Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty
crofton md

Washington, DC

#7013 Jul 30, 2012
Henri, you know damn well why the pj top is important. Colette's blood on his top prior to the top being ripped is very convincing evidence of MacDonald's guilt. The defense attempted to find an expert witness to refute Stombaugh's conclusions, but could not.
sketch

Panama City, FL

#7014 Jul 30, 2012
Maybe JFT can help me out here. I got into this case in some depth years ago, right from the time of the murders themselves, and later followed a discussion on a couple of evidently now defunct discussion boards--I no longer recall the boards, but maybe AETV was one of them. Anyway, there was a fellow there who I seem to recall was, or at least claimed to be, British, and who spouted the same sort of nonsense that this fellow Henri does, over and over. I could be wrong, but it seems like the fellow on the old board went by the name Art or Arthur. Does anyone remember that? It almost seems that Henri is a version of the fellow I vaguely remember from the old board--or maybe a reincarnation?

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7015 Jul 30, 2012
"It almost seems that Henri is a version of the fellow I vaguely remember from the old board--or maybe a reincarnation?"

SKETCH: Nice spot. Henri has posted on multiple cases on multiple true crime discussion boards using multiple poster names.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Since: Apr 12

Garland, TX

#7016 Jul 31, 2012
Good points Scout61, but what do you make of the position of the couch basically PARALLEL and equa-distant from the couch? That was the point I was trying to make.
FOUR INTRUDERS plus MacDonald "kind of struggling"
right next to couch/coffee table, how does it end up looking EXACTLY as if merely tipped over?
The location of the SLIPPERS is also at odds with such a "kind of struggle"*

IMO, you could make a strong case for a staged scene from THIS ONE PHOTO ALONE.

Another inexplicable item is the Esquire Magazine on the BOTTOM of the pile.
To beleive MacDonald, one has to conclude a hippie intruder leafed through that magazine, leaving a blood smudge but NO OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE, then lifted the table in order to put the magazine on the bottom of the stack.
PREPOSTEROUS HOGWASH!

Glazier, I see what you're saying. If you really stop to think about it, it seems unlikely that the coffee table would have been tipped over at all in a struggle, since most coffee tables are only about a foot and a half off the ground. It is more likely that it would have just been pushed around without falling over. Especially since Macdonald claims his feet were caught up in the afgan blanket and therefore he would have been unable to kick the table during a struggle. The supposed intruders were standing over the table so I don't see how they could have knocked it over either.

I'm not certain, but I believe the Esquire magazine was on top of the other magazines, not at the bottom of the pile. I seem to remember a photograph shown in one of the documentaries on the case where the narrator pointed out that the edge of the Esquire could be seen just under the child's game.

The Esquire magazine is certainly interesting... It's contents having similarities to Macdonald's story of intruders and the blood on the edge... But there are many problems with it as well. If I am not mistaken, it wasn't collected until later in the investigation. Apparantly by then, crime scene investigators had paged through it, not even noticing blood on the cover. By the time it was collected the only fingerprints found on it were their own! I don't think the blood was proven to even be a fingerprint, though it had the look of a finger smear and it was never proven to have come from Macdonald. So in today's courtroom, it would be considered so severely contaminated as to be useless evidence. If I were a defense lawyer, I would also point out that none of the investigators and crime techs, including the medical examiner, Dr. Neal, who touched all three of the bodies, were wearing gloves as they processed the crime scene.
Henri McPhee

Bournemouth, UK

#7017 Jul 31, 2012
crofton md wrote:
Henri, you know damn well why the pj top is important. Colette's blood on his top prior to the top being ripped is very convincing evidence of MacDonald's guilt. The defense attempted to find an expert witness to refute Stombaugh's conclusions, but could not.
Janice Glisson of the Army CID lab is supposed to be in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI about those blood stains on the pajama top and the blue bedsheet. This is what is stated in various internet articles. She was a specialist blood person, or serologist, or whatever it's called.

I must admit I have never seen the hard documentary evidence of that Glisson opinion. Glisson's lab notes are on the internet, on Christina' s website, but they are written in illegible handwriting.

I honestly think Segal's cross examination of Glisson at the 1979 trial was not exactly the true art of cross examination. It was highly technical and way beyond the comprehension of an average jury. Judge Dupree continually became tetchy and impatient during that Segal cross examination and asking Segal how much longer he was going to be.

Glisson did say at the Grand Jury that the Army CID blood typing might only indicate blood types, which doesn't sound like accuracy to me. As far as I can judge, Glisson was never asked by Segal or Murtagh for her theory about blood being on the pajama top before or after it was torn, which is the crux of the spurious prosecution case against Dr. MacDonald.

This is an example of the speculation and guesswork in the MacDonald case, from the 1974/5 Grand Jury. It's hardly compelling evidence:

MR. WOERHEIDE: It could have been. All we can do is speculate. And your guess is as good as or better than mine.
And because you are a member of the grand jury, and I'm not--it seems to me there's no question there was a struggle.
I do think that Colette, she was a healthy woman, and was not a weakling, and I think Colette did attempt to defend herself.
And it's even conceivable that she started the fight. I don't know. But I do think that she attempted to defend herself.
I think it's consistent with her defending herself that she would pick up the club and swing it at him and hit him on the forehead with it.
Not the sort of blow that was strong enough to break the skin or anything, but to raise a lump.

JUROR: You don't think a hair brush could have made the lump?

MR. WOERHEIDE: I think that's possible, too. There was a hair brush found right along side her body that she could have reached for the hair brush, and then he reached for the club.
I don't know, but so--at some place, I do think that Colette in defending herself did inflict some injury on him.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7018 Jul 31, 2012
"Janice Glisson of the Army CID lab is supposed to be in disagreement with Stombaugh of the FBI about those blood stains on the pajama top and the blue bedsheet."

HENRI: Glisson's main duties were to type the blood found on evidentiary items in this case. She was in training in regards to hair and fiber analysis. Dillard Browning was her supervisor and he allowed her to do some cursory analysis in this case. Her observations about the blood stains on the pajama top was a macroscopic examination of the top, but unlike Stombaugh, she did not use a light box or a microscope during these brief examinations.

In 1971, Stombaugh stated that the four bisected blood stains were visible by sight and with the use of a light box. At trial, Stombaugh was STILL able to point out the four stains by sight, but admitted that the stains were less visible than they were eight years earlier. Time will do that to blood stains.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee

Bournemouth, UK

#7019 Aug 1, 2012
As far as I can judge, Glisson at the Army CID lab was a qualified serologist, unlike Stombaugh of the FBI, who was supposed to be a hair and fiber man, and not a fabric impression man.

Glisson was not supposed to be a hair and fiber expert so there was never any cross examination of Glisson with regard to the crucial blond synthetic wig fibers she found, or the unsourced hairs she found under the little girls' fingernails, or the unsourced black wool fibers around Colette's mouth, and on the wooden club, and around Colette's arm or biceps.

The point is that these fabric impressions were the crux of the case against Dr. MacDonald. JTF says Stombaugh was unable to present those fabric impressions to the court in 1979 using a light box, supposedly because the bloodstains were old, which is rather weak evidence. Stombaugh was unable to present to the court any old photographic evidence of those fabric impressions.

A reasonable juror might wonder if Stombaugh was "fabricating it all out of whole cloth" as the Ramsey case lawyer Lin Wood might phrase it. Or to put it in plain English, Stombaugh was making it all up.

It makes me wonder if the MacDonald defense should have employed Dr. Henry Lee, so that the jury could decide which forensic fraudster to believe.
Henri McPhee

Bournemouth, UK

#7020 Aug 1, 2012
This is from the 1979 trial testimony of Stombaugh. Does this sound like conclusive evidence of fabric impressions to you?

A Yes, sir; you search along the tears, looking for a blood stain that is visible on both sides that had been there before it was torn through.
Q When I mentioned the light box--this is the first time anybody ever mentioned that--but at what stage did you use the light box?
A In the latter stages, looking for additional stains.
Q I see; you mean, then, a light box was not used to find these stains that you are telling us about so far; is that right?
A No, sir; in 1971 these stains were much more visible than they are now.
Q And in 1971, only one of those stains was photographed, and that is the picture we have up here this morning; is that right?
A I believe the whole left sleeve was photographed, sir; but I can't be sure.
Q Do you know where that photo is--ever see that photo?
A Of the whole left sleeve?
Q Yes, sir.
A I have not seen it in a long time; no, sir.
Q Do you think it would aid us if we would go back to--the biggest and the best of these stains is the one right here in the middle; isn't that right, Mr. Stombaugh? The one in the middle of the torn garment?
A That is one stain. The ones on the left sleeve are good, and the ones in the left shoulder area are good.
Q Would you select one, since it is a little awkward for us all to work with the light box? Would you pick the one that you think is the clearest showing of how the garment was torn after it was bloodstained?

(Pause.)

THE WITNESS: We are getting too much light here, Mr. Segal. It obliterates just about everything.

MR. SEGAL: I'm sorry, Mr. Stombaugh. I'm not sure we are clear on that. You say that the light box is giving off so much light that you cannot see any of the stains through it?

THE WITNESS: It obliterates all the stains, sir.

BY MR. SEGAL:
Q That is no help to us now?
A No help.
Q All right, thank you, Mr. Stombaugh. You may go back to the stand. But you say it was a help in 1971?
A The stains were much more vivid in 1971 and the light box had a rheostat on it to control the amount of light coming through.
Q But you didn't actually need it, you say, in 1971 to find the four stains you are talking about today?
A No, sir; I did not.
Q Those were obvious and transparent?
A Yes, sir.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7021 Aug 1, 2012
"This is from the 1979 trial testimony of Stombaugh. Does this sound like conclusive evidence of fabric impressions to you?"

HENRI: The testimony that you provide involves the four bisected Type A blood stains found on inmate's pajama top, NOT the bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet. In addition, Stombaugh points out that in 1971, the light box he used had a rheostat on it, so he had no problem viewing the four stains with his light box. Stombaugh also pointed out the four stains to jurors AND Bernie Segal at the 1979 trial. The documented record demonstrates that the four bisected stains existed, they could be viewed by sight, and with the use of a light box.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
glazier

Mckees Rocks, PA

#7022 Aug 3, 2012
JTF- On your site in the 'Timeline' section it states:"He grabs a club that was holding up a corner of the Master bead floorboard..."
How do we know this?
I know from the '79 trial the club was matched to wood used on 1 of the beds(Kimberly's?)and had paint that matched to his house, but did someone testify as to seeing the club proping up the floorboard?

I went to 'Half-Priced Books' looking for FatalVision and did not find it, Barnes&Noble as well...so, I ORDERED IT FROM AMAZON!$4 for the book,$4 bucks to ship!?!
Anyhoo, it's been about TWENTY YEARS since I last read it so I am looking foward to it!
glazier

Mckees Rocks, PA

#7023 Aug 3, 2012
Oh yeah, 1 other thing I was unaware of was the SUITCASE...sitting in a spot were it SHOULD have had spatter but DID NOT.
Yet one more DAMNING PIECE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF MACDONALD'S GUILT!
crofton md

Washington, DC

#7024 Aug 3, 2012
Too many damning pieces of evidence to count. Poor Henri has reading comprehension issues.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7025 Aug 3, 2012
"JTF- On your site in the 'Timeline' section it states:"He grabs a club that was holding up a corner of the Master bead floorboard..."
How do we know this?"

GLAZIER: During their reinvestigation of this case, the CID concluded that this was the most likely location of the club. Their conclusions were based on many factors which included the condition of the master bed footboard, measurement comparisons of the corner portion of the footboard with the club, grain pattern analysis of the club, location of the club in conjunction with immediate access, etc. In the 1972 CID produced film on this case, narrator Peter Kearns states that the club appeared to have been used to prop up the corner portion of the master bed footboard.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7026 Aug 3, 2012
GLAZIER: Here is a link to the CID's conclusions regarding this issue. The conclusions can be found at the bottom of page 81.

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

JTF

Since: Apr 12

Garland, TX

#7027 Aug 3, 2012
JTF,I've heard this theory about the club being used hold up the bed...

If that were the case, woudn't the bed appear lopsided in the crime scene photos?

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7028 Aug 3, 2012
GLAZIER: Interesting to note that despite the report stating that further laboratory examinations failed to definitively prove that the footboard rested on the club, Kearns states in the CID film that the club was used for this purpose.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Burlington, VT

#7029 Aug 3, 2012
SCOUT: The only thing that was definitively proven about the club was that it was sawed off the same piece of wood used to make slats for Kimmie's bed.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
Henri McPhee

Bournemouth, UK

#7030 Aug 4, 2012
I have always assumed this Army CID story that the wooden club murder weapon came from Kim's bed, as JTF now says, was correct. I don't think it is anything Dr. MacDonald ever said.

It's just that I do have doubts about that now. There was some story that that the wooden club murder weapon was supposed to have come from some sort of store room by the back door. I don't know if that was ever verified.

I do think that the reinvestigation of the urine stain on the master bed , on orders from Army CID agent Kearns, was ludicrously unsatisfactory.

Please tell me how you can accurately indicate a urine stain after testing it after ninety weeks. That's just speculation, not evidence. That was only done to somehow suggest Dr. MacDonald was lying about which little girl the urine stain came from, which he wasn't.

This matter of wood splinters, and by inference the wooden club, was discussed at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970:

Q Now several exhibits that you analyzed contained wood splinters. Is this correct?
A Yes, this is correct.
Q Would you tell us, please, what your conclusions were with respect to those wood splinters?
A The splinters, all the splinters I examined in the various exhibits were grossly similar to the wood of Exhibit A.
Q And what is Exhibit A?
A Exhibit A is the weapon or club found in the MacDonald home.

COL ROCK: Excuse me. When you use the word “grossly similar,” that means--can you put it in a percentage basis? Would you say 50%, 75%, 90%, 100% certain?

WITNESS: Well, we can say it is the same type of wood and has all the same physical characteristics. But we cannot say that this particular wood originated definitely from this Exhibit A, because all wood is similar from the same location of a tree, from the same aged tree, and the same type tree, and you would get similar results in your analysis. So for this reason, rather than saying Exhibit so and so came from Exhibit A, we say Exhibit so and so is grossly similar to all physical characteristics to the weapon, Exhibit A.

COL ROCK: Could I then paraphrase that to say that without a reasonable doubt it is similar?

WITNESS: Yes, sir, without a reasonable doubt it is similar to the material of Exhibit A.

COL ROCK: Thank you. Go ahead, counselor.

MR. EISMAN: I'm going to interpose an object here to the witnesses' characterization of beyond a reason doubt. Where we are dealing with wood of a 2 x 2 variety, we are going to have a hundred manufacturers of runs of similar wood. Every run that they do of a 2 x 2 of a same type of wood would be similar. And at this point unless we can say that this was from either the manufacturer, from exactly the same type of sawing mill or was from the same sawing mill, we have the possibility of extending this into a infinite variety of similar wood; and for the hearing officer to be misled into thinking that this is beyond a reasonable doubt that is from the same wood from the same manufacturer, I think would be an unfair inference to be drawn."
Henri McPhee

Bournemouth, UK

#7031 Aug 4, 2012
That was with the Army CID lab man Browning with regard to wood splinters at the Artcle 32.

JTF

Since: Jul 08

Saint Albans, VT

#7032 Aug 4, 2012
"Please tell me how you can accurately indicate a urine stain after testing it after ninety weeks."

HENRI: The test results of the urine stain found on the master bed was not presented by the prosecution at trial, so what exactly is your point? Those results were a part of the 40 percent of the government's case file that was not presented at the 1979 trial.

"This matter of wood splinters, and by inference the wooden club, was discussed at the Article 32 proceeding in 1970"

HENRI: So, are you claiming that the posted testimony indicates that the club did not come from the MacDonald residence? If my assumption is correct, you're reaching, Henriboy. The grain patterns of the club and the slats removed from Kimmie's bed are a perfect match. The club came from inside the MacDonald residence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

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
IT is now ... 33 min Blue Bottle 14
Ramsey VS Spitz lawsuit (radio show) 39 min Anonymous 61
We're Not Involved - Read My Lips 46 min Anonymous 5
CBS News Article (Nov '12) 48 min Anonymous 61
Dr. Werner Spitz (Apr '07) 58 min Anonymous 18
Jim Clemente on Twitter (Sep '16) 1 hr Anonymous 123
News Boulder DA forming cold case unit to review uns... 1 hr tomgav 1