Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#5907 Aug 1, 2011
JTF wrote:
Wudge: Just read your rambling, bizarre interpretations of my prior posts on the saran fiber issue. Ignoring the information contained in the links I provided to you on this subject will not make it go away. This issue is simple.
1) Michael Malone matched the 24 inch saran fiber to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection. Malone has taken his share of pot shots from the MacDonald camp, but they've NEVER questioned his fiber comparisons. In one of the links I provided to you, the word "identical" is used to describe the conclusions of Malone's fiber comparisons.
This is an example of the bizarre nature of your posts. You call me a liar for stating in a 2007 post that the 24 inch fiber was a "perfect match" to doll hair in the FBI's exemplar collection, yet in the documents that you have chosen to ignore, words used to describe the conclusions of Malone include "matched" and "identical." In essence, you're calling the FBI and the Justice Department a group of liars.
2) I provided you a link to a letter written by John DePue who states that the length of the saran fibers is a non-issue. When removed from the head of a doll, the double-looping process can result in an 11 inch fiber becoming a 22 inch fiber. DePue also points out that the defense NEVER rebutted this possibility.
3) Chemical composition analysis demonstrated that the 3 saran fibers came from 2 different sources. Last time I checked, the MacDonald camp NEVER claimed that someone other than Helena Stoeckley wore a wig on 2/17/70.
4) Freddy Kassab stated that Kimmie and Kristen had over 30 dolls in their collection.
5) Helena Stoeckley testified at trial that she was not wearing her SHOULDER LENGTH WIG on 2/17/70 because Greg Mitchell didn't like how it looked on her.
Face it Wudgie, there is not a shred of evidence linking Helena Stoeckley to the 3 saran fibers. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
You didn't address your blatant lies JTL. Moreover, Malone has long been entirely discredited -- a nice way of saying he too was a scummy liar.

I going to repost from another Topix thread, because it nicely sums up my posts versus your absurd attempt to misdirect, enjoy.

FROM: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-rams...

"JTF, you don't get to retract "perfect match" without admitting that you lied, because that is what you did. You knowingly added the word "perfect" from you went from one post to post to another.

No one ever said "perfect match". You knowingly create these falsehoods.

You did the same thing in our discussion in Crime Library's forum on 5-15-2007 when you claimed that Judith Schivas said in an affidavit that saran could have been the source of the 24" saran fiber. No such affidavit exists -- as I got you to eventually admit.

Fifteen months later, we're in a different forum, and you create your "perfect match" lie on the exact same item of exculpatory evidence (the unsourced 24" saran hair). You know what you are doing when you create these falsehoods. They're no accident. Their boldfaced lies.

Moreover, you pretend people can find these lies somewhere in your website when you direct them there.

As I told you in the Crime Library forum, you and your website have no standing with me. You have zero credibility, and you proved that yet again in this forum.

As for the word "match", when Malone (a discredited liar from the FBI's laboratory who was removed from it because of his lies) uses the words "consistent" or "similar", they do not equate to "match".

Given your own problems with the truth, if your best reference is to a known and disgraced liar like Malone, that is truly pathetic."

Gwyka

Eau Claire, WI

#5908 Aug 1, 2011
Henri - Inmate and the defense have never had an issue with the fact that saran fiber was/is used for doll hair. The issue has been the length of the saran fibers and if saran was used for wigs.

You are now the one creating "facts".
Henri McPhee

London, UK

#5909 Aug 2, 2011
rotm wrote:
<quoted text>
Henri,
Little off topic, but what is your take on Casey Anthony. Guilty or Innocent?
All I really know about the Casey Anthony case is from reading a few internet postings about the case.

My main problem with that case is working out that if she didn't do it, or was not involved, then who did do it?

There have been a few similar sorts of cases in my own area in the UK in the past. Years ago a young Tanzanian mother threw a couple of her young children to their deaths from an apartment balcony. That was regarded as a psychiatric case and she didn't go to prison.

There was another nasty case in which a mother murdered her eleven year old son and then failed to commit suicide herself. She later committed suicide inside the tough northern Durham prison a couple of years later. Personally, I thought that was a psychiatric case as well.

There was another high profile national case a few years ago of a young female lawyer whose two young children died in mysterious circumstances. Her defence lawyers got her out of prison on the defense strategy of possible fatal infections in the children. She did have a serious alcoholic problem which was never given much publicity at the time. She is now dead, I think from alcohol abuse.

Infanticide is not something that was unknown in past centuries. I don't know enough about the female brain to say what drives a woman to do such a thing. I don't know if that matter has ever been researched. There must have been some tragic and desperate resons for infanticide in the past.

In that Darlie Routier case in Texas, in which some of her children were murdered, I honestly think that the police and FBI jumped to conclusions. There have been grave doubts and affidavits and question marks about that Darlie Routier verdict expressed on the internet. Personally, I think the Routier husband did it and he got away with it.
rotm

New York, NY

#5910 Aug 2, 2011
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
All I really know about the Casey Anthony case is from reading a few internet postings about the case.
My main problem with that case is working out that if she didn't do it, or was not involved, then who did do it?
There have been a few similar sorts of cases in my own area in the UK in the past. Years ago a young Tanzanian mother threw a couple of her young children to their deaths from an apartment balcony. That was regarded as a psychiatric case and she didn't go to prison.
There was another nasty case in which a mother murdered her eleven year old son and then failed to commit suicide herself. She later committed suicide inside the tough northern Durham prison a couple of years later. Personally, I thought that was a psychiatric case as well.
There was another high profile national case a few years ago of a young female lawyer whose two young children died in mysterious circumstances. Her defence lawyers got her out of prison on the defense strategy of possible fatal infections in the children. She did have a serious alcoholic problem which was never given much publicity at the time. She is now dead, I think from alcohol abuse.
Infanticide is not something that was unknown in past centuries. I don't know enough about the female brain to say what drives a woman to do such a thing. I don't know if that matter has ever been researched. There must have been some tragic and desperate resons for infanticide in the past.
In that Darlie Routier case in Texas, in which some of her children were murdered, I honestly think that the police and FBI jumped to conclusions. There have been grave doubts and affidavits and question marks about that Darlie Routier verdict expressed on the internet. Personally, I think the Routier husband did it and he got away with it.
Thank you Henri. I always love reading your posts. But Henri, Darlie did it and she has exhausted all her appeals I believe.
Henri McPhee

London, UK

#5911 Aug 2, 2011
Gwyka wrote:
Henri - Inmate and the defense have never had an issue with the fact that saran fiber was/is used for doll hair. The issue has been the length of the saran fibers and if saran was used for wigs.
You are now the one creating "facts".
The trouble is the FBI can just say the blonde synnthetic hair like fiber PROBABlY came from a doll and judges can say there is no evidence it did come from a human wig. That isn't evidence.

The local detective Beasley saw Helena's wig. It was really bad police work that this Helena wig was never taken in as evidence before Helena destroyed it. Then she made up some story about Greg Mitchell not liking her wearing it. I suppose Beasley just thought it was the Army CID responsiblity and jurisdiction and they were not interested in the blonde wig.

I think Caphill summed it up well a few years ago on the internet:

"Bingo!. That is what the fuss is all about. The saran "fiber", "wig strand" or 22 and 24 inch synthetic things"(or whatever you want to call them) found in a hair brush were not discovered by MacDonald's team for almost 2 decades. The CID et al and prosecution managed to tuck these 22/24 inch thingies that looked just like wig strands away from the defense and the jury.

Double dare anyone to cite anything that shows the 21/2 and 5 yr old little MacDonald girls had a doll that was large enough to be sporting hair that was 2 ft long or even 1 foot long. ALso double dare anyone to name the doll that the infamous FBI Malone indicted had saran 22 and 24 inch hair."
Gwyka

Eau Claire, WI

#5912 Aug 2, 2011
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
The trouble is the FBI can just say the blonde synnthetic hair like fiber PROBABlY came from a doll and judges can say there is no evidence it did come from a human wig. That isn't evidence.
The local detective Beasley saw Helena's wig. It was really bad police work that this Helena wig was never taken in as evidence before Helena destroyed it. Then she made up some story about Greg Mitchell not liking her wearing it. I suppose Beasley just thought it was the Army CID responsiblity and jurisdiction and they were not interested in the blonde wig.
I think Caphill summed it up well a few years ago on the internet:
"Bingo!. That is what the fuss is all about. The saran "fiber", "wig strand" or 22 and 24 inch synthetic things"(or whatever you want to call them) found in a hair brush were not discovered by MacDonald's team for almost 2 decades. The CID et al and prosecution managed to tuck these 22/24 inch thingies that looked just like wig strands away from the defense and the jury.
Double dare anyone to cite anything that shows the 21/2 and 5 yr old little MacDonald girls had a doll that was large enough to be sporting hair that was 2 ft long or even 1 foot long. ALso double dare anyone to name the doll that the infamous FBI Malone indicted had saran 22 and 24 inch hair."
Henri - you originally stated, "The FBI questioned doll experts to try to get them to admit saran was used in the manufacture of dolls. The FBI didn't have much success with that because the doll experts were so mystified about which doll was supposed to have the saran."

You were raising an issue about if saran is used for doll hair, not just if the saran fibers found in the hairbrush in this case came from a dollo.

Saran is used for doll hair - that has never been disputed by Inmate.
Henri McPhee

London, UK

#5913 Aug 3, 2011
Gwyka wrote:
<quoted text>
Henri - you originally stated, "The FBI questioned doll experts to try to get them to admit saran was used in the manufacture of dolls. The FBI didn't have much success with that because the doll experts were so mystified about which doll was supposed to have the saran."
You were raising an issue about if saran is used for doll hair, not just if the saran fibers found in the hairbrush in this case came from a dollo.
Saran is used for doll hair - that has never been disputed by Inmate.
I take your point, but you seem to miss the point that the FBI say saran was never used in blonde wig hair, which is patently untrue. JTF says the FBI, and Malone, say their doll exemplar is identical to the synthetic hair-like fibers in the MacDonald case, then let the FBI release their forensic test results for an independent investigation and second opinion. In my opinion that should be done under the American Brady law.

As Caphill has mentioned on the internet before it's most unlikely that two very little girls had dolls which had two foot long hair or even one foot long hair as DePue of the Justice Department surmised could be folded in half.

This problem JTF mentioned of the fibers having different chemical compostion could be explained by investigating the manufacturing process for cheap Helena Stoeckley wigs. It has been suggested before that those type of wigs were cobbled together from different fiber manufacturers.

There is some legal waffle about all this in a judicial ruling, I think, on April 11 2011:

"In 1997, MacDonald filed a motion to reopen the proceedings on his second postconviction motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), on the ground that the government and one of its witnesses (the FBI forensic examiner responsible for analyzing the blond synthetic fibers) had perpetrated a fraud on the court.

In support of his motion, MacDonald claimed that he had discovered evidence establishing that the FBI forensic examiner had falsely testified that the blond fibers — because they were made from a substance called "saran" — likely had come from a doll rather than a wig. MacDonald’s evidence reflected that, contrary to the FBI forensic examiner’s testimony, the FBI’s own reference collection contained a text stating that saran was used in the manufacture of wigs, and that, prior to filing its response to the second motion, the government had interviewed two doll experts who opined that the blond fibers probably did not come from a doll.

MacDonald also proffered affirmative evidence — consisting of recently obtained statements of wig and fiber industry executives — that saran was used to make wigs before 1970.

In conjunction with his Rule 60(b) motion to reopen proceedings, MacDonald sought access to all items of physical evidence analyzed by the FBI forensic examiner, plus other unsourced hairs, fibers, and blood debris found in critical locations, so that he could conduct independent laboratory analyses including newly available DNA tests.

The district court denied MacDonald’s Rule 60(b) motion for failure to show that the FBI forensic examiner’s testimony was material to the disposition of the second postconviction motion or that the FBI forensic examiner or any other government agent had committed wrongdoing in defending against the second motion."
Gwyka

Madison, WI

#5914 Aug 3, 2011
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
I take your point, but you seem to miss the point that the FBI say saran was never used in blonde wig hair, which is patently untrue. JTF says the FBI, and Malone, say their doll exemplar is identical to the synthetic hair-like fibers in the MacDonald case, then let the FBI release their forensic test results for an independent investigation and second opinion. In my opinion that should be done under the American Brady law.
As Caphill has mentioned on the internet before it's most unlikely that two very little girls had dolls which had two foot long hair or even one foot long hair as DePue of the Justice Department surmised could be folded in half.
This problem JTF mentioned of the fibers having different chemical compostion could be explained by investigating the manufacturing process for cheap Helena Stoeckley wigs. It has been suggested before that those type of wigs were cobbled together from different fiber manufacturers.
There is some legal waffle about all this in a judicial ruling, I think, on April 11 2011:
"In 1997, MacDonald filed a motion to reopen the proceedings on his second postconviction motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), on the ground that the government and one of its witnesses (the FBI forensic examiner responsible for analyzing the blond synthetic fibers) had perpetrated a fraud on the court.
In support of his motion, MacDonald claimed that he had discovered evidence establishing that the FBI forensic examiner had falsely testified that the blond fibers — because they were made from a substance called "saran" — likely had come from a doll rather than a wig. MacDonald’s evidence reflected that, contrary to the FBI forensic examiner’s testimony, the FBI’s own reference collection contained a text stating that saran was used in the manufacture of wigs, and that, prior to filing its response to the second motion, the government had interviewed two doll experts who opined that the blond fibers probably did not come from a doll.
MacDonald also proffered affirmative evidence — consisting of recently obtained statements of wig and fiber industry executives — that saran was used to make wigs before 1970.
In conjunction with his Rule 60(b) motion to reopen proceedings, MacDonald sought access to all items of physical evidence analyzed by the FBI forensic examiner, plus other unsourced hairs, fibers, and blood debris found in critical locations, so that he could conduct independent laboratory analyses including newly available DNA tests.
The district court denied MacDonald’s Rule 60(b) motion for failure to show that the FBI forensic examiner’s testimony was material to the disposition of the second postconviction motion or that the FBI forensic examiner or any other government agent had committed wrongdoing in defending against the second motion."
No, I'm not missing that point, as my prior posts have mentioned the issues with the saran (length, was it never used for wigs), my point was that your statement that it was not used for doll hair is wrong.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#5915 Aug 4, 2011
"You didn't address your blatant lies JTL. Moreover, Malone has long been entirely discredited -- a nice way of saying he too was a scummy liar."

Wudge: Did you even read my post? I can understand why you won't read the links I provided to you, but you can't even take a minute to read my COMPREHENSIVE response to your repetitive/debunked claims. Typical MacDonald camp nonsense. Ignoring the documented record places you at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to discuss the evidence in a salient manner. You simply rinse and repeat.

"your absurd attempt to misdirect, enjoy."

Wudge: Pot, meet kettle. Heck, you don't even attempt to misdirect. You simply refuse to address the mountain of evidence proving that your hero murdered his entire family.

"JTF, you don't get to retract "perfect match" without admitting that you lied, because that is what you did. You knowingly added the word "perfect" from you went from one post to post to another. No one ever said "perfect match". You knowingly create these falsehoods."

Wudge: Pardon the expression, but you continue to split hairs on this issue. This is classic MacDonald camp bait and switch. You haven't addressed any of the evidentiary points I've presented in multiple posts on this forum, yet choose to obsess about the wording used to describe the comparison of doll hair and the 24 inch saran fiber. Is there a significant difference between the term "perfect match" and words like "matched" or "identical?" If you believe there is, you need to get out more.

"You did the same thing in our discussion in Crime Library's forum on 5-15-2007"

Wudge: You don't discuss the MacDonald case. You simply throw out dubious claims and refuse to address the evidence which led to the conviction of your master.

"when you claimed that Judith Schivas said in an affidavit that saran could have been the source of the 24" saran fiber. No such affidavit exists -- as I got you to eventually admit."

Wudge: The sky is falling and the kids haven't had breakfast. Tell you what, I'll continue to do what you've refused to do for the past 4 years. I was mistaken in stating that Judith Schivas signed an affidavit. The information provided by Schivas was in the form of an interview. I admitted my mistake in 2007, yet I don't seem to recall you admitting to any mistakes in the past 4 years. That's the difference between you and me. Since 2007, I've corrected several mistakes on my website, yet inmate has NEVER corrected the distortions, half-truths, and flat-out lies that STILL can be found on his website.

"As I told you in the Crime Library forum, you and your website have no standing with me. You have zero credibility, and you proved that yet again in this forum."

Wudge: Oh, no. How can I ever cope? So, I'm assuming you find the information on inmate's website to be credible? Yikes. Just wondering, are MacDonald groupies credible?

"As for the word "match", when Malone (a discredited liar from the FBI's laboratory who was removed from it because of his lies) uses the words "consistent" or "similar", they do not equate to "match"."

Wudge: Ah, Wudgie, you've already taken your shot at Malone earlier in your post. Rinse and repeat. I probably shouldn't point this out because you refuse to read the content of my posts, but here goes. Inmate's rotating band of lawyers has not rebutted Malone's fiber comparisons. Can you comprehend that? For the most part, Malone's hair and fiber analysis has stood the test of time. If you want to have a discussion about serial liars, look no further than your boy serving time in Cumberland for murdering his entire family.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#5916 Aug 5, 2011
THE FACTS THAT WON'T GO AWAY.

A 1979 jury convicted Jeffrey MacDonald in less than 7 hours of murdering his wife and two young daughters.

MacDonald has spent 30 of the past 32 years in prison.

At trial, the prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file.

With the exception of speedy trial issues and remands back to the District Court, MacDonald has lost every single appellate decision since 1978.

Every single SOURCED evidentiary item found at the crime scene pointed to MacDonald's guilt. This includes fiber, blood, hair, footprint, and fabric impression evidence.

There was not a single evidentiary item that was SOURCED to a KNOWN intruder suspect. This includes fiber, hair, fingerprint, footprint, and DNA evidence.

DNA test results excluded Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell from the crime scene.

A limb hair found clutched in Colette MacDonald's left hand and two body hairs found on bedding items at the crime scene matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald.

For over a decade, the defense argued that the presence of a wood splinter in Colette's left hand indicated that the wielder of the club was the source of the limb hair. In addition, Jeffrey MacDonald claims he never touched the bedding that contained his body hairs, bloody cuff impressions from his pajama top, multiple fibers from his pajama top, and a bloody fiber from his pajama top found twisted with a head hair from Colette.

Jeffrey MacDonald flunked a polygraph exam administered by Cleve Backster in the Spring of 1970.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#5918 Aug 5, 2011
"Why is this topic on the JonBenet thread, when it has nothing to do with the murder of JB??????????"

Moon Jack: I created this thread in response to Henri's JEFFREY MACDONALD IS INNOCENT thread. Just fighting the good fight. Have you asked this same question on Henri's thread? If Henri discontinues that thread, I'll be more than happy to stop posting on this thread.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee

London, UK

#5919 Aug 6, 2011
The only reason I started a Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald thread on this Topix forum was because I managed to get banned on other MacDonald biased forums. I think the truth needs to be told about a gross miscarriage of justice and a public scandal. Just because Dr. MacDonald has been wrongly in prison for thirty years isn't proof of guilt.

On one forum I was acused of talking to myself about the MacDonald case which just about proves how alert the American public and media is to the MacDonald case.

The evidence against Dr. MacDonald is extremely weak. There may be a thousand items of evidence but those items were never presented to a court becuse they are inadmissible, or 'incompetent' as I think the legal term is in America. The evidence that was presented to a court was mostly manufactured evidence and pure speculation.

The American police and Army CID and FBI don't seem to know how to detect difficult murders. Totally inexperienced and lousy detectives should never be involved on those sort of cases, like the Ramsey case. That's faulty organisation. They get round that problem by prosecuting innocent people. The real culprits go free.

There needed to be some good judges on the MacDonald case. There were a few good judges on that speedy trial MacDonald case round about 1980 but they were outnumbered. Since that time the biased judges Dupree and Fox have been in control of the MacDonald case. Officialdom never admits a mistake. There has been corruption by the Justice Department, and by the FBI in the MacDonald case.

This business that JTF mantions of pajama fibers entwined with a hair is mentioned on the internet:

"Jurors had been told of pajama fibers, entwined with a hair, of Mrs. MacDonald being found on a bedspread. They were not told that investigators had "examined debris from the bedspread three times in 1970 and found none of Colette's bloodstained hair."

As for the absence of blood in the hallway where MacDonald claims he struggled with the assailants who slashed him, "The notes," says Shalit, "reveal that, when Robert Shaw of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division first got to the apartment, he reported a "pile" of blue fibers and a spot of blood (diagnosed as probably type B, MacDonald's type) at precisely the spot in question."

Not only had this information been concealed from the defense lawyers, the prosecution represented the absence of blood at this location as a major discrepancy in MacDonald's story. In other words, they deliberately and knowingly framed the defendant with perjured testimony.

Jurors later cited this point as the main reason they were unable to believe MacDonald's story. As for the "most important" evidence in the case, the "pajama fibers" that the prosecution claimed were found on the club used in the murders, It turns out that what the lab technicians who examined the weapon actually found were "two strands of black wool, wool that didn't match any clothing in the apartment," says Shalit."
Henri McPhee

London, UK

#5920 Aug 6, 2011
Polygraphs are pseudo science and JTF should not use that as evidence against Dr. MacDonald. It's not regarded as legal evidence in the UK and I think also in most states in America. That's why John Ramsey wasn't keen on an FBI polygraph, and his lawyer Lin Wood thought an FBI polygraph would be biased.

The Cleve Backster polygraph was dicussed during MacDonald's libel case against Joe McGinniss in about 1987 which Dr. McDonald won:

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

THE COURT: He said that you were the person?

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

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And have you appeared on the Johnny Carson Show on some occasions, talking about attaching polygraph machines to plants?
A Only one taping of Johnny Carson which was, I believe, reshown because it had Raquel Welch on it, not because I was on it.
Q And did the plants react to Raquel Welch on the show?
A No. I know a number of people who did, but I don't know whether the plants did.
Q Could you look at Page 619 of Exhibit 402, that's the book?
A Yes.
Q What he's saying here about--in the first full paragraph on Page 619, about the fact that you polygraph plants, and being on the Johnny Carson Show; that's true, isn't it? Essentially?
A Well, where is the part about Johnny Carson?
Q The first full paragraph on Page 619.
A 619. Okay. Well, he says "He's on the Johnny Carson Show all the time." That is not true.
Q But it was shown several times; right?
A Once, and once it was repeated, yes.
Q And did you talk with Mr. Segal about the fact that you were bigger in your field than John Reid?
A No. I would not have said that, because I wouldn't necessarily have believed that at the time--
Q Did you talk--beg your pardon. Go ahead.
A John Reid passed away in 1982. So I think I could say that now.
Q Now, you don't recall any of the preparatory questions that you gave him, the control questions; is that right?
There were two control questions.
Q Two control questions?
A Yes.
Q And in--and your testimony is that the answer to those two control questions would show up any problems of extreme emotional distress or respiratory problems that a person had, in order to be able to evaluate the test; is that right?
A No, it's not right.
Q How would that--how do those control questions help?
A Well, the difficulties that you mentioned, the respiratory difficulties, would show through-out the entire chart. They would not relegate themselves to either the control question or to the relevant question.
Q So how do the control questions help you determine whether or not a person is suffering, let's say, the effects of a collapsed lung?
A That isn't the way we would attempt to see if we had a problem. It would be the overall nature of the tracings, not the control questions per se.
Q But those are the only two control questions you can recall asking?
A Yes.
Gwyka

Eau Claire, WI

#5922 Aug 6, 2011
Henri McPhee wrote:
The only reason I started a Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald thread on this Topix forum was because I managed to get banned on other MacDonald biased forums. I think the truth needs to be told about a gross miscarriage of justice and a public scandal. Just because Dr. MacDonald has been wrongly in prison for thirty years isn't proof of guilt.
On one forum I was acused of talking to myself about the MacDonald case which just about proves how alert the American public and media is to the MacDonald case.
The evidence against Dr. MacDonald is extremely weak. There may be a thousand items of evidence but those items were never presented to a court becuse they are inadmissible, or 'incompetent' as I think the legal term is in America. The evidence that was presented to a court was mostly manufactured evidence and pure speculation.
The American police and Army CID and FBI don't seem to know how to detect difficult murders. Totally inexperienced and lousy detectives should never be involved on those sort of cases, like the Ramsey case. That's faulty organisation. They get round that problem by prosecuting innocent people. The real culprits go free.
There needed to be some good judges on the MacDonald case. There were a few good judges on that speedy trial MacDonald case round about 1980 but they were outnumbered. Since that time the biased judges Dupree and Fox have been in control of the MacDonald case. Officialdom never admits a mistake. There has been corruption by the Justice Department, and by the FBI in the MacDonald case.
This business that JTF mantions of pajama fibers entwined with a hair is mentioned on the internet:
"Jurors had been told of pajama fibers, entwined with a hair, of Mrs. MacDonald being found on a bedspread. They were not told that investigators had "examined debris from the bedspread three times in 1970 and found none of Colette's bloodstained hair."
As for the absence of blood in the hallway where MacDonald claims he struggled with the assailants who slashed him, "The notes," says Shalit, "reveal that, when Robert Shaw of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division first got to the apartment, he reported a "pile" of blue fibers and a spot of blood (diagnosed as probably type B, MacDonald's type) at precisely the spot in question."
Not only had this information been concealed from the defense lawyers, the prosecution represented the absence of blood at this location as a major discrepancy in MacDonald's story. In other words, they deliberately and knowingly framed the defendant with perjured testimony.
Jurors later cited this point as the main reason they were unable to believe MacDonald's story. As for the "most important" evidence in the case, the "pajama fibers" that the prosecution claimed were found on the club used in the murders, It turns out that what the lab technicians who examined the weapon actually found were "two strands of black wool, wool that didn't match any clothing in the apartment," says Shalit."
Now it is you again creating "facts", but Wudge is nowhere to be found ranting about liars and rats.

The tiny spot of blood found on the floor of the hallway near the living room (that was so small it couldn't be determined for sure what type it was) was not withheld from the defense - Berni Segal questioned Craig Chamberlain (guy who collected blood evidence at the scene) about it at the trial.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#5924 Aug 6, 2011
Moon Jack wrote:
Why is this topic on the JonBenet thread, when it has nothing to do with the murder of JB??????????
Leave them alone, at least they have sense enough to contain the MacDonald conversation to one thread, which is more than I can say for you starting 10 new senseless threads a day. You could take a lessen from them, LOL!

Since: Oct 08

Washington, DC

#5927 Aug 8, 2011
Hi All - just had to pop in here and make the following comments:

If as Henri (and no doubt Wudgie) like to claim there were cosmetic wigs made of saran in 1960-1970s how come not one single example of such has been found to date?

1. Saran was used in doll wigs (yes, that is what they are called whether sewn on or not) since the 1950s.

2. Saran was used in falls and hair pieces (like braids, curls, switches) since at least mid-60s

3. Saran was used in costume and mannequin wigs.

4. There is a distinct and important difference between these items and a cosmetic wig meant to be worn frequently, washed, and styled routinely.

In all of the years since inmate slaughtered Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and the unborn baby boy NO ONE has found a cosmetic wig from the period made with saran. It is that simple.
ohwell

Culloden, WV

#5928 Aug 9, 2011
n all of the years since inmate slaughtered Colette, Kimmie, Kristy, and the unborn baby boy NO ONE has found a cosmetic wig from the period made with saran. It is that simple.

was it ever proven that the wig was cosmetic or mannequin?she could have been wearing either.

Since: Oct 08

Washington, DC

#5929 Aug 9, 2011
the wig Helena allegedly wore from time to time was a blonde "bob" thus it does not even come close to matching the description inmate gave of the female intruder. inmate said the female intruder had "long, stringy blonde hair".
Henri McPhee

London, UK

#5930 Aug 9, 2011
byn63 wrote:
the wig Helena allegedly wore from time to time was a blonde "bob" thus it does not even come close to matching the description inmate gave of the female intruder. inmate said the female intruder had "long, stringy blonde hair".
How do you know it was a cosmetic wig? You are just making it up and jumping to conclusions. The FBI has a reference book which states thast there is saran in some wigs.

The fact is the FBI say that a 24 inch blonde synthetic hair like fiber came from a doll and not a wig. That's surprising to me, and to other people. A reasonable jury would ask the FBI to provide hard documentary evidnce of that FBI belief, which in my opinion the FBI might find hard to provide, and which the FBI refuses to do, because the FBI are lying.

There is some legal waffle on the internet about this matter from the MacDonald lawyers Good and Cormier:

"More recently, in April 1997, MacDonald filed a motion to reopen his 1990 habeas petition on the grounds that, during the litigation of that petition, an FBI agent had committed fraud on the court by submitting affidavits which included deliberately false statements on the issue of whether certain items of physical evidence found at the crime scene could have originated from an individual named Helena Stoeckley, who, within days of the murders had confessed to numerous persons that she and others had committed these horrendous crimes.

From the beginning, MacDonald described one of the intruders as a woman with blond shoulder-length hair and a floppy hat.

At the time, Stoeckley, the daughter of an Army colonel, regularly wore a blond shoulder-length wig and floppy hat. One of the issues raised in the 1990 petition was whether certain blond synthetic fibers found at the crime scene -- 22" and 24" in length - could have come from a wig worn by Stoeckley, thereby corroborating her presence at the crime scene.

The government's FBI expert maintained that these particular fibers were never used in the production of wigs, and came from a doll, even though textile reference books from the FBI Laboratory Library affirmatively stated that these fibers had in fact been used in the manufacture of wigs prior to 1970, and the government's investigation also revealed that they were too long to have originated from a doll."

Since: Oct 08

Washington, DC

#5931 Aug 10, 2011
Henri - I know the wig was most likely a cosmetic wig because (1) where would a hippy drug addict get her hands on a mannequin wig?(2) why would anyone wear a mannequin wig which does not look at all like real hair (3)if could have been a costume wig but again, they don't look real. Plus the description of the wig that Helena occasionally wore was of a blonde "bob" which is a very specific style of SHORT hair. So, although I know it is ridiculous to try and explain to idiots such as yourself I will once again point out the obvious "a blonde bob" does not match inmate's description of the female intruder. inmate said the female intruder had "long stringy blonde" hair.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who mixes ice cream and pineapple? 54 min WeAreTheAliens 4
Suspect Randy Simons! (Dec '07) 1 hr Jolamom 268
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 2 hr stoned luck aka ... 84
News JonBenet Ramsey Book Reveals Analysis of Murder (Jun '15) 3 hr Robconott 18
Missy Bevers 3 hr stoned luck aka ... 8
Patsy vs Burke 5 hr berryteaIsAnIdiot 140
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 10 hr icu2 366
More from around the web