-26-2006, 11:19 AM

I don't care what you think of me. And it is very much an issue. The fact that she made up a phony character with "inside knowledge" to try to dispel the belief that she is a crazy murderer groupie and to back up her “research” is deceptive and you went along with it.

martin5

02-26-2006, 11:36 AM

fibergirl definitely will not admit that there were in fact dolls with saran wigs with long hair

Bartoli can't let go of it. She has some sort of need to feel important. The reality is that for what ever psychological reason, she attached herself to a manipulative murderer and wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on him. She doesn't want to look like a complete fool. Well, too late. The fact that years later she is going on and on about her “research” which was shot down by the courts and carrying on about the other female groupies, makes her look unwell.

rashomon

02-26-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by martin5
Bartoli is no less a groupie than all the rest. She made a fool of herself. She wants people to think that it had nothing to do with a psychologically needy older woman having a crush and going after a younger psychopath and instead it was about platonic love, justice, black ops, and all that other nonsense.

But isn't Bartoli in the same age group like MacDonald? On the A&E board, fibergirl (=Bartoli) said Bartoli was 60 years old, so if she got involved with MacDonald, she wasn't going after a younger man actually (unless Bartoli lied about her age too, like she seems to have lied about her true identity on the A&E board).
(Of course JMD may have considered her old compared to his new wife Kathryn who is twenty years younger) .

From your posts I draw the inference that you know Lucia Bartoli pesonally (or know much about her from other sources) because you provided a lot of inside info about her.
Therefore my question: do you know her age?
And do you think it possible that it was actually Kathryn MacDonald who pushed Bartoli out of the MacDonald team because she not only wanted Jeffrey MacDonald, but also do work for the MacDonald defense team? That she wanted to get rid of Lucia because she saw in her a rival both on a personal as well as on a professional basis?

martin5

02-26-2006, 05:37 PM

You're right. They are in the same age range. I consider her old compared to the type of woman MacDonald was seeking. As cruel as it might seem, I don't know why she would ever think a horndog like MacDonald would ever be interested in her.

I do not know the woman personally nor do I wish to. I have read what she has written and what others have posted that she has written. Bartoli created another persona to boost her own credibility and arguments. That's nuts.

I don't know if she was pushed out or left on her own volition. As far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. It does seem Bartoli thought she had more influence than she had and that Bartoli had a higher opinion of herself and her “research” than others did. Every high profile murder case has hanger-ons like Bartoli. But, this isn't a game. It is not a means by which needy people should seek attention.

I also see where she has overstepped her bounds on more than one occasion, i.e., this story that Lucia simply wanted MacDonald to stop sending case documentation to any groupie that requested it and to stop putting his mug on television. It's not her place to tell MacDonald not to make appearances or not to send out documentation. She is not the prisoner and she is not his attorney. I suspect she was jealous of anyone else coming into the cabal. I vaguely remember reading some email Bartoli sent to either one of the investigators or to the brother of Colette Stevenson which crossed the line, too.

rashomon

02-26-2006, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by martin5
You're right. They are in the same age range. I consider her old compared to the type of woman MacDonald was seeking. As cruel as it might seem, I don't know why she would ever think a horndog like MacDonald would ever be interested in her.

I do not know the woman personally nor do I wish to. I have read what she has written and what others have posted that she has written. Bartoli created another persona to boost her own credibility and arguments. That's nuts.

I don't know if she was pushed out or left on her own volition. As far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. It does seem Bartoli thought she had more influence than she had and that Bartoli had a higher opinion of herself and her “research” than others did. Every high profile murder case has hanger-ons like Bartoli. But, this isn't a game. It is not a means by which needy people should seek attention.

I also see where she has overstepped her bounds on more than one occasion, i.e., this story that Lucia simply wanted MacDonald to stop sending case documentation to any groupie that requested it and to stop putting his mug on television. It's not her place to tell MacDonald not to make appearances or not to send out documentation. She is not the prisoner and she is not his attorney. I suspect she was jealous of anyone else coming into the cabal. I vaguely remember reading some email Bartoli sent to either one of the investigators or to the brother of Colette Stevenson which crossed the line, too.

Very interesting post Martin. I think you hit the nail on the head with your remark that Bartoli was jealous of anyone else coming into the cabal. For in her e-mail she wrote about Kathryn:

"He [JMD] had Kathryn on his visit list long before I left the case. I knew this and that was none of my business. At least not until she began to insinuate herself into other aspects of the case. She was NOT an official defense member."

Clearly a case of professional jealousy imo. And the personal jealousy was added to it when LB realized that Kathryn not only wanted to be a member of the defense team, but also wanted to snatch JMD away from her.
For Kathryn obviously had the same ambitions: I suppose she in turn was jealous of Lucia Bartoli being in the cabal and did everything that was in her power to push her out. So both were rivals both in a personal and in a professional sense, and in the end Kathryn won.

martin5

02-26-2006, 07:56 PM

I would hesitate to use the word “professional.” Neither of them are paralegals, investigators, or attorneys. People like them are used mainly to keep the client happy and occupied, so they are not constantly calling their attorney.

rashomon

02-27-2006, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by martin5
I would hesitate to use the word “professional.” Neither of them are paralegals, investigators, or attorneys. People like them are used mainly to keep the client happy and occupied, so they are not constantly calling their attorney.
You are right; the reason why I used the word professional was to describe their 'work' on the defense team (as opposed to the personal interest both women had in the convict) But neither LB nor KMD are of course real professionals, although they no doubt would like to see themselves as 'experts'.
Bartoli for example is no professional fiber expert, but from the way she talks she wants to give the impression that she is one.
She of course knows more about saran than anyone else, that's what she wants to make people belive.
And KMD proudly says she keeps the whole case documention in her garage, but it seems she has never opened any of those containers, lol.

byn63

02-27-2006, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

You are right; the reason why I used the word professional was to describe their 'work' on the defense team (as opposed to the personal interest both women had in the convict) But neither LB nor KMD are of course real professionals, although they no doubt would like to see themselves as 'experts'.
Bartoli for example is no professional fiber expert, but from the way she talks she wants to give the impression that she is one.
She of course knows more about saran than anyone else, that's what she wants to make people belive.
And KMD proudly says she keeps the whole case documention in her garage, but it seems she has never opened any of those containers, lol.

Mrs. Inmate hasn't opened any of those containers of docs imo. Or, if she has it was to add more items, not to read them. Otherwise, how could she continue to spout the party line? She's not that good an actress........................

martin5

02-27-2006, 11:06 AM

The posts under the name sorryladynow also appear to be by Bartoli. There's the same obsessiveness over the petty in-house fighting of the women MacDonald surrounded himself with and the negative comments about everyone but Bartoli.

Deb B

02-27-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
..It is true that saran has been used in doll hair, and is used in doll hair now. The trouble is no doll manufacturers have ever heard of a saran doll fiber "22" inches in length. Have you?

Common sense indicates that a hair-like synthetic fiber of that length comes from a wig, like Helena Stoeckley's blond wig, and not a little girl's doll...

I just spent about 2 minutes on the web and found a place where I can buy a whole rainbow of saran fibers that are 21 inches in length. It's a doll restoration website.

Another 2 minutes and I found a site which has a chart showing saran Barbie Doll hair that was acquired and is for sale. One of 3 lengths for sale is 19" - the charts states that on the doll it would be 9.5". Why is that? Because the hair is folded in half when the needle and thread method of application is used.

Another 2 minutes and all I find under "saran wig" is stuff about dolls. And some stuff about the MacDonald case.

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by martin5
Bartoli created another persona to boost her own credibility and arguments. That's nuts.I'm not at all sure that that's the reason LB posted, but that aside, it might surprise you to learn that more than one principal "player" in this case has posted on the boards, and certainly not under their real names. How many people do you know who do use their real names when posting on boards like this?It is not a means by which needy people should seek attention.As far as I've been able to tell, Lucia has been extremely quiet in the past decades, not at all an "attention seeker." Could it be that she simply decided to post some things recently because she was tired of the constant false statements and innuendo put out by Mac's supporters, and that you've blown this out of all proportion?It's not her place to tell MacDonald not to make appearances or not to send out documentation. She is not the prisoner and she is not his attorney.Lucia was a defense investigator and friend of MacDonald's, but how in the world would you know whether her giving advice was part of what he wanted and expected from her?

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by martin5
The posts under the name sorryladynow also appear to be by Bartoli. There's the same obsessiveness over the petty in-house fighting of the women MacDonald surrounded himself with and the negative comments about everyone but Bartoli.I think you're mistaken in your conclusions, for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) the fact that the writing style is totally different, and that I don't recall that sorryladynow made negative comments about "everyone."

Also, this would seem to contradict your own statement implying that LB is an attention seeker, since to the best of my recollection sorryladynow posted only four times, long ago, and never again.

martin5

02-27-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by martin5 I vaguely remember reading some email Bartoli sent to either one of the investigators or to the brother of Colette Stevenson which crossed the line, too. Errata: It was Melinda Stephens (sp?) who sent the insulting email.

JTF

02-27-2006, 12:30 PM

Martin: Sorryladynow is not Lucia Bartoli. I know who SLN is, but I pride myself on playing the "straight man," so I will not divulge her identity.

JTF.

martin5

02-27-2006, 12:32 PM

I'm not at all sure that that's the reason LB posted, but that aside, it might surprise you to learn that more than one principal "player" in this case has posted on the boards, and certainly not under their real names. How many people do you know who do use their real names when posting on boards like this?

We're not talking about other people or people using pseudonyms. We are discussing Bartoli and her use of pseudonyms to bolster her own version of events. How about if I register under different names and post, "Yep, that Martin is 110% right and the smartest, most cultured, and most handsome man on the internet?" That would be deceptive. (Except for that last part. ;))

As far as I've been able to tell, Lucia has been extremely quiet in the past decades, not at all an "attention seeker." Could it be that she simply decided to post some things recently because she was tired of the constant false statements and innuendo put out by Mac's supporters, and that you've blown this out of all proportion?

Uh, anyone who hooks up with a notorious multiple murderer is seeking attention. And I'm not sure what false information is being put out there that Bartoli was forced to come out of retirement and refute. That he is innocent? No. Who forced out who from his “defense team”? Personally, I don't understand why anyone would care. And worse, this soap opera exist because three innocent people were murdered. I find it extremely distasteful.

Lucia was a defense investigator and friend of MacDonald's, but how in the world would you know whether her giving advice was part of what he wanted and expected from her?

She's neither a “defense investigator” nor his friend now, is she? And while she says she left on her own volition, she has also made statements that she was forced out.

martin5

02-27-2006, 12:38 PM

I think you're mistaken in your conclusions, for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) the fact that the writing style is totally different, and that I don't recall that sorryladynow made negative comments about "everyone."

No it isn't. Though she did get around the WEIRD capitalization BY USING NO capitalization at all. I suggest you note what appears to be her gripes and what she focuses on – things no one else would care about except Bartoli.

Also, this would seem to contradict your own statement implying that LB is an attention seeker, since to the best of my recollection sorryladynow posted only four times, long ago, and never again.

Once again, people who have to boost their self esteem by hooking up with an infamous multiple murderer are attention seekers.

Martin: Sorryladynow is not Lucia Bartoli. I know who SLN is, but I pride myself on playing the "straight man," so I will not divulge her identity. JTF.

I stand by my observations.

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by martin5
We are discussing Bartoli and her use of pseudonyms to bolster her own version of events.But the problem is that you've made a conclusion that Bartoli is posting under several different names. I can't explain why she posted as fibergirl and used the word "I" as though she were LB but then soon after decided to present herself as a friend of LB's, but I thought right away that fibergirl was Lucia because of the name she chose, the style of writing and the content. But a claim that she's also sorryladynow just doesn't seem to me to be backed up by much evidence, therefore claiming that she uses pseudonyms (plural) isn't supported, IMHO. How about if I register under different names and post, "Yep, that Martin is 110% right and the smartest, most cultured, and most handsome man on the internet?" That would be deceptive. (Except for that last part. ;))I don't think LB posts under different names, but there are posters who do that. Albert Webb, for example. He's also Arthur Thorp here, and it's a pretty good guess that he's also Caphill. He's been proven to be a fraud; he's not British as he likes to pretend, and be careful if you read any of his copy-and-paste "excerpts" taken from the official records, since it's a fact that he deliberately has misrepresented things when posting, hoping that people wouldn't actually go and see for themselves what the record really stated.

Lawjunkie on A&E is another example. He freely admits that he posts as Airknocker and has given broad hints that he enjoys making up a variety of personas and posting under various names and attitudes in order to create controversy. A silly waste of time IMHO.

Uh, anyone who hooks up with a notorious multiple murderer is seeking attention.I respectfully disagree. I think there have been people working on MacDonald's defense currently and in the past who, for whatever reasons, truly believe in his innocence, and who aren't in it only for the attention because many of them receive no attention at all. For example, can you tell me who Gewolb was? :)And I'm not sure what false information is being put out there that Bartoli was forced to come out of retirement and refute.No one "forced" her to do anything that I know of. But to the best of my knowledge she posted for the first time as "fibergirl" on C&J, in response to discussions about the saran fibers, apparently wanting to try to set the record straight from her own perspective as to what she claims actually took place. Then when the so-called "Valentine's Day" excerpts appeared and OmegaMan and Lawjunkie began slamming Christina, "fibergirl" appeared and put up some posts that the letters were real.

Bottom line is that LB has not seemed much like an "attention seeker" to me, since she's stayed very quiet about this case for many, many years. To try and knock her because she put up a few posts giving us information from a firsthand perspective just seems to me to be going a bit far, that's all.

byn63

02-27-2006, 03:10 PM

I am just tired of having someone who was not a little girl with dolls telling me that what I remember as my own property couldn't or didn't exist. However, I will no longer argue the point. I will state a simple fact:

I owned dolls with saran wigs (yes that is what they are officially called) of various lengths. I still own at least one - manufactured in 1969 who's hair is 24" (at least), because I pulled one out of the pony tail and measured it. I can't say whether it broke off at any point - but it still defies LBs statements.

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by martin5
I stand by my observations.Well, then, I guess since you don't mind making huge conclusionary leaps, maybe we can assume that you're Albert Webb/Arthur Thorp/Lawjunkie/Airknocker. It's as much of an "observation" as assuming LB is sorryladynow, IMHO.

martin5

02-27-2006, 04:28 PM

But the problem is that you've made a conclusion that Bartoli is posting under several different names.

Yes, I did. And no it is not a problem. And you came to a different conclusion.

But a claim that she's also sorryladynow just doesn't seem to me to be backed up by much evidence, therefore claiming that she uses pseudonyms (plural) isn't supported, IMHO.

Again, I compared the writings. I commented that she is using pseudonyms. I am not accusing her of committing crimes just of bizarre behavior which I admit I find offensive. All this carrying on about who meant what to MacDonald and who muscled in on who is offensive to the memory that three people were murdered.

I don't think LB posts under different names, but there are posters who do that. Albert Webb, for example.

And I think she does. That other posters do to, is irrelevant. And I don't think it's a coincidence that those who do so, appear to also have a screw loose. Good call!

I respectfully disagree. I think there have been people working on MacDonald's defense currently and in the past who, for whatever reasons, truly believe in his innocence, and who aren't in it only for the attention because many of them receive no attention at all.

Sorry, but you will never convince me that any one who examined the facts and is not delusional would not learn quickly that he is guilty as sin. To disrupt your life and often your families life to be a go-fer for a multiple murderer and give him a lot of money, because you have fantasies of saving the person and living happily ever after reeks of desperation and a need for attention.

For example, can you tell me who Gewolb was?

Yes, I can, but again it is irrelevant.

No one "forced" her to do anything that I know of.

Uh, that was my point.

Bottom line is that LB has not seemed much like an "attention seeker" to me, since she's stayed very quiet about this case for many, many years. To try and knock her because she put up a few posts giving us information from a firsthand perspective just seems to me to be going a bit far, that's all.

Bottomline is right, in that people who chase after a multiple murderer have a screw loose. And once again pretending to be someone else in order to bolster your story and make flattering statements about yourself is weird and deceptive. And yes I can criticize her for it. Obviously, you and others think who muscled in on whom, and who met who when has some greater significance. I don't. It's just a sordid irrelevant back story to the murder of three people.

martin5

02-27-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Well, then, I guess since you don't mind making huge conclusionary leaps, maybe we can assume that you're Albert Webb/Arthur Thorp/Lawjunkie/Airknocker. It's as much of an "observation" as assuming LB is sorryladynow, IMHO. Assume what you want. It will definitely add to your credibility -- not! Here's an obseration for you: You didn't even pick up on the glaring fact that fibergirl and Bartoli were the same person. Or, maybe you did, chose not to say anything, and are complicit in trying to deceive your friends. That may explain your defensiveness.

martin5

02-27-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by byn63
I am just tired of having someone who was not a little girl with dolls telling me that what I remember as my own property couldn't or didn't exist. However, I will no longer argue the point. I will state a simple fact:

I owned dolls with saran wigs (yes that is what they are officially called) of various lengths. I still own at least one - manufactured in 1969 who's hair is 24" (at least), because I pulled one out of the pony tail and measured it. I can't say whether it broke off at any point - but it still defies LBs statements.

She sees it as her claim to fame so I doubt she will ever stop spinning it. The defense lost the issue. It is not going to be resurrected. And as the appellate court stated, even if what the defense said was true, and it's not, it is not evidence of innocence.

spurs01

02-27-2006, 06:31 PM

This is a hit and run post. I've been reading here and at A&E for quite some time as a guest, but just recently registered.

I'm curious. I've seen comments like (and I paraphrase) "What will Mrs. 'Inmate' do when the DNA comes back against Inmate."

I am curious: what would those of you who believe Dr. MacDonald is guilty do if the DNA comes back and ANY of it is in HIS favor? Would you then agree a new trial is warranted?

I cannot post during the day from my office, but will check back tomorrow for any responses.

And calling someone "Mrs. Inmate" is juvenile. Just MHO, and no offense intended.

And, I find the Britt affidavit fascinating. Christina has a great website; unfortunately, one has to use the Pacer system to get the original documents. She ONLY posts pro-Mac stuff. Her claim of posting both sides (again paraphrasing from her home page) is disingenuous, at best.

spurs01

02-27-2006, 06:42 PM

Correction to my previous post... I meant the new court documents. Her FOIA documents probably cost her a bunch. But, she's really done some picking and choosing about what she posts. And it's all "the anti-Mac" side. Not very objective, at all.

I work in the legal field. Christina hasn't posted "original" transcripts of any type. That to me, is suspect. They've been retyped. They are not "scans" as she indicates on her website. That's unethical, at the very least.

As late as 2002 she was a supporter of the Doctor? All of a sudden... she's anti the Doctor?

I'm skeptical of her. And that's putting it very mildly.

Nice to meet ya'll.

martin5

02-27-2006, 07:09 PM

God Bless her heart for retyping them. If she didn't they would be barely legible. Additionally, they would not be searchable which would be disastrous. Sure, some OTR software would do the job, but it is very very expensive. I have never heard anyone refute the transcripts based on inaccuracy. As to her being unethical, exactly what are her ethical duties? To post only scanned copies of documents? Do you have any authority for that? And exactly what are you complaining about that she hasn't posted? Generally, she posts everything - about 100x more than you will ever find on a pro-murderer website. Since she is not making any money off all this, if she hasn't gotten around to posting it as quickly as you seem to be demanding, too bad. Also, you imply that you have accessed documents on Pacer. Maybe, you should post them? Or, maybe, MacDonald should post it on his own website? Not sure why he wouldn't do so. I suggest you compare the number of documents MacDonald has posted to the number that Christine has taken the time, effort, and $$$ to post. If she picks and chooses only evidence that hurts him as you imply, he's in a lot of trouble, because there is sure alot of it.

JTF

02-27-2006, 07:10 PM

Spurs: You need to take another look at Christina's website. There are numerous documents/affidavits which are defense team oriented. The Affidavits section alone lists document after document that pertains to information that is pro-MacDonald. Most of the typed documentation involves court transcripts which is really a blessing in disguise. Have you ever tried to read scanned court transcripts? It's a tedious process and Christina has basically challenged Kathryn or anybody else to point out in the court transcripts where she has altered the documented record. Compare her website to MacDonald's own website and it's a joke. MacDonald's website contains little of the documented record and for good reason. Why no mention of the material or lack thereof, on his website? In terms of the DNA, no matter what the results are, MacDonald cannot escape that crime scene. The 30 DNA hair exhibits have nothing to do with the pajama fiber distribution, blood evidence, and fabric impression evidence found at 544 Castle Drive. Judge Fox has already told the defense team that if a hair or hairs match the DNA profile(s) of a KNOWN SUSPECT, all that will prove was that MacDonald was not the lone killer of his family.

JTF.

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 09:01 PM

For example, can you tell me who Gewolb was?

Yes, I can, but again it is irrelevant.

No, actually it's quite relevant to what you've been saying. So: tell us who Gewolb was, please. Are you afraid that by doing so, it'll allow me to score a point? Or is the real truth that you don't have any idea who Gewolb is?
Uh, that was my point.No, it wasn't. You said something to the effect that she'd been forced to come out of hiding and refute things, completely contrary to what you say now.

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by martin5
Assume what you want. It will definitely add to your credibility -- not! Here's an obseration for you: You didn't even pick up on the glaring fact that fibergirl and Bartoli were the same person. Or, maybe you did, chose not to say anything, and are complicit in trying to deceive your friends. That may explain your defensiveness. Sorry, but again your conclusions are wrong. I might have actually been the first, or one of the first, to pick up on it, I saw the posts on C&J and A&E right after she put them up. And no, I said nothing except to one poster in a private message some time later, because I simply wasn't interested in posting publicly about it. I actually didn't care much one way or another except that I was glad to see she was posting, that's all. It had nothing to do with "trying to deceive" anyone, and the fact that you would write something like that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this issue.

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 09:25 PM

Spurs, after skimming your posts I thought for a few minutes that you hadn't really been to CM's website at all but were simply hallucinating or something.

CM has transcripts in some cases because I encouraged her to do that because of the increased legibility, and to save enormous amounts of website space, and also because it results in search ability which scans do not (thanks for pointing that out, Martin - you're the only one who picked up on that so far), and because it added some variety to the site.

As for any bias in what she puts up, JTF put up a good post which should set you straight on that. I agree with him that you need to take another look at the site, because you seem somehow to have failed to notice any of the numerous defense-oriented documents that are there.

I'd also be interested in learning your feelings about Mac's website, which we can see is filled with deliberate misrepresentations and outright baldfaced lies. Have you written to that site to express your displeasure and skepticism? If not, why not? If you did write, can you share the reply you received, if any?

Bunny2

02-27-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by martin5
God Bless her heart for retyping them. If she didn't they would be barely legible. Additionally, they would not be searchable which would be disastrous. Sure, some OTR software would do the job, but it is very very expensive. I have never heard anyone refute the transcripts based on inaccuracy. As to her being unethical, exactly what are her ethical duties? To post only scanned copies of documents? Do you have any authority for that? And exactly what are you complaining about that she hasn't posted? Generally, she posts everything - about 100x more than you will ever find on a pro-murderer website. Since she is not making any money off all this, if she hasn't gotten around to posting it as quickly as you seem to be demanding, too bad. Also, you imply that you have accessed documents on Pacer. Maybe, you should post them? Or, maybe, MacDonald should post it on his own website? Not sure why he wouldn't do so. I suggest you compare the number of documents MacDonald has posted to the number that Christine has taken the time, effort, and $$$ to post. If she picks and chooses only evidence that hurts him as you imply, he's in a lot of trouble, because there is sure alot of it. Good post, Martin!

Just wanted to add that CM has boxes and boxes of things yet unprocessed, and my guess is that there are still some surprises yet to come. CM does the best she can when it comes to processing and getting things online, and people who think she can just wave a wand and instantly create umpteen thousand documents ready for uploading have obviously never tried doing it themselves. :)

stinkerbelle

02-27-2006, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by martin5
If she picks and chooses only evidence that hurts him as you imply, he's in a lot of trouble, because there is sure alot of it.
amen!

it's her site, she can post what she wants. no one has to read it if they don't want to. simple concept, really :)

martin5

02-27-2006, 10:18 PM

No, actually it's quite relevant to what you've been saying. So: tell us who Gewolb was, please. Are you afraid that by doing so, it'll allow me to score a point? Or is the real truth that you don't have any idea who Gewolb is?

No, it's not relevant at all. It appears that about 5 years ago he was hired by Silvergate to write for and write with him. They co-authored a book and a number of articles together. Currently he is in law school. MacDonald says he is now on his defense team. And again, Gewold is irrelevant to this discussion. Now I'm done humoring you. Don't ask me to do so again.

No, it wasn't. You said something to the effect that she'd been forced to come out of hiding and refute things, completely contrary to what you say now.

Oh give it a rest. You said that she was tired of “constant false statements and innuendo” and decided to speak up. I replied that there was nothing earth shattering that forced her to speak up, that it was all soap opera and offensive.

martin5

02-27-2006, 10:27 PM

Sorry, but again your conclusions are wrong. I might have actually been the first, or one of the first, to pick up on it, I saw the posts on C&J and A&E right after she put them up. And no, I said nothing except to one poster in a private message some time later, because I simply wasn't interested in posting publicly about it. I actually didn't care much one way or another except that I was glad to see she was posting, that's all. It had nothing to do with "trying to deceive" anyone, and the fact that you would write something like that just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this issue.

No, my conclusions are not wrong, yours are. She posts under pseudonyms in order to bolster her theories and flatter herself. That's crazy. That you now say you knew but decided to go along with her farce is deception. She is still over on A&J pretending that she is not Bartoli. Nothing like ignoring the obvious. Worse, she is sounding more an more like a fruitcake. You better go rescue her before the black helicopters get her. Gunderson has nothing on her in the crazy department.

JTF

02-27-2006, 11:03 PM

rashomon

02-28-2006, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by JTF
By the way, a little piece of information that demonstrates why Sorryladynow is not Lucia. In one of her posts, SLN shows empathy towards Melinda Stephens whereas Lucia doesn't feel sorry for Melinda in any way, shape, or form.

JTF.
I just found this in one of Sorryladynow's posts:

"i will say this about melinda, she was the type who would not think twice about putting a live rattle snake in anyone's mail box that disagreed with her."

Not much empathy there for Melinda.
But this doesn't mean that SLN is Bartoli.
Sorryladynow seems to know tons of people who were involved in the MacD case over decades, therefore this must be a person who has been in JMD's inner circle for a very long time, probably longer that Lucia Bartoli.

audpaud

02-28-2006, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
I am curious: what would those of you who believe Dr. MacDonald is guilty do if the DNA comes back and ANY of it is in HIS favor?

I, for one, would eat my keyboard.

martin5

02-28-2006, 04:37 AM

Martin: In point of fact, from 1999-2005, Lucia WAS reclusive when it involved the MacDonald case. Her first public commentary on this case was in the late winter or early spring of last year when she sent an e-mail to Christina. She subsequently provided Christina with another e-mail for public consumption and the issues she raised in those e-mails, were the same ones that she has discussed with me in the past several months. She worked very hard on the saran fiber issue and she felt that Robert Sam Anson gave a slanted, inaccurate portrayal of her relationship with MacDonald. In terms of the saran fibers, my main issue before and after speaking with Lucia, is that they have NOTHING to do with the evidence that convicted MacDonald at trial. The 30 hair exhibits that have been DNA tested by the AFIP fall under the same category. By the way, a little piece of information that demonstrates why Sorryladynow is not Lucia. In one of her posts, SLN shows empathy towards Melinda Stephens whereas Lucia doesn't feel sorry for Melinda in any way, shape, or form.
JTF.

Point in fact: what is your point? How many times do I have to say that people who chase after infamous baby killers have a screw loose and are seeking attention? She says she worked hard on some issue? Who says? Bartoli? Define working hard. So what? And who cares how Anson portrayed her relationship with MacDonald 10 or more years ago? I suggest Anson may have saw her as she was as opposed to how Bartoli wanted him to see her.

It appears Rashomon responded to your Stephans point.

martin5

02-28-2006, 04:49 AM

I just found this in one of Sorryladynow's posts:

"i will say this about melinda, she was the type who would not think twice about putting a live rattle snake in anyone's mail box that disagreed with her."

Not much empathy there for Melinda.
But this doesn't mean that SLN is Bartoli.
Sorryladynow seems to know tons of people who were involved in the MacD case over decades, therefore this must be a person who has been in JMD's inner circle for a very long time, probably longer that Lucia Bartoli.

Thanks for looking that up. She takes pot shots at numerous people -- but not at Bartoli who she praises. If you look at what she writes, it's the same things Bartoli is fixated on -- the connection with the mother, Catholicism, sending out documentation to groupies, etc.

rashomon

02-28-2006, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
I am curious: what would those of you who believe Dr. MacDonald is guilty do if the DNA comes back and ANY of it is in HIS favor?
I'm so convinced of JMD's guilt that I can't even imagine such a scenario, let alone my reaction to it.
Some silly saran fibers found in a house where little girls had dolls, a silly floppy hat at a time when virtual every young woman had one, and the 'confessions' of a drug-addled attention-seeking teenager: that's what the defense built their ridiculous cardboard case on. Simply incredible.

BTW, it's Feb 28 today ...!

stinkerbelle

02-28-2006, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
I am curious: what would those of you who believe Dr. MacDonald is guilty do if the DNA comes back and ANY of it is in HIS favor? Would you then agree a new trial is warranted?

first i would sit and read all the childish "teehee, i told you so" posts on various boards. then i'd sit and wait to see what happens. IMO the only way the DNA could possibly be favorable to macdoneit is if there is a match to helena or greg. i don't believe this would happen, but in the event it does, i would certainly stand up and admit i was wrong.

byn63

02-28-2006, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle

first i would sit and read all the childish "teehee, i told you so" posts on various boards. then i'd sit and wait to see what happens. IMO the only way the DNA could possibly be favorable to macdoneit is if there is a match to helena or greg. i don't believe this would happen, but in the event it does, i would certainly stand up and admit i was wrong.

I agree!

I don't agree that calling Mrs. Inmate that is childish or petty. It is a lot better than some names I could call her. I personally think that calling that narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer "Dr" is insulting. He is no longer entitled to be addressed by that honorific and it is insulting to the memory of Colette, Kimberly, Kristen, and their unborn baby brother. He is now, and forever after FCI Inmate 00131-177 and his job is to scrub the toilets.

:patriot:

bladesbabe2001

02-28-2006, 10:22 AM

First, I would like to say thank-you to everyone that welcomed me to the board.
Now, as to this question:
I am curious: what would those of you who believe Dr. MacDonald is guilty do if the DNA comes back and ANY of it is in HIS favor? Would you then agree a new trial is warranted?

It would have to be very convincing, strong evidence in his favor before I would change my mind about his guilt, or agree that a new trial was necessary. I truly don't believe that there is any evidence out there that would prove his complete innocence.

martin5

02-28-2006, 10:58 AM

I didn't take this question seriously, but I will give it a go. As someone already pointed out, there is a legal standard that must be met before any court can reverse and order a new trial. If the DNA comes back to one of the known defense suspects, all it would mean is that he had accomplice(s). It does not negate the mountain of evidence pointing to his guilt. It is not evidence of actual innocence. Under no circumstances will he get, nor does he deserve, a new trial. I believe the HC writ will distract from the fact that the DNA results will come back inconclusive or come back to him. And when that happens, what are all the murderer supporters going to do? Come up with a new conspiracy theory? Make up a new nonexistant legal standard that grants him a new trial?

audpaud

02-28-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by martin5
. . . the DNA results will come back inconclusive or come back to him. And when that happens, what are all the murderer supporters going to do?

betcha they won't eat their keyboards!

. . . Come up with a new conspiracy theory? Make up a new nonexistant legal standard that grants him a new trial?

Ding Ding Ding . . . We have a winner!

Bunny2

02-28-2006, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by martin5
No, it's not relevant at all. It appears that about 5 years ago he was hired by Silvergate to write for and write with him.And virtually no one at all knows who he is, in other words he seems to have received pretty much no attention. Seems to be contrary to your premise that people who associate themselves with notorious murderers do so because of the attention they will receive. So yes, it was certainly relevant.

Bunny2

02-28-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by martin5
No, my conclusions are not wrong, yours are. She posts under pseudonyms in order to bolster her theories and flatter herself.As Albie is so fond of saying, that's nothing but pure speculation without facts.That you now say you knew but decided to go along with her farce is deception.No, it isn't. If it were, everyone who's read her posts to date and thought she was fibergirl would be guilty of "deception," which is patently ridiculous.

Bunny2

02-28-2006, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

I just found this in one of Sorryladynow's posts:

"i will say this about melinda, she was the type who would not think twice about putting a live rattle snake in anyone's mail box that disagreed with her."

Not much empathy there for Melinda.
But this doesn't mean that SLN is Bartoli.
Sorryladynow seems to know tons of people who were involved in the MacD case over decades, therefore this must be a person who has been in JMD's inner circle for a very long time, probably longer that Lucia Bartoli. IMHO, Mac's used and tossed aside so many people by now, it could be virtually anyone. The only thing I'm pretty certain of is that SLN is not LB.

Bunny2

02-28-2006, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by martin5
No, it's not relevant at all. It appears that about 5 years ago he was hired by Silvergate to write for and write with him. They co-authored a book and a number of articles together. Currently he is in law school. MacDonald says he is now on his defense team. And again, Gewold is irrelevant to this discussion. Now I'm done humoring you. Don't ask me to do so again.Actually, Gewolb appears only a single time in all the thousands of documents on CM's website, in the letter Mac wrote to CM in the fall of 2002, a little over three years ago. All it says about him is that Gewolb was a "new and important" member of the team. I found no reference at all to this so-called "important" member on Mac's site. Pretty funny that you had to Google Gewolb in order to find out who he was. So much for all defense members being in it for the attention. I rest my case. :)

martin5

02-28-2006, 11:39 AM

And virtually no one at all knows who he is, in other words he seems to have received pretty much no attention. Seems to be contrary to your premise that people who associate themselves with notorious murderers do so because of the attention they will receive. So yes, it was certainly relevant.

He did not seek MacDonald out because he had some delusion that he was going to save him. Nor, would I assume he has romantic feelings for MacDonald. Nor is he acting like a scorned lover. His assoiciation was the result of him being a paid employee/business associate of Silverglate. Now, he is pursuing a legal career and he can put it on his resume as real life legal experience. So, no, it is not relevant to this discussion.

martin5

02-28-2006, 11:55 AM

As Albie is so fond of saying, that's nothing but pure speculation without facts.

What ever floats your boat.

No, it isn't. If it were, everyone who's read her posts to date and thought she was fibergirl would be guilty of "deception," which is patently ridiculous.

There is a big difference between suspecting and knowing. You and jtf have both attacked me for criticizing her. Again, I have no love lost for women who throw themselves at murderers. It is pathetic to pretend to be another person in order to bolster your own theories and others' opinion of you and to continue to be obsessive about a murderer you claim to have never had feelings for.

martin5

02-28-2006, 11:57 AM

I rest my case.

You never had a case to rest upon. Once again, you entirely miss the point. So be it. Continue to piss in the wind.

JTF

02-28-2006, 12:55 PM

Martin: Bunny and I "attacked" you for criticizing Lucia Bartoli? Aren't you being a little hypersensitive, not to mention hypocritical? You accuse me of being a "straight man" for Lucia, yet my responses have been relatively tame. If memory serves, I think the only comment that may have crossed the line was when I stated that I admired your honesty, but not your arrogance. I realize that your position on LB is untenable, but I will repeat that Sorryladynow is NOT Lucia Bartoli. This is not a guess, not an interpretation of a few postings, but a fact. I will stick to my belief that people can post in whatever manner they see fit, but I will continue to correct those who make claims that are false. SNL worked for the MacDonald defense team as a glorified gopher and, unlike Lucia, she didn't do a lick of research for MacDonald. If you don't believe me when I tell you that Lucia worked hard on the saran fiber issue, well, do you believe the word of Christina? CM has seen the documentation of Lucia's fiber research and it is voluminous. Agreeing or disagreeing with her conclusions regarding the saran fibers in this case, is a separate issue.

JTF.

Bunny2

02-28-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by martin5
He did not seek MacDonald out because he had some delusion that he was going to save him. Nor, would I assume he has romantic feelings for MacDonald. Nor is he acting like a scorned lover. His assoiciation was the result of him being a paid employee/business associate of Silverglate. Now, he is pursuing a legal career and he can put it on his resume as real life legal experience. So, no, it is not relevant to this discussion.I never claimed any of that, so I don't know why in the world you'd even mention it unless it's because you want to take one point that we were discussing and try to apply it to the discussion as a whole. You claimed that every person who associated himself with the defense was an attention-seeker, I said I didn't believe that was true, and it appears I was correct since you didn't even have a clue who this "attention seeker" was.

Bunny2

02-28-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by martin5
There is a big difference between suspecting and knowing. You and jtf have both attacked me for criticizing her.No one attacked you, Martin. Pointing out that you were mistaken and that others don't believe LB is SLN certainly isn't an "attack." And yes, there's a difference between suspecting and knowing, and since JTF has more background with Lucia than you appear to, and since I've got quite a bit of background also through talking with CM about her, I'll stick with my notion that SLN and LB are not the same person.

stinkerbelle

02-28-2006, 04:31 PM

actually i agree with martin; there's a big difference in coming online and posting with an anonymous username (which most of us do of course) but basically saying "yeah, i'm so-and-so and here's what i did" and in coming online and posting that you are a friend/co-worker/colleague of so-and-so and using those posts to try to gain credibility for so-and-so. if christina came on with a diff name and went on and on about how wonderful christina's site was, etc. that would be pretty pathetic. rather like artie posting he agrees with caphill. whether fibergirl really is LB or not doesn't matter to me because no matter how much work she did on the case, it has never and will never help mac out.

caphill

02-28-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
actually i agree with martin; there's a big difference in coming online and posting with an anonymous username (which most of us do of course) but basically saying "yeah, i'm so-and-so and here's what i did" and in coming online and posting that you are a friend/co-worker/colleague of so-and-so and using those posts to try to gain credibility for so-and-so. if christina came on with a diff name and went on and on about how wonderful christina's site was, etc. that would be pretty pathetic. rather like artie posting he agrees with caphill. whether fibergirl really is LB or not doesn't matter to me because no matter how much work she did on the case, it has never and will never help mac out.

You have no idea whatsoever who I am or what I do. The "clique "has made numerous nasty person attacks on anyone that has an opposing view.

I have no personal dog in this fight. I do guestion who are the people here that defend the CID invesigation and Murtagh when it is a known fact there a concerted effort to hide evidence from the jury that might have jeapardized the desired verdict.

Who defends a prosecution and investagation that works to deprive any defendant their rights to a fair trial as promised by the Constitution.

I don't give a flying flock who you think I am and what you think of my opinions. What I think and what you think means absolutely nothing in the broad scheme of this case. The only opinion that will matter is what the District Court panel thinks after the Government presents their defense of supression of evidence and witness intimidation.

I have posting on the CTV forum long before this thread was opened to defend the flawed CID investigation and the antics of Brian Murtagh.

cami

02-28-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by caphill

You have no idea whatsoever who I am or what I do. The "clique "has made numerous nasty person attacks on anyone that has an opposing view.

I have no personal dog in this fight. I do guestion who are the people here that defend the CID invesigation and Murtagh when it is a known fact there a concerted effort to hide evidence from the jury that might have jeapardized the desired verdict.

Who defends a prosecution and investagation that works to deprive any defendant their rights to a fair trial as promised by the Constitution.

I don't give a flying flock who you think I am and what you think of my opinions. What I think and what you think means absolutely nothing in the broad scheme of this case. The only opinion that will matter is what the District Court panel thinks after the Government presents their defense of supression of evidence and witness intimidation.

I have posting on the CTV forum long before this thread was opened to defend the flawed CID investigation and the antics of Brian Murtagh.

That post was addressed to martin. Are you now admitting you are martin?

Who defends a quadruple murderer in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt?

What suppressed evidence? You need to read the appeals decision., no suppression, no brady, etc., etc.,

I think the DC will see the defense motion for what it is......nothing more than one more attempt by Mac to abuse the writ and they will deny a hearing.

cami

02-28-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by JTF
Bunny: Excellent examples of why common sense coupled with documented fact, make for a devastating rebuttal to the ramblings of the groupies from MacFantasy Land. Well Tattoo, what do you think of hippie intruders wishing for ways to avoid stealing drugs from a hallway closet, levitating in the air to avoid leaving bloody footprints, and distorting the time/space continuum by having the ability to assault Jeff and Colette at the same time? Then again, we can grant any wish to groupies in MacFantasy Land. Boss, de oven mitts, de oven mitts!!

JTF.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha I only just saw this, too too funny.

BTW, I'm baaaaack. Been reading the excellent government response to the ridiculous Britt claim. Also just read Jednme's excellent, excellent post on C&J re: Jimmy Britt. She should be a lawyer, working with Murtagh.

spurs01

02-28-2006, 10:05 PM

I'm sorry if you think my question was inane.

I really wasn't asking from a legal point of view. Working for defense lawyers, myself, I certainly don't have to go to a message board to get my answers.

I was asking from a LAYPERSON'S point of view, regardless of their take on the case.

Sorry if that confused you.

spurs01

02-28-2006, 10:15 PM

No matter what happens, one way or the other, I'd like to see a new trial. That's just my take. Too much suppressed. Too much hidden. And I hope that'd never happen to me.

But I won't be coming back here, regularly.

When Christina posts the most recent defense postings on her web-site (which I downloaded myself yesterday -- the defense motions -- which are NOT on her site) (and not just the oppositiion), I may take her at a more credible level. Because I've yet to see the MacDonald original December Motion on brief on her website (and I have them in pdf, if anyone wants them and doesn't have access to PACER).

I don't know if Mac is guilty or not. My vote is NO, he's not. Definately at odds with all on this thread. Honestly? I'd hope a new trial would be granted and put all of this to rest, as well as Colleen, Kimberley, and Kristen.

But I think there's much out there that's not being told.

It's just too damned convenient for me.

And thanks for the warm welcome.

And, like I said

spurs01

02-28-2006, 10:22 PM

This message board is different than any I've posted on before.

I apologize for my lack of skills! My sister calls me a "nerd." I'm starting to think, if that were true, it'd be a compliment!

Nite folks. :-)

spurs01

02-28-2006, 10:30 PM

I posted Colleen. My friend's name. Habit. Swear I corrected that, but maybe some background noise going on.

Ya'll know who I meant. So please don't "diss" me for that reason alone.

Thank you.

JTF

03-01-2006, 12:12 AM

Spurs: Why should Christina post Junkin's motion to the 4th Circuit Court when she knows that MacDonald already has it on his skimpy website? In addition, I think going through her website with a fine tooth comb would give you a better understanding of how much defense related material she has been kind enough to post. Perfect examples of this are the multiple zipfiles she has created that involve motions to the appellate courts authored by the likes of Brian O'Neil and Harvey Silverglate. Seeing is believing.

JTF.

caphill

03-01-2006, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by cami

That post was addressed to martin. Are you now admitting you are martin?

Who defends a quadruple murderer in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt?

What suppressed evidence? You need to read the appeals decision., no suppression, no brady, etc., etc.,

I think the DC will see the defense motion for what it is......nothing more than one more attempt by Mac to abuse the writ and they will deny a hearing.

My post was addressed to stinkerbell, who choses to make insinuations about who she thinks I am.

caphill

03-01-2006, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Spurs: Why should Christina post Junkin's motion to the 4th Circuit Court when she knows that MacDonald already has it on his skimpy website? In addition, I think going through her website with a fine tooth comb would give you a better understanding of how much defense related material she has been kind enough to post. Perfect examples of this are the multiple zipfiles she has created that involve motions to the appellate courts authored by the likes of Brian O'Neil and Harvey Silverglate. Seeing is believing.

JTF.

I have seen a number of references to Kearns being the lead investigator for CID after the Article 32 hearing.

If that is true why wasn't the lead investigator ever called to testify? If Kearns did testify why are those transcripts not posted on Christina's site?

Was his investigation just peeking in the bedroom of MacDonald to cite sexual escapades to inflame the Kassabs and instructing the lab on what evidence to exclude from their final report?

audpaud

03-01-2006, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by caphill
. . . The only opinion that will matter is what the District Court panel thinks after the Government presents their defense of supression of evidence and witness intimidation.

I think all of our opinions matter . . . including yours caphill . . . which is why I think we're all on here posting opinions on a "guilt or innocence" Thread, right?:confused:

I'd still love to hear why you think the Investigators chose such a difficult person to frame/blame (successful, white doctor, Green Beret . . . . etc etc) rather than freaky intruders?

JTF

03-01-2006, 11:26 AM

Caphill: I sometimes wonder if you ever read your posts before clicking Submit Reply. Peter Kearns authored the 3,000 page CID Reinvestigation Report, he took part in a 2 day interview of Jeffrey MacDonald, he supervised the re-analysis of certain evidentiary items, he was in continual contact with the Kassabs, and he provided a number of affidavits which can be read on Christina's website. In terms of not testifying in open court, it's important to remember that Jack Pruett didn't testify either, but the people they supervised did. Dick Mahon, William Ivory, and Robert Bristentine all testified at either the Grand Jury hearing or the 1979 trial.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-01-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
No matter what happens, one way or the other, I'd like to see a new trial. That's just my take. Too much suppressed. Too much hidden.Spurs, it's obvious from this that you are very new to this case and didn't know that the courts determined many years ago that nothing was wrongly suppressed or hidden in this case. Mac brought out all his "FOIA" arguments long, long ago, was heard by the courts, and the courts rejected his arguments. What you say here is nothing but pure myth propagated by Mac's website, and has nothing to do with the real truth.

Bunny2

03-01-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by caphill
If Kearns did testify why are those transcripts not posted on Christina's site?Why are NO transcripts at all posted on Mac's website?

Bunny2

03-01-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Arthur Thorp's computer seems to have packed up for the time being, and it has had to go in for repair. The computer doesn't seem to start up for some reason. I don't know if that's some kind of switch fault, or what.The very second that I logged in today and saw "Bert Tansill" as the last poster, I knew before reading the post that you were back under yet another alias. You're getting so easy to spot that I don't even have to read the posts to do that! heeheeI can't say I'm all that surprised about the DNA results not being disclosed in February, as was promised. Murtagh and Kearns' plan has been all along to delay the DNA results, forever if possible.Uhhh, sorry, Artie/Albie/Bertie, as you knew before you posted, it's the defense who delayed the testing for so many years, not the prosecution. As another poster said, the results "belong" to Mac, so my guess is that if they were favorable to him, he wouldn't have hesitated for a second to get that info out to the public, even perhaps disregarding any agreement that may have been made as to when and how to release that info. Looks very bad for your hero, but then again, I guess you're used to that by now.
If they are ever forced to disclose the results their plan will be to say the results are "inconclusive" which is another part of their forensic fraud illegal activities, like hiding all the exculpatory forensic evidence at the 1979 MacDonald trial.You need to seek psychiatric help.
I had no idea that MacDonald's enemy, Fred Kassab, was an alcoholic.He wasn't. It was Mac who was the alcoholic, didn't you know that?I agree with caphill about Kearns.Of course you do, since you're one and the same person.He...seemed totally uninterested in catching the real culprits.Bertie, if you're going to be a fraud, at least be a good one. Your pretended ignorance of the case facts is an old game which was exposed long ago. I don't know why you continue to embarrass yourself with such ridiculous repetitious statements, when anyone can go to CM's site and see the truth for themselves.

cami

03-01-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by caphill

My post was addressed to stinkerbell, who choses to make insinuations about who she thinks I am.

Oh sorry Cappy, stinkerbell was addressing martin in that post, which you quoted to reply to, that's why I enquired.

audpaud

03-01-2006, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . . . Doctors and psychiatrists from the Nazi concentration camps went to America after the war and continued their researches in America. It might be, or could be, that those psychiatrists experimented on Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley and Don Harris, who all had mental problems, with some experimental psychiatric drugs, which turned them into homicidal maniacs . . .

. . . I believe the reason the CID tried to frame Dr MacDonald is that the CID were involved in drug smuggling at Fort Bragg.

Do you really believe this?:eek:

Is this your theory, or is this what macdonald puts out?:confused: Nazi experiments and drug smuggling?

Hmmmmmm . . . so on one hand we have total bungling of the investigation and on the other we have a sophisticated and high level cover up/frame job?:shrug:

audpaud

03-01-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
. . . I had no idea that MacDonald's enemy, Fred Kassab, was an alcoholic. I think that information ought to have been presented to the court in 1979 . . .

Has this Topic come up in this Thread and I missed it, or is this from another Board?:confused:

Attacking the victim's family is very problematic for you macdonald supporters. Really a turn off for those of us with a casual interest in this case and does NOTHING for your cause celebre-macdonald. Have you thought of how your attacks on Colette's Family make you come across?

If your goals is to win over supporters to the macdonald camp . . . this tactic really backfires on you, Bert.:no: :(

cami

03-01-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Arthur Thorp's computer seems to have packed up for the time being, and it has had to go in for repair. The computer doesn't seem to start up for some reason. I don't know if that's some kind of switch fault, or what.

Arthur and Albie have had to come back with a brand new identity, if not a fake passport.

I can't say I'm all that surprised about the DNA results not being disclosed in February, as was promised. Murtagh and Kearns' plan has been all along to delay the DNA results, forever if possible. If they are ever forced to disclose the results their plan will be to say the results are "inconclusive" which is another part of their forensic fraud illegal activities, like hiding all the exculpatory forensic evidence at the 1979 MacDonald trial.

I had no idea that MacDonald's enemy, Fred Kassab, was an alcoholic. I think that information ought to have been presented to the court in 1979.

I agree with caphill about Kearns. He only seemed to be interested in Dr MacDonald's sex life, and seemed totally uninterested in catching the real culprits. Kearns, like the rest of the so-called CID agents, was never a qualified homicide detective.

I think Lucia Bartoli's work on the long blond synthetic hair-like fiber found at the MacDonald murders was excellently researched. Far better than Malone of the FBI lab's manufactured evidence.

I disagree with Bartoli's theory that Dr MacDonald must have been mixed up with the Stoeckley child-killers, if he didn't do it himself. There is no real evidence of that at all. I would agree with her that there could have been some strange psychiatric experiments at Fort Bragg which are secret, and obviously never made public. Doctors and psychiatrists from the Nazi concentration camps went to America after the war and continued their researches in America. It might be, or could be, that those psychiatrists experimented on Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley and Don Harris, who all had mental problems, with some experimental psychiatric drugs, which turned them into homicidal maniacs.

I believe there were mistakes made in the blood testing at the MacDonald murders scene. Dr MacDonald can't explain why Kim's blood spot was on the pajama top for the simple reason that it wasn't Kim's blood on the pajama top, or there was blood contamination at the crime scene by the military police. Unfortunately Murtagh intends covering this forensic mistake up forever.

I believe the reason the CID tried to frame Dr MacDonald is that the CID were involved in drug smuggling at Fort Bragg. This is because the chances of the CID ever being detected is very low. The same sort of thing can happen in the police. This is from the General Accounting Office, Report to the Honorable Charles B. Rangel, House of Representatives, Law Enforcement Information on Drug Related Police Corruption, Wahington DC: USGPO, May 1998, p.36:

"In New Orleans, 11 police officers were convicted of accepting nearly $100,000 from undercover agents to protect a cocaine supply warehouse containing 286 pounds of cocaine. The undercover portion of the investigation was terminated when a witness was killed under orders from a New Orleans police officer."

I think those doctors experimented on you and not Helena and Greg.

Artie, it's really too bad that you cannot get your information straight. That warehouse was part of an FBI sting so they could take down those police officers. Everyone knows how corrupt NO is or used to be. Those 11 police officers were ripping off drug dealers, selling the drugs, snorting cocaine in their squad cars, stealing money from drug hauls, and getting rid of witnesses to their crimes. The woman executed was a single mother who witnessed one officer, Len something, beat up a witness so she reported him. She got shot execution style on a street corner near her home. He put the hit out on his squad car radio.

All of those officers were indicted, arrested, charged and convicted and Len.... received the DP for the hit on the single mother.

Try again Artie. if the CID were actively engaged in smuggling drugs it wouldn't have been kept secret for long. Ever heard the old saying, Bertie, Too many cooks spoil the broth.

caphill

03-01-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by cami

I think those doctors experimented on you and not Helena and Greg.

Artie, it's really too bad that you cannot get your information straight. That warehouse was part of an FBI sting so they could take down those police officers. Everyone knows how corrupt NO is or used to be. Those 11 police officers were ripping off drug dealers, selling the drugs, snorting cocaine in their squad cars, stealing money from drug hauls, and getting rid of witnesses to their crimes. The woman executed was a single mother who witnessed one officer, Len something, beat up a witness so she reported him. She got shot execution style on a street corner near her home. He put the hit out on his squad car radio.

All of those officers were indicted, arrested, charged and convicted and Len.... received the DP for the hit on the single mother.

Try again Artie. if the CID were actively engaged in smuggling drugs it wouldn't have been kept secret for long. Ever heard the old saying, Bertie, Too many cooks spoil the broth.

There have been stories, reports and rumors that the cavities of dead Viet Nam soldiers were stuffed with drugs. The remains were being sent through Ft. Bragg before return of the bodies to their families.

Helena supposedly had made statements ,if given immunity, she would blow Ft Bragg wide open. She claimed to know of high ranking officers, including a general, local police, local attorneys, CID investigators, including the original lead investigator at MacDonald's the night of the murder, that were involved with the drug trafficing via returning dead bodies.

The traffic of drugs via dead soldiers was not just limited to Ft. Bragg. It has been believed by many that some in the CID, some local LE , high ranking officers wanted the investigation kept as far away from Helena and her circle of friends as possible. More so than Helena, it was believed one of her accomplices might be involved in the drug trafficing on level higher that Helena would even know. It this is true, an arrest and investigation could have blown Ft Bragg wide open.

It does appear that the investigation of Helena and her known friends was cursory at best. Soon after the murders all of the "what should have been" suspects got out of Dodge post haste.

If MacDonald was so venomously anti drug, worked at the hospitals and being a new kid on the block, he may have made some people very nervous.

When these murders were first discovered and a description of a woman with long blond hair, floppy hat traveling with 3-4 guys, it is hard to understand why an all points bulletin and road blocks were not immediately put in place. Why didn't Ivory pull Helens et al in for a real interrogation. If he had her boots why did he take them back to her. Why isn't there a written report about the examination of the boots. Why did have Ivory behind closed doors interview with her and no taping of the interview.

Was she told by CID to let sleeping dogs lie? It is what the CID didn't do that should have been done in any investigation that has caused the lingering questions as to why the CID was afraid of these suspects and why they went to lengths to hide any evidence that might have linked them to the crime.

stinkerbelle

03-01-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by caphill

She claimed to know of high ranking officers, including a general, local police, local attorneys, CID investigators, including the original lead investigator at MacDonald's the night of the murder, that were involved with the drug trafficing via returning dead bodies.

she also stated that macdonald did it.

stinkerbelle

03-01-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Arthur Thorp's computer seems to have packed up for the time being, and it has had to go in for repair. The computer doesn't seem to start up for some reason. I don't know if that's some kind of switch fault, or what.

Arthur and Albie have had to come back with a brand new identity, if not a fake passport.

I can't say I'm all that surprised about the DNA results not being disclosed in February, as was promised. Murtagh and Kearns' plan has been all along to delay the DNA results, forever if possible. If they are ever forced to disclose the results their plan will be to say the results are "inconclusive" which is another part of their forensic fraud illegal activities, like hiding all the exculpatory forensic evidence at the 1979 MacDonald trial.

I had no idea that MacDonald's enemy, Fred Kassab, was an alcoholic. I think that information ought to have been presented to the court in 1979.

I agree with caphill about Kearns. He only seemed to be interested in Dr MacDonald's sex life, and seemed totally uninterested in catching the real culprits. Kearns, like the rest of the so-called CID agents, was never a qualified homicide detective.

I think Lucia Bartoli's work on the long blond synthetic hair-like fiber found at the MacDonald murders was excellently researched. Far better than Malone of the FBI lab's manufactured evidence.

I disagree with Bartoli's theory that Dr MacDonald must have been mixed up with the Stoeckley child-killers, if he didn't do it himself. There is no real evidence of that at all. I would agree with her that there could have been some strange psychiatric experiments at Fort Bragg which are secret, and obviously never made public. Doctors and psychiatrists from the Nazi concentration camps went to America after the war and continued their researches in America. It might be, or could be, that those psychiatrists experimented on Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley and Don Harris, who all had mental problems, with some experimental psychiatric drugs, which turned them into homicidal maniacs.

I believe there were mistakes made in the blood testing at the MacDonald murders scene. Dr MacDonald can't explain why Kim's blood spot was on the pajama top for the simple reason that it wasn't Kim's blood on the pajama top, or there was blood contamination at the crime scene by the military police. Unfortunately Murtagh intends covering this forensic mistake up forever.

I believe the reason the CID tried to frame Dr MacDonald is that the CID were involved in drug smuggling at Fort Bragg. This is because the chances of the CID ever being detected is very low. The same sort of thing can happen in the police. This is from the General Accounting Office, Report to the Honorable Charles B. Rangel, House of Representatives, Law Enforcement Information on Drug Related Police Corruption, Wahington DC: USGPO, May 1998, p.36:

"In New Orleans, 11 police officers were convicted of accepting nearly $100,000 from undercover agents to protect a cocaine supply warehouse containing 286 pounds of cocaine. The undercover portion of the investigation was terminated when a witness was killed under orders from a New Orleans police officer."
i had rather a long, crummy day at work and then come home to see this. thanks so much for making me laugh so hard i thought i might wet myself!:D

caphill

03-01-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2
Why are NO transcripts at all posted on Mac's website?

I would assume Dr. MacDonald pro bono legal teams and others that have supported his cause have mainly focused on legal issues, appeals, motions , investigations etc.

It is understandable they have not spent the time and money to build a web site to post thousand and thousands of documents for the reading pleasure of the message boarders.

Why Chrstina has done this, I dont know. Did she start it as a support site until she got argry or disappointed by Dr. MacDonald.

This murder case is about Dr. MacDonald and Colette and girls. I would think after all these years Dr. MacDonald has tired of the women hanger oners. I sure he accepted the time and help they volunteered. He wrote them a few letters expressing his love and appreciation for their support. This is a man sitting in jail for 26 years. He has got nothing to give and can take nothing other than someones time they offer.

When I read the bitter and jealous women, who supported him for years, come on these messages board venting their fury at Dr. MacDonald and trying to vilify his wife, I realize there are a lot of lonely, needy women out there.

What did they think or hope could come from this man captured in a jail cell. Why did Christina turn on him? Nothing in the evidence has changed to show him guilty or more guilty. Did he diss her in some way from behind his bars. Did she get more attention, appreciation and more data and pics from Kearns? Why does she promote and print the emails from the scorned women in MacDonald jail life. I guess it you can't hold on to them when they are locked up in a pen it would just p*ss you off. Having the pretty slender younger blond woman waltz in, marry him, be his PR spokes person, get TV media attention, after all the years these other woman have hovered around. Some are so mad they pray he stays in jail forever.

My comments are not addessed to Bunny or anyone in particular posting here. I do have speculations about why Christina would have spent the energy, time, effort and money to build such a site. That is more than a passing interest.

stinkerbelle

03-01-2006, 06:10 PM

lmbo...why didn't somebody tell me it was open mic nite? i'd have prepared something!

bandit's mom

03-01-2006, 06:59 PM

As a casual observer I just have to say that these pro MacDonald
posts are hysterical. Apparently poor Jeffrey has been
conspired against by everyone from the CID to Helena
and her drug addict friends, to a bunch of angry, bitter
women who are jealous of the prize his whacko wife
has "won". Oh and let's not forget his former father in law, who
of course had no other reason to pursue this case than
that he is an angry vindictive and alchoholic.

Do you people even begin to grasp how ridiculous this all
sounds?

Every post I read from one of the baby killers supporters it just
convinces me more that not only is he guilty, but that there
must be something seriously off-kilter in the people who
work so hard to defend him.

spurs01

03-01-2006, 09:23 PM

I hope you are never accused of a crime. Who bears the burden of proof?

I, personally, don't appreciate the comment re: "baby killer supporter" (or something like that). Rather unnecessary; but, there are those who call Mac's supporters worse, so I guess you deserve credit for that.

Now, I'm not a "groupie" (another term I detest), but it seems to me that, regardless of (obviously suppressed) evidence, ya'll have convincted Mac on every appeal.

I know what the Court said. I believe the Court was wrong. That's an opinion. You're happy because you agree with it. I disagree; to that end, I am entitled. If you don't believe there was suppressed evidence? Then I cannot take you seriously. I'm not saying the evidence WAS exculpatory; I'm saying, if taken in total, it could have been. THAT is a defendant's right. OR at least I thought it was.

I think the discovery process was abused (by the prosecution in this case). And, to whoever posted it to me, I've followed it for years, and I still don't believe MacDonald did it.

If ya'll are comfortable with having no new trial, not all of the evidence revealed, then, again, I just hope you're never in that postion.

Just remember: It could easily be you.

stinkerbelle

03-01-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by spurs01

I know what the Court said. I believe the Court was wrong. That's an opinion. You're happy because you agree with it. I disagree; to that end, I am entitled. If you don't believe there was suppressed evidence? Then I cannot take you seriously. I'm not saying the evidence WAS exculpatory; I'm saying, if taken in total, it could have been. THAT is a defendant's right. OR at least I thought it was.

but the point is, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, in the real world of this case, it doesn't count for anything. the only one that does count is the court's opinion. and they did not feel any evidence was supressed, nor did they feel any of the "suppressed" evidence had any merit.

if you won't take anyone seriously except someone who agrees with you, i suggest you start your own message board and only invite people who share your opinion.

audpaud

03-02-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by spurs01 . . .
I've followed it for years, and I still don't believe MacDonald did it . . .

Do you have a theory on why the Army would frame up/blame up one of their own for this heinous crime, or is it all just about "suppression" etc issues with you too?:confused:

So far, I'm not impressed with the "blow Ft. Bragg wide open" drug smuggling, Nazi Dr. experiment theory.

audpaud

03-02-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by caphill . . .
Helena supposedly had made statements ,if given immunity, she would blow Ft Bragg wide open . . .

Common sense and real life experiences lead me to believe that the Army~and we're talking Green Berets here as well~would worry about the likes of a Helena Stoekley-type exactly one nano-second.

Don't you realize that there are at least 1001 ways a Helena Stoekley (and a Dr. MacDonald if you take it that far) could be dealt with by a Green Beret Unit: that don't involve having a spotlight/microscope shined on Ft. Bragg via the butchery of a Pregnant Mother and Defenseless Daughters?

Don't you realize that if Helena Stoekley was threatening to "blow Ft. Bragg wide open" that her lifeless body would have most likely been found OD'd---with barely a mention in a newspaper?

Don't you realize that there are ways the Green Berets would deal with a supposed anti-drug Dr. MacDonald Whistleblower that don't involve sending Floppy Hat Wig Hair Helena et al to his base house? (Not all ways would be nefarious---the Green Berets are a tight fraternity---MacDonald could have been transferred . . . reassigned . . . even promoted away from the alleged illegal activity!) Of course, he could also have an "accident" on the Russian Boxing Trip and given a full military funeral with honors!!!

A frame/blame of Helena Stoekley I could almost buy . . . a frame/blame of Captain Dr. MacDonald is ludicrous to me. Green Berets worried about either Stoekley Group OR MacDonald---is equally ludicrous . . . neither scenario would ever involve Colette, Kim or Kris.

Just wouldn't happen.

cami

03-02-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by caphill

There have been stories, reports and rumors that the cavities of dead Viet Nam soldiers were stuffed with drugs. The remains were being sent through Ft. Bragg before return of the bodies to their families.

Helena supposedly had made statements ,if given immunity, she would blow Ft Bragg wide open. She claimed to know of high ranking officers, including a general, local police, local attorneys, CID investigators, including the original lead investigator at MacDonald's the night of the murder, that were involved with the drug trafficing via returning dead bodies.

The traffic of drugs via dead soldiers was not just limited to Ft. Bragg. It has been believed by many that some in the CID, some local LE , high ranking officers wanted the investigation kept as far away from Helena and her circle of friends as possible. More so than Helena, it was believed one of her accomplices might be involved in the drug trafficing on level higher that Helena would even know. It this is true, an arrest and investigation could have blown Ft Bragg wide open.

It does appear that the investigation of Helena and her known friends was cursory at best. Soon after the murders all of the "what should have been" suspects got out of Dodge post haste.

If MacDonald was so venomously anti drug, worked at the hospitals and being a new kid on the block, he may have made some people very nervous.

When these murders were first discovered and a description of a woman with long blond hair, floppy hat traveling with 3-4 guys, it is hard to understand why an all points bulletin and road blocks were not immediately put in place. Why didn't Ivory pull Helens et al in for a real interrogation. If he had her boots why did he take them back to her. Why isn't there a written report about the examination of the boots. Why did have Ivory behind closed doors interview with her and no taping of the interview.

Was she told by CID to let sleeping dogs lie? It is what the CID didn't do that should have been done in any investigation that has caused the lingering questions as to why the CID was afraid of these suspects and why they went to lengths to hide any evidence that might have linked them to the crime.

You're certainly entitled to all those opinions but I for one do not believe a word of it.

The CID afraid of Helena? Sure... they knew what she was. A drug addict, unrealiable and not credible. That is just a fantasy of MacDonald that he was so important that high level ranking officers had to protect some scruffy drug addicts and frame him. Helena was a snitch who ratted out most of her friends. I feel confident that the high level ranking officers at Ft. Bragg ever let her anywhere near them

Now, you're bringing in the Bill Tyree story from Ft. Devens. He too is in prison for having his wife murdered. No one believes his story of CID and FEMA drug trafficking either.

It does appear that the investigation of Helena and her known friends was cursory at best. Soon after the murders all of the "what should have been" suspects got out of Dodge post haste.

Could be due to the fact that after they were called to the scene and did their walk through and started the investigation, they discovered MacDonald's story of drug crazed hippies was not true. The investigators go where the evidence leads them, and not piece of it led to anyone but MacDonald as the killer.

cami

03-02-2006, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
I hope you are never accused of a crime. Who bears the burden of proof?

I, personally, don't appreciate the comment re: "baby killer supporter" (or something like that). Rather unnecessary; but, there are those who call Mac's supporters worse, so I guess you deserve credit for that.

Now, I'm not a "groupie" (another term I detest), but it seems to me that, regardless of (obviously suppressed) evidence, ya'll have convincted Mac on every appeal.

I know what the Court said. I believe the Court was wrong. That's an opinion. You're happy because you agree with it. I disagree; to that end, I am entitled. If you don't believe there was suppressed evidence? Then I cannot take you seriously. I'm not saying the evidence WAS exculpatory; I'm saying, if taken in total, it could have been. THAT is a defendant's right. OR at least I thought it was.

I think the discovery process was abused (by the prosecution in this case). And, to whoever posted it to me, I've followed it for years, and I still don't believe MacDonald did it.

If ya'll are comfortable with having no new trial, not all of the evidence revealed, then, again, I just hope you're never in that postion.

Just remember: It could easily be you.

Hey I am all for that ice pick baby killer getting a new trial. All the evidence that convicted him before a jury of his peers is still available and waiting to convict him one more time. Maybe for FOUR counts of murder this time.

Let's bring in all the "alleged suppressed evidence" It would be very interesting to see Murtagh et al blow the defence out of the water with the lab tests that prove there was nothing suppressed. Experts who will testify that all of us have unsourced fibres and hairs in our home.

As a matter of law would a judge even allow that type of evidence to come in?

I'm all for a new trial. Maybe then it will shut that ice pick baby killer up for good. Oh gosh what am I thinking....he'll surely get back on the conspiracy bandwagon when he gets convicted again. He will never ever ever accept that fact that he is being punished for brutally murdering his wife, his two daughters and his unborn son.

Bunny2

03-02-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by spurs01
If ya'll are comfortable with...not all of the evidence revealed...Spurs, can you tell us what this important evidence is, that you imply the defense found to be not "revealed" and which has never been before the courts?

Bunny2

03-02-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Dupree's excuse was that Helena Stoeckley was "untrustworthy" even though MacDonald case appeal court judge Murnaghan said that if he had been the trial judge he would have allowed the Stoeckley information to be presented to the court and jury. It was suppressed evidence.LOL!! I knew you didn't have a clue what the word "suppressed" means, and this proves it.
To say that Helena Stoeckley information wouldn't have impressed a jury and that the suppressed forensic evidence was "forensically insignificant" as Murtagh put it is nonsense.Actually, it's only your contention that unsourced items are forensically significant which is ridiculous. As for Stoeckley, as one of the trial jurors said when interviewed by a reporter, "A confession by a pathetic acid head such as Helena Stoeckley does not deter for an instant from the mountains of evidence against MacDonald presented at the trial."Murtagh knew the handwritten lab benchnotes were highly exculpatory, and would have cleared...MacDonald, so he illegally covered them up, as he is doing with the DNA evidence now.No, what really happened is that Mac told his lawyer Bernie that he'd committed the crimes. Bernie tried to pay Murtagh $500,000 to suppress evidence against MacDonald, but Murtagh, being a man of extremely high principles, refused to take the bribe. Bernie then got upset and decided to claim that exculpatory evidence had been hidden, but his efforts failed and the courts found that no evidence was wrongly suppressed in this case.

As for the DNA results, rumor has it that Mac has had the results for some time now but simply refuses to release them to the public because they confirm that he committed the crimes.

There are also rumors that Mac was caught shooting heroin in prison back in the late '80s, and that a syringe was found in the window well of his cell, but I don't put much stock in that rumor, myself.

Bunny2

03-02-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
There is no real evidence against [the convicted triple murderer, Jeffrey MacDonald].Sure there is. There was tons of evidence pointing directly to MacDonald as the murderer; so much of it, in fact, that not only did a jury convict in only about six short hours, but in almost 27 years not one of Mac's many, many different lawyers has ever been able to make the slightest dent in overturning the verdicts. And what an odd thing...not a single shred of any kind of forensic evidence ever surfaced to support Mac's silly stories about the supposed presence of six or more frenzied, drug-crazed "intruders."The only evidence Kearns seemed to come up with in his 3000 page report is that he told Fred Kassab that [the murderer] had been seen kissing a woman once and reported what the bus driver had said about [the murderer] for a fat fee!Naughty Bertie, lying and manufacturing evidence yet again. Don't you ever get tired of thinking up ludicrous things to post? Aside from the fact that your statements show that you're not even vaguely familiar with the work Kearns did, where are the records supporting the idea of this "fat fee" given to a bus driver, Bertie-Boy? There are none, as you knew before you posted this nonsense again.

bandit's mom

03-02-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
I hope you are never accused of a crime. Who bears the burden of proof?

If ya'll are comfortable with having no new trial, not all of the evidence revealed, then, again, I just hope you're never in that postion.

Just remember: It could easily be you.

Couldn't be me. I don't slaughter people.

caphill

03-02-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by audpaud

Do you have a theory on why the Army would frame up/blame up one of their own for this heinous crime, or is it all just about "suppression" etc issues with you too?:confused:

So far, I'm not impressed with the "blow Ft. Bragg wide open" drug smuggling, Nazi Dr. experiment theory.

The Iran Contra scandal which involve drug smuggling and gun running is an example of how high up and how far the people involved will go to protect their covert operations.

Does Ollie North ring a bell. Did he not use government money after he wasdischarged to put up a security barrier around his property to protect his family. Why did he have such great fears for his family

How many unusual deaths have occurred to people who claim to have info about Irangate and the CIA, NSA etc roles in the drug smuggling operations to support covert operations.

If there drug smuggling via dead bodies coming into Ft. Bragg, you can bet your sweet arse that lives could be at risk if someone threatened exposure of this type of operation.

I don't believe MacDonald or his family were set up to be murdered by CID. I think Helena was a small fry who informed on other druggies to protect herself and her freedom to obtain drugs and live her chosen life style. I do think Helena and her friends getting all drugged and riled up about some real or imagined transgressions against them by the "rat fink" Dr. MacDonald would cause great heart burn to anyone concerned about info or leaks of drug smuggling at Ft. Bragg.

If she or her accomplices knew of or heard rumors of high ranking officers or CID being involved in drug smuggling, there would be great risk of the "druggies" telling tales out of school if arrested. Attempts to make deals by trading info for leniency would be concerning and disastrous. These "suspects" all have military ties. Helena's father had been a Lt Col., the other guys were military and all were in the thick of things in the drug community.

Dr. MacDonald had been assigned to the base as a doctor less than 6 months prior to the murders. He was had been there too short of time to gain confidences or being "in the circle" of illicit drug activity. He wasn't even a typical Green Beret. He had no real interest a career in the military. Being a military doctor was just a stepping stone in his plan as a civilian doctor.

He was no threat of exposing Ft. Bragg. The CID had no fear of him. If he had shut up and gone away after the charges were dismissed, we would not be discussing his trial today. He and Kassab continued to bash the CID and demanded a Congressional investiagtion of CID. That is when he and his FIL became a threat. CID continued to investiagate to find something to use to discredit him. CID found the weak link. The Kassabs were or had become overly emotional,angry and obsessive towards the CID. Getting the Kassabs turned around and off the backs of Congress and the CID was a must to stop an independent investigation into non investigation of the murders after the release of MacDonald.

Courting the Kassab and taking advantage of their grief by carrying tales of MacDonald's sexual escapades turned the grief into obsessive anger. The anger was turned away from the CID and onto MacDonald. This tactic of using the grief torn parents as a tool certainly benefited CID. The sad thing is the Kassabs destroyed any chance of a quality emotional life and any future happiness by continuing the obsessive pursuit of MacDonald.

IMO, the CID were gung-ho about keeping Kassab and MacDonald quiet using whatever means necessary to protect their collective arses from scrutiny. It was a not pursuit of juctice for a dead mother and her girls. It was not a dedication to the Kassabs . They were used, abused and manipulated just like the evidence found at the crime scene.

stinkerbelle

03-02-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by caphill

Dr. MacDonald had been assigned to the base as a doctor less than 6 months prior to the murders. He was had been there too short of time to gain confidences or being "in the circle" of illicit drug activity. He wasn't even a typical Green Beret. He had no real interest a career in the military. Being a military doctor was just a stepping stone in his plan as a civilian doctor.

He was no threat of exposing Ft. Bragg. The CID had no fear of him.
exactly, which is why all this conspiracy/framing crap is just that...crap to the nth degree. lmbo, there you go sticking your foot in it yet again.

Courting the Kassab and taking advantage of their grief by carrying tales of MacDonald's sexual escapades turned the grief into obsessive anger. The anger was turned away from the CID and onto MacDonald. This tactic of using the grief torn parents as a tool certainly benefited CID. The sad thing is the Kassabs destroyed any chance of a quality emotional life and any future happiness by continuing the obsessive pursuit of MacDonald.

freddy read and reread the article 32 transcript before the reinvestigation even started. aside from other minor things, such as the dick cavett performance, this is what set him on the path to believing macdonald did it. the CID and kearns did not court the kassabs and did not cause their grief to turn into "obsessive anger" (which i'll come back to in a minute). what destroyed their chance of a quality emotional life and any future happiness was jeffrey macdonald killing their daughter and grandchildren and then getting away with it for 9 long years.

which brings me back to "obsessive anger"....how can you, as a human being (at least i'm assuming), sit there and call ANY parent's grief and/or anger over the murder of their child and grandchildren obsessive? especially when the perpetrator was someone they loved as well? if someone close to you were murdered and the police had trouble bringing someone to justice would you just throw up your hands and say, "oh well, guess we'll never know" and then go about your business? freddy and mildred were just shattered by the murders. can you even begin to comprehend what it must have been like for them? it's all good and well, apparently, for the almighty jeffrey macdonald to move to california and sleep with 30 women in a few short years and live the high life and forget he ever had a wife and children, but it's not ok for a man and woman to assuage their own grief by being relentless in the pursuit of the murderer of their loved ones? seriously, what's wrong with you?

stinkerbelle

03-02-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Bunny is manufacturing evidence again and not telling the truth. Naughty girl.
yes, shame on you, naughty bunny, for having a sense of humor and using *gasp* sarcasm in your posts! :no:

I used to think that the CID and FBI honestly thought Dr MacDonald did it and that they were just plain incompetent and mistaken. I now think it might be more sinister than that.
ooh, sinister, that's a good one. let's add dastardly and eeeeeevil to the list!

JTF

03-02-2006, 07:31 PM

Caphill: Independent investigation? You mean, like the one that Freddy Kassab was attempting to set up with Look magazine? The same proposed investigation that Jeffie Boy wanted nothing to do with? The same proposed investigation that caused Jeffie Boy's lawyers to call Kassab at home and basically tell him to back off? In terms of the CID Reinvestigation, are you implying that Richard Mahon, Mike Pickering, Jack Bennett, and several other CID agents were told to railroad Jeffie Boy? Don't you find it interesting that in the last 36 years, many of MacDonald's ex-supporters no longer feel he is a tortured innocent?

Lucia Bartoli, Errol Morris, Allard Lowenstein, Freddy Kassab, Mildred Kassab, Gail Boyce, and Bob Stern are just a few of the people who believed in Jeff's innocence, but eventually saw through his mask. Blood stain analyst Judith Bunker, refused to testify for the defense at the 1979 trial because she agreed with Paul Stombaugh's analysis of blood stains found on MacDonald's pajama top. John Thornton agreed with Paul Stombaugh's conclusion that 2 bloody fabric impressions from Jeff's right pajama cuff and a single bloody fabric impression from Colette's left pajama cuff were present on the blue bedsheet. James Osterburg felt that Stombaugh's pajama top theory was "convincing stuff." A New York City detective hired by Brian O'Neil after Ted Gunderson was let go, eventually told O'Neil he couldn't work for MacDonald anymore because everything he turned up pointed towards MacDonald's guilt.

When it came to newspaper reporters, MacDonald did not fare any better. Bob Keeler and Pat Reese thought that MacDonald was guilty from the very beginning. Steve Huettel and Dennis Rogers didn't buy MacDonald's intruder story for one minute. John Cummings was appalled by MacDonald's propensity for gravitating towards the limelight rather than look for the "real" killers of his family. In terms of the newspaper reporters who covered the 1979 trial, not one of them disagreed with the verdict, not one. Robert Sam Anson said it best when he stated that if people, "took a good look at this case," the "wonder" would not be that Jeffie Boy was convicted of murdering his family, but that, "there are people out there who continue to believe in his innocence."

JTF.

audpaud

03-03-2006, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by caphill

The Iran Contra scandal which involve drug smuggling and gun running is an example of how high up and how far the people involved will go to protect their covert operations.

Does Ollie North ring a bell. Did he not use government money after he wasdischarged to put up a security barrier around his property to protect his family. Why did he have such great fears for his family

How many unusual deaths have occurred to people who claim to have info about Irangate and the CIA, NSA etc roles in the drug smuggling operations to support covert operations.

If there drug smuggling via dead bodies coming into Ft. Bragg, you can bet your sweet arse that lives could be at risk if someone threatened exposure of this type of operation.

I don't believe MacDonald or his family were set up to be murdered by CID. I think Helena was a small fry who informed on other druggies to protect herself and her freedom to obtain drugs and live her chosen life style. I do think Helena and her friends getting all drugged and riled up about some real or imagined transgressions against them by the "rat fink" Dr. MacDonald would cause great heart burn to anyone concerned about info or leaks of drug smuggling at Ft. Bragg.

If she or her accomplices knew of or heard rumors of high ranking officers or CID being involved in drug smuggling, there would be great risk of the "druggies" telling tales out of school if arrested. Attempts to make deals by trading info for leniency would be concerning and disastrous. These "suspects" all have military ties. Helena's father had been a Lt Col., the other guys were military and all were in the thick of things in the drug community.

Dr. MacDonald had been assigned to the base as a doctor less than 6 months prior to the murders. He was had been there too short of time to gain confidences or being "in the circle" of illicit drug activity. He wasn't even a typical Green Beret. He had no real interest a career in the military. Being a military doctor was just a stepping stone in his plan as a civilian doctor.

He was no threat of exposing Ft. Bragg. The CID had no fear of him. If he had shut up and gone away after the charges were dismissed, we would not be discussing his trial today. He and Kassab continued to bash the CID and demanded a Congressional investiagtion of CID. That is when he and his FIL became a threat. CID continued to investiagate to find something to use to discredit him. CID found the weak link. The Kassabs were or had become overly emotional,angry and obsessive towards the CID. Getting the Kassabs turned around and off the backs of Congress and the CID was a must to stop an independent investigation into non investigation of the murders after the release of MacDonald.

Courting the Kassab and taking advantage of their grief by carrying tales of MacDonald's sexual escapades turned the grief into obsessive anger. The anger was turned away from the CID and onto MacDonald. This tactic of using the grief torn parents as a tool certainly benefited CID. The sad thing is the Kassabs destroyed any chance of a quality emotional life and any future happiness by continuing the obsessive pursuit of MacDonald.

IMO, the CID were gung-ho about keeping Kassab and MacDonald quiet using whatever means necessary to protect their collective arses from scrutiny. It was a not pursuit of juctice for a dead mother and her girls. It was not a dedication to the Kassabs . They were used, abused and manipulated just like the evidence found at the crime scene.

Tx for the response!:)

Your theory gets a bit better toward the end--but gotta tell ya caphill . . . the beginning is pretty thin. Takes a major leap to go from Ollie North's security system to Acid Is Groovy Candle In The Wind butchering Mom and Little Children? Do you think for a minute "intruders" would not kill Ollie FIRST should they get in and ONLY THEN go after Mrs. North and the Little North's????:confused: No matter what drugs they were on. No matter what--period. Macdonald would be dead FIRST!

Truly.

This is the gaping hole in all the support macdonald posts in this Thread.

byn63

03-03-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by JTF
Caphill: Independent investigation? You mean, like the one that Freddy Kassab was attempting to set up with Look magazine? The same proposed investigation that Jeffie Boy wanted nothing to do with? The same proposed investigation that caused Jeffie Boy's lawyers to call Kassab at home and basically tell him to back off? In terms of the CID Reinvestigation, are you implying that Richard Mahon, Mike Pickering, Jack Bennett, and several other CID agents were told to railroad Jeffie Boy? Don't you find it interesting that in the last 36 years, many of MacDonald's ex-supporters no longer feel he is a tortured innocent?

Lucia Bartoli, Errol Morris, Allard Lowenstein, Freddy Kassab, Mildred Kassab, Gail Boyce, and Bob Stern are just a few of the people who believed in Jeff's innocence, but eventually saw through his mask. Blood stain analyst Judith Bunker, refused to testify for the defense at the 1979 trial because she agreed with Paul Stombaugh's analysis of blood stains found on MacDonald's pajama top. John Thornton agreed with Paul Stombaugh's conclusion that 2 bloody fabric impressions from Jeff's right pajama cuff and a single bloody fabric impression from Colette's left pajama cuff were present on the blue bedsheet. James Osterburg felt that Stombaugh's pajama top theory was "convincing stuff." A New York City detective hired by Brian O'Neil after Ted Gunderson was let go, eventually told O'Neil he couldn't work for MacDonald anymore because everything he turned up pointed towards MacDonald's guilt.

When it came to newspaper reporters, MacDonald did not fare any better. Bob Keeler and Pat Reese thought that MacDonald was guilty from the very beginning. Steve Huettel and Dennis Rogers didn't buy MacDonald's intruder story for one minute. John Cummings was appalled by MacDonald's propensity for gravitating towards the limelight rather than look for the "real" killers of his family. In terms of the newspaper reporters who covered the 1979 trial, not one of them disagreed with the verdict, not one. Robert Sam Anson said it best when he stated that if people, "took a good look at this case," the "wonder" would not be that Jeffie Boy was convicted of murdering his family, but that, "there are people out there who continue to believe in his innocence."

JTF.

once again JTF produces an outstanding post. It SHOULD put all these crazy conspiracy theorists to rests (I know it won't but it should). Inmate was a newly inducted junior grade officer in the Army Medical Corp assigned to the Green Berets. That is not and can never be made to be the same thing as being a Green Beret. He was a nobody with no import other than in his own mind. He is a narcissistic, sociopathic, psychotic family slaughterer who has shown the white feather for over 25 years.:chicken:

Bunny2

03-03-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Leaving...MacDonald alive wasn't a gaping hole in the Mac is innocent theory.When a pregnant woman and two small girls are beaten and butchered and the man of the house, the main threat, is left virtually without a scratch, yes, that's a "hole" all right. And combined with the rest of the incredibly overwhelming evidence against MurderMac, and the negative evidence showing a complete lack of "intruders," Mac's story was so full of holes, it finally became a bottomless pit from which he'll never climb out.The Kassabs were liars. It looks as though they were drunks as well.Poor Bertie. You're just so, so angry that Freddy Kassab worked so hard to see that the murderer was brought to justice, aren't you? So upset that the murderer himself did nothing to find the "real killers," and that he got caught in so very many lies, and that evidence showed beyond any reasonable doubt that he slaughtered his family. Too bad you can't change any of that, isn't it? Bad for you, good for society, though, that this convicted triple killer will probably remain in prison until his dying day, a fate far too good for him.

linda crockett

03-03-2006, 04:19 PM

Four people enter a home. They overkill a woman and two small baby girls. They have actual interaction with the man of the house, hit him in the head a couple times, and cut him just enough to deflate his poor little lung. Knowing that he has seen them , they then decide to leave the scence of this violent, horendous crime, allowing the one person who has seen them and could identify them alive. Oh yeah, this guy is innocent.

JTF

03-03-2006, 07:57 PM

Linda: Be careful when using the common sense theme because it's always a complex scenario when someone is being railroaded. When it comes to presenting the forensics in this case, the responses by MacDonald advocates become even more absurd. You can point out that limb hairs do not contain enough distinguishable characteristics for microscopic comparisons until the cows come home, but that does not deter MacDonald groupies from labeling the limb hair from CID Exhibit E-5 as a "mystery hair." You'll get the "brushing" argument and/or Kenneth Edward's bizzare affidavit, as explanations for how bloody fabric impressions from Jeff's and Colette's pajama cuffs, found their way on to the blue bedsheet. Most of the posters on this and other MacDonald case discussion boards know the MacDonald camp arguments by heart. In regards to their posts, the only significant question that arises is how consistently do we stay on them about their misstatements of fact, reliance on innuendo, and their propensity for replacing facts with falsehoods?

JTF.

spurs01

03-03-2006, 09:17 PM

Someone in this thread once asked me (and I paraphrase) "Why don't you start your own website?"

Well, I don't have a website (yet), but I do have a discussion board on another thread.

However, it's pay to play, and the community there isn't really too interested in this case.

So, I did a few weeks ago what someone suggested.

I admire your fervor with regard to this case. I still believe the courts were wrong. You can say "Oh, I'm not a murderer; that'd never happen to me."

Well, it's happened. Innocent folks in jail. DNA proof.

I believe the evidence supression was great. And I am astounded that, in this country, it was allowed. I remain amazed that, upon review, the courts did not allow the evidence in. That's the part I'll never understand. I think he's not guilty of these crimes! My "opinion." However, my main point is this: unless ALL of the evidence is heard, shown, disclosed and given the opportunity of rebuttal, how fair of a system is it that we have? THAT'S what I meant by "It could be you." Because it could be.

I will tell ya'll this... if the DNA under anyone's fingernails is proven to be Dr. Mac's? I will eat my own keyboard (I have a chocolate one, actually, a gift from my Mom). However, I am more interested in the Britt Affidavit, and what credence that tidbit may be given.

I showed it one of my bosses (a defense lawyer I've worked for in excess of 20 years). He is not a litigator but used to clerk for a federal judge (years later, his boss, the Judge was assasinated -- no connection, just a comment). I showed it to the other lawyer (a med-mal defense litigator). They both said the Britt thing could be explosive.

Even years later. I will watch how this plays out. Let me tell you one other thing. I have seen the autopsy pictures, read much of this, and whoever did this is a monster. Many of us will disagree s to who did this horrific crime.

But I think of the victims, a lot. No one deserves such an end.

Peace.

spurs01

03-03-2006, 09:48 PM

Oh, and before anyone asks, my boss was a law clerk, years ago, for John H. Wood.

He was assasinated by Woody Harrelson's father. So, even though I may seem "pro-defense" in this case (which I am, for reasons I think and hope you will at least entertain), I do know of the ravages of murder. I didn't work for my boss when it happened, but know the story.

It affected my boss and his former (deceased) law partner. And when I heard the story, it affected me.

Not directly, but it still did.

My uncle was murdered because he was gay. Didn't know that until many years later.

I am not an unfeeling, or uncaring, person. OTC, I am very feeling and caring.

This MacDonald case ... something is just not right to me. Never has been, never will be.

Now, I've given you a bit of personal info. Please understand, I don't always share this kind of crap.

I try to see both sides. And in this case, I think (okay, may supression was the WRONG word)... UNDISCLOSED evidence is a BIG problem for me. Huge.

Bring it all out and do it again. Let everyone's rights be represented.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want that.

But, that's just me.

spurs01

03-03-2006, 10:14 PM

Okay. I'm sure those exonerated by DNA would agree with you.

It could never be you at the wrong place, wrong time.

I hope, for your sake, you are never in one of those "wrong places" at the "wrong time."

To think you are immune to being accused because "you'd never do" something like that, is to insult those who have been there... EXACTLY THERE.

It could certainly be you, me, etc., etc., etc.

Peace.

JTF

03-03-2006, 10:16 PM

Spurs: When it comes to the hair fragments found under Kimberly's and Kristen's fingernails, your keyboard is safe, LOL! Hair fragments #7 and #8 were described in Glisson's lab notes as having feminine characteristics and were dissimilar, indicating 2 different female sources. As you may already know, there are only 2 females that the MacDonald camp points to as being inside 544 Castle Drive on February 17, 1970. There are huge problems, however, with Helena Stoeckley and Cathy Perry being the source of those 2 hair fragments.

1) There were no head hairs of Cathy Perry found at the crime scene.

2) There were no head hairs from Helena Stoeckley found at the crime scene.

3) There were no fingerprints of Cathy Perry found at the crime scene.

4) There were no fingerprints of Helena Stoeckley found at the crime scene.

5) Cathy Perry told the CID in 1971 that she was not involved in the murders, 13 years later she made a bizarre confession to the FBI that she was involved in the murders, but then recanted several months later after receiving treatment for her mental illness.

6) Helena Stoeckley told the CID in 1971 and the FBI in 1981 that she was not involved in the murders. She also stated on several occasions that due to her heavy drug use, she had no memory of her whereabouts on February 17, 1970.

7) In her "confessions" to Ted Gunderson, Stoeckley stated she never went near the bodies of Kimberly and Kristen MacDonald.

8) In her "confession" to the FBI in 1984, Perry stated that she and her unnamed accomplices entered the 2nd floor of the MacDonald apartment and planned on killing MacDonald's 2 young sons.

In my opinion, the hair fragments were the result of Kimberly and Kristen playing together on February 16, 1970. In other words, the girls exchanged hair fragments, which would explain why the fragments were dissimilar and had feminine characteristics.

JTF.

spurs01

03-03-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Okay. I'm sure those exonerated by DNA would agree with you.

It could never be you at the wrong place, wrong time.

I hope, for your sake, you are never in one of those "wrong places" at the "wrong time."

To think you are immune to being accused because "you'd never do" something like that, is to insult those who have been there... EXACTLY THERE.

It could certainly be you, me, etc., etc., etc.

Peace.

I can't address every point, obviously (partially because I'm still ill with this flue bug), but I DO have a question.

Hairs found under bloody fingernails. That would be telling. The girls were in bed, right? At least the youngest was. How would unsourced hairs get under their bloody fingernails? That has bothered me for a long time.

Matted (probably) in blood, a stray hair, when the child was in bed???

How?

I have to go to bed (and I'm NOT running off, JTF, I've had the flu for over a week).

Thanks for your civility.

-- GO Spurs GO --

spurs01

03-03-2006, 10:43 PM

Um... there were very FEW fingerprints (if any) found at the scene.

Was Helena's hair tested? I read that it wasn't.

Was anyone's hair tested?

Aside from Dr. Mac, Colette, and the kids?

Okay, that's it for me tonight. I'll spare you the details, but I am ill.

If you want to spend $10 a year to post (and message boards are consistently going that way), you are welcome to visit my thread at:

http://forum.ableminds.com/go?50@139.TTgaa5s1dYm.15918@.893ac102/18

Peace.

stinkerbelle

03-03-2006, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Someone in this thread once asked me (and I paraphrase) "Why don't you start your own website?"
that was me and it was in response to your comment about not taking someone seriously for having an opinion that differs from yours. you think evidence was supressed or undisclosed, but not everyone, and especially not the courts, believe this. my point was if you only want to talk to people who absolutely agree with you in every way, you should talk to the face in your mirror, not on a free public message board.

Well, it's happened. Innocent folks in jail. DNA proof.
of course it happens, as do psy-ops, conspiracies, governments doing bad things, etc., but that does not mean it happened in this case. if you read the trial transcripts (and especially his closing argument) you see that bernie really had no idea of the implication of the evidence; it seems he never even bothered to seriously check most of it out because he was counting on macdonald's all american-golden boy-revered doctor-green beret-couldn't possibly have done this persona to overrule all the stuff that proved he did do it. bernie claims that certain evidentiary items were not disclosed to him, but what if they were but bernie did not take the time to adequately wade through all of it?
I believe the evidence supression was great. And I am astounded that, in this country, it was allowed. I remain amazed that, upon review, the courts did not allow the evidence in. That's the part I'll never understand.
them's the breaks luv. like it or not, it's the way it is. as i stated before, your opinion, my opinion, any poster's opinion, and even macdonald's opinion do not count; only the opinion of the court counts and it may suck to some people, but that's what we have to work with. [which, of course, is different than stating you are not entitled to your own opinion; i certainly do not believe that]

I think he's not guilty of these crimes!
why? i'm not at all being snarky or argumentative here, i'd truly like to know. is it a personal issue (your background with knowing crime victims/working closely with someone in the legal field, you can't believe/understand how a father would do such a thing, you can't believe/understand how someone of jeffrey macdonald's "caliber" could do such a thing)? is it the evidence itself? and if so, tell me WHAT about the evidence disturbs you. is it just the feeling that his trial was unfair? seriously, i would like to know...i find it fascinating how we can all read the same words but draw completely opposing conclusions from them.
I will tell ya'll this... if the DNA under anyone's fingernails is proven to be Dr. Mac's? I will eat my own keyboard...
why would you be surprised if it were mac's DNA? he lived there and supposedly rendered aid. or perhaps i read this wrong? :shrug:
However, I am more interested in the Britt Affidavit, and what credence that tidbit may be given. I showed it one of my bosses (a defense lawyer I've worked for in excess of 20 years). He is not a litigator but used to clerk for a federal judge (years later, his boss, the Judge was assasinated -- no connection, just a comment). I showed it to the other lawyer (a med-mal defense litigator). They both said the Britt thing could be explosive.
explosive in what way? what was their reasoning? (again, no snarkifying here, i'm truly interested)

JTF

03-03-2006, 11:10 PM

Spurs: The only types of hair that can be compared under a microscope are head and pubic hairs. Every single head and pubic hair found inside 544 Castle Drive matched a MacDonald family member. The CID obtained head hair samples from Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, Helena Stoeckley, and Cathy Perry. As I surmised in my last post, the girls probably exchanged hair fragments when they played together on February 16, 1970. There were 104 prints of value found at the crime scene and 30 were deemed unidentified. The sources of most, if not all, of the unidentified prints were probably Colette, Kimberly, and Kristen. Why? Well, the prints of Kimberly and Kristen were not obtained at autopsy, and the prints of Colette were of poor quality.

JTF.

stinkerbelle

03-03-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by spurs01

Hairs found under bloody fingernails. That would be telling. The girls were in bed, right? At least the youngest was. How would unsourced hairs get under their bloody fingernails? That has bothered me for a long time.

Matted (probably) in blood, a stray hair, when the child was in bed???

How?

i think hair evidence found at a crime scene, and certainly that found on a victim, can be significant. however, in this case, i find it less significant simply because it is hair (rather than skin, for instance) and the two victims we're talking about are children.

neither kim nor kris were bathed before bed that nite (or at least mac has never mentioned doing so).

i can see hairs being under their fingernails BEFORE the blood got there simply because kids can be disgustingly dirty little creatures at times.

i can also see hairs being under their bloody fingernails simply because there were hairs in the bed linens/pajamas/toys/etc. since hair is freaking everywhere and might stick to blood.

and yes, i can see them being from the person who murdered them except for the fact that the hairs have female characteristics and are from 2 different sources and i happen to believe macdonald did it.

stinkerbelle

03-03-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
Um... there were very FEW fingerprints (if any) found at the scene.
really now....funny then, isn't it, how mac claims 30+ unidentified prints point directly at intruders.

JTF

03-04-2006, 01:30 AM

SB: The MacDonald camp can't even get on the same page when it comes to the number of unidentified prints found at the crime scene. In Fatal Justice, Bost and Potter claim that there were, "more than 3 dozen" unidentified prints found at the crime scene. In her book, I Accuse, author Melinda Stephens states that there were 29 unidentified prints and she lists the exact location of each print. In the list of evidentiary items provided to the parole board in 2005, Kathryn MacDonald stated that there were 17 unidentified prints found at the crime scene. The simple fact of the matter is that both the CID in 1971, and the FBI in 1975, list a total of 30 unidentified prints found at 544 Castle Drive. None of the prints obtained from Greg Mitchell, Helena Stoeckley, Cathy Perry, Allen Mazzerolle, Don Harris, Bruce Fowler, Annette Cullity, and Joseph Lee matched any of the 30 unidentified prints.

JTF.

JTF

03-04-2006, 09:14 AM

Bert: Wow. Very weak and, as usual, inaccurate on a number of fronts. There were no "technical problems" with the fingerprint samples obtained from Stoeckley by Jim Gaddis. Gaddis carefully wrapped up a drinking glass used by Stoeckley and the CID was able to lift clear prints from that glass. It's that simple. Why no commentary on the other points brought up in my prior posts on the prints? I'm assuming it's because there is nothing to discuss when it comes to prints matching and/or not matching certain individuals in this case. I also noticed that you didn't mention the fact that James Osterburg wasn't "totally mystified" by Stombaugh's pajama top theory. He was so impressed by the experiments conducted by Stombaugh and Shirley Green that during the 1979 trial, he told Bernie Segal that he should start preparing his client's appeal brief.

JTF.

Bunny2

03-04-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Has JTF ever spoken to Osterburg about this matter in order to verify it?Did you speak to Stoeckley before she died in order to verify your claim that she was a vampire being protected by the CID, whom you claim were all Masons? Did you speak to her to verify that her candle dripped blood as she said it did? Did you speak to her to verify her claim that she did see MacDonald committing the murders?

Bunny2

03-04-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by spurs01
However, my main point is this: unless ALL of the evidence is heard, shown, disclosed and given the opportunity of rebuttal, how fair of a system is it that we have?Spurs, sorry if I missed the answer, but I didn't see any reply from you to my question a couple of days ago: Can you tell us what this important evidence is, that you imply the defense found to be not "revealed" and which has never been before the courts?

JTF

03-04-2006, 03:38 PM

Bert: So, the 13 prints that were accidentally destroyed at the crime scene just happened to be the prints of members of the Stoeckley group? Of all the rotten luck, eh? One hundred and four prints of value found at the crime scene and no match to any of the Stoeckley group, yet the 13 destroyed prints were the key to proving MacDonald's innocence, LOL! McGinniss' descriptions of the conversation between Osterburg and Segal is unreliable, yet McGinniss' descriptions of Stoeckley's conversations with Segal are reliable enough for use in the government's response to the 4th Circuit Motion? Again, LOL!

JTF.

Bunny2

03-04-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Helena also mentioned that she thought it was Dwight Smith who struck the first blows at...MacDonald at the MacDonald murders scene.Bertie, why not head on over to A&E and review the six or seven months' worth of postings to you about this issue, since it seems you've forgotten the facts about his non-involvement?Judge Dupree ought to have allowed all that Stoeckley information to be presented to the court and jury at the 1979 trial. It never was. It was "undisclosed" evidence as spurs101 phrases it.I guess you didn't see some of that testimony which apparently took place in front of the jury, nor, apparently, have you bothered to even check to see if Stoeckley and her "witnesses" testified to the court. For your information, a lot of information and facts about the case is mentioned on Christina's website at

http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com

You will also find information there regarding the courts' decisions confirming that there was no wrongly suppressed, "undisclosed" or hidden evidence in this case.

You may want to also review MacDonald's Magical Mystery Tour, since it will refresh your memory and give you a good background on the facts in the case:

http://www.themacdonaldcase.com/html/mmt.html

Mac was more like a car salesman, or a computer salesman, than a careful murderer. He tried to hide and suppress crucial MacDonald case forensic evidence from the very start. His psychopathic and narcissistic personality makeup, fueled by overwork, stress, a distaste for family life and perhaps also fueled by an amphetamine psychosis, caused him to explode in a maniacal rage and brutally bludgeon and butcher his family. Repeated demonstrations of the consciousness of his guilt in these crimes, as well as his inability to keep his mouth shut, helped to seal his fate. He will rot in prison and the indelible stain on the fabric of the lives he ruined will never be eradicated.

Bunny2

03-04-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Bert Tansill
Whatever JTF says the fingerprint examination at the MacDonald murders scene was botched.Whatever Bert says, MacDonald botched it royally when he murdered his family and botched it even worse when he decided to stage the scene afterwards.I don't know a great deal about this CID fingerprint man MedlinI'm sure reading the documents at Christina's website will help you learn more.Medlin was very inexperienced, like the so- called CID lab blood experts Terry Laber and Craig Chamberlain...So I guess you've removed them from your list of people who were smart and crafty enough to plan and participate in a widespread conspiracy against MacD. Good.I would like some conclusive evidence from McGinniss that Osterburg ever said any such thing to Segal. McGinniss could be fabricating it out of whole cloth as usual.I would like some conclusive evidence from you regarding any "intruder" committing the murders. Perhaps you're fabricating out of whole cloth as usual.MacDonald forensic expert Dr Thornton was a competent forensic expert.And what a bombshell it was when he agreed with Stombaugh that the imprints of MacDonald's bloody pajama cuffs were on the master bedroom sheet! I'll bet Bernie still hasn't gotten over it. heehee