Send a Message
to JTF

Comments

1,071

Joined

Jul 25, 2008

JTF Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

Inmate's current argument is that the blood evidence opens the door for thousands of intruder suspects. This is the basis for his request for additional DNA tests, but his wife's response brief deliberately ignores two main issues. Those issues include whether the request is untimely and whether the lack of additional DNA tests would result in a "manifest injustice." The government argued that the defense could have requested DNA testing of the blood evidence in 1997 and 1999, but decided not to because they realized that such tests would further strengthen the prosecution's case at the 1979 trial. Setting aside issues regarding blood typing and DNA tests, common sense dictates that inmate's arguments are stalling tactics meant to irritate the government and the Stevenson family. In 1970, inmate admitted to CID investigators that he did not draw blood from any of the mythical hippie home invaders, so his claim that some of the blood stains were from intruders is preposterous. Inmate knows that the source of the Type A blood deposits was Colette, he was the source of the Type B blood deposits, and his children were the sources of the Type AB and Type O blood. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Jan 3, 2016 | post #8172)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

In essence, there are currently two issues that have yet to be decided. 1) The 4th Circuit Court has to decide whether to grant the defense a COA regarding Judge Fox's decision on the "evidence as a whole." 2) This same court has to decide whether to grant inmate additional DNA testing. IMO, the 4th Circuit will grant inmate a COA, but will eventually concur with Judge Fox's decision to deny inmate relief. Unfortunately, I think they allow additional DNA tests, but the testing will not result in a new trial. The 4th Circuit, however, will again waste taxpayer money and this case will not be resolved for another 2 years. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Nov 25, 2015 | post #8171)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

Joey Z filed the informal brief on time. Yup, you heard me right. http://www.crimear chives.net/1979_ma ...136-doc011.pdf IMO, this brief was simply a rehash of prior defense arguments and that simply isn't going to cut it. The 4th Circuit Court basically gave Judge Fox the responsibility of deciding on the merits of the DNA/Britt claims in conjunction with the "evidence as a whole." Judge Fox did just that, yet Joey Z simply argues that Judge Fox's conclusions are wrong. Joey Z provided a few examples of decisions that were overturned due to similar evidentiary arguments, but the cited cases didn't contain one-tenth of the evidence presented by the prosecution at the 1979 trial. Joey Z attempts to combat that FACT by repeating several times over that the prosecution's case at trial was "weak." Ah, no. The prosecution presented over 1,000 evidentiary items and that was only about 60 percent of their case file. Joey Z's opinion about the strength of the prosecution's case is meaningless. The only opinions that matter are Judge Fox's and the jurors who convicted inmate in less than 7 hours. Joey Z was able to keep the case alive by convincing the 4th Circuit that Judge Fox should have ruled on the merits of the DNA/Britt claims using the 2255 as opposed to the 2244. He no longer has that legal hammer to wield, so he simply regurgitates prior defense arguments. It's important to note that past appellate courts have called these arguments "specious. " Judge Fox based his decisions on the 2255 (e.g., evidence as a whole) and determined that the evidence didn't raise to the level of vacating inmate's conviction or granting him a new trial. The government will AGAIN destroy another defense brief and hopefully, the 4th Circuit Court will end this legal circus once and for all. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Nov 13, 2015 | post #8170)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

At the 2012 evidentiary hearing, the defense argued that the AFIP's 2006 DNA test results were exculpatory. Their singular argument was that unsourced DNA (e.g., 3 unsourced hairs) found at the crime scene "proved" the presence of hippie home invaders. The government argued that the test results were inculpatory, not exculpatory. For example, a broken, bloody limb hair found clutched in Colette's left hand matched the DNA profile of Jeffrey MacDonald. In terms of the 3 unsourced hairs, the government pointed out that all 3 hairs were naturally shed, none of the hairs matched the DNA profiles of intruder suspects Helena Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell, and that the hairs could have been deposited months or even years prior to the murders. Judge Fox agreed with the government's point of view and denied inmate a new trial on 5/18/15. The defense is currently attempting to mirror their 2012 DNA arguments by requesting additional DNA testing in this case. If testing is allowed, any unsourced DNA "hits" will result in the defense again arguing that unsourced DNA equals hippie home invaders. This line of defense is absurd, but it is really their only shot. The problem facing the defense is that they waited 12 years to request DNA tests for blood exhibits, so Judge Fox correctly ruled that their request was untimely. Although the defense has admitted that their request was 12 years too late, they attempt to mask this gaffe by stating that not following through with additional DNA testing would result in a "manifest injustice." Most appellate courts would dismiss this specious argument in a NY minute, but this 4th Circuit Court seems to have a soft spot for inmate. From 1982-2008, inmate got his butt kicked by 2 district court judges and 3 circuit court judges. Since 2009, however, the current 4th Circuit Court has consistently ruled in MacDonald's favor. I'm crossing my fingers that the worm will turn and this 4th Circuit Court will finally see the light. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Nov 11, 2015 | post #8168)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

Considering the depth of the government's brief, I would guess that Kathryn will ask for at least one extension to file her sur-reply. Given that the defense has already admitted that the IPA request is untimely, I would assume that Kathryn is going to continue with the "manifest injustice" argument. The legal loopholes that were a part of the original IPA/2255 requests have since been closed. It's safe to say that Kathryn and Joey Z are swimming upstream in their attempts to obtain relief for a convicted triple murderer. www.macdonaldcasef acts.com  (Oct 29, 2015 | post #8163)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

The government's thirty-two page IPA response brief meticulously takes apart Kathryn's two page brief. The most telling excerpts from the government's brief are as follows. "The district court properly denied MacDonald's motion for new DNA testing under the Innocence Protection Act because it was untimely. The district court found that the motion was filed 82 months after the passage of the Act and 66 months after the conclusion of court-ordered DNA testing that MacDonald requested in 1997..." "At the time MacDonald requested testing, Nuclear DNA technology was applicable, it was available, and MacDonald was on notice of the existence of the blood evidence presented at trial, and its significance. PCR-based Nuclear DNA testing was available prior to 1997, and Short Tandem Repeat typing likely was also. Each of these could have been used to discriminate between DNA profiles present in the bloodstain evidence. Additionally, MacDonald could have requested then-available mtDNA testing to exclude MacDonald family members from the blood evidence, but he did not." "Nor would "touch" DNA appear to have any application to a determination as to the contributor of a particular bloodstain." The government also pointed out that the defense never questioned the blood evidence at trial and that the reason they waited so long to file the IPA motion was for tactical reasons. The reasons stem from the distinct possibility that any "new" DNA testing would confirm that... - The footprint was formed in Colette's blood - The 4 bisected blood stains on inmate's pajama top were formed in Colette's blood - The 5 fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet were formed in Colette's blood - Kimmie's blood was found on the blue bedsheet AND on inmate's pajama top I remain skeptical that the 4th Circuit will deny inmate additional DNA testing, but I would be estatic if they finally sided with the government. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Oct 28, 2015 | post #8162)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

Brian Murtagh was involved in two high profile murder cases. The following link is to a three part PBS documentary on the Lockerbie Case. Brian receives a fair amount of screen time. http://www.pbs.org /wgbh/pages/frontl ...ber/#episode-1  (Oct 16, 2015 | post #8160)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

PP: In the following document, the government argued that... http://www.crimear chives.net/1979_ma ...sponse_dna.pdf - MacDonald's motion for DNA testing fails to meet all ten requirements of section 3600 of the IPA - MacDonald has failed to comply with the requirements of section 3600 of the IPA - MacDonald's motion is untimely - The requested testing was available in earlier proceedings - MacDonald is precluded from making any additional motions under the IPA for testing - The requested testing was previously made in a motion which was denied - The motion to test evidence that was previously subjected to DNA testing is not based on new, substantially more probative technology - MacDonald's motion to retest the blood evidence is inconsistent with his defense at trial - MacDonald has failed to identify a theory of defense that is not inconsistent with that presented at trial that would establish his actual innocence - And raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offense - The motion is not reasonable in scope, does not use scientifically sound methods, and is not consistent with accepted scientific practices www.macdonaldcasef acts.com  (Oct 6, 2015 | post #8159)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

PP: Yes, the DNA profiles of the victims can be compared to any DNA sequence extracted from blood exhibits. There are several problems, however , with the IPA request. 1) The defense listed 84 exhibits, but a number of those exhibits were consumed during the AFIP's DNA analysis. 2) Touch DNA is not considered a universally reliable technology. The FBI does not employ that technology in their labs due to its inherent unreliability. 3) MacDonald NEVER claimed to have drawn blood in his mythical fight with 3 armed home invaders. 4) There are several exhibits that involve blood spatter on ceilings and walls. 5) One of the exhibits is the finger section of a surgeon's glove found in the rumpled bedding. That evidentiary item was bombarded by radiation in 1970. This process destroyed any biological evidence that remained on that evidentiary item. 6) Despite acknowledging the FACT that the weapons have been extensively handled, the defense still included the weapons on their exhibits list. IMO, the IPA motion has nothing to do with "proving " that a mythical home invader was leaking blood all over the crime scene. It has everything to do with the defense hanging their collective hats on finding an unsourced Touch DNA profile on a weapon and repeating the same tired argument that unsourced evidence equals hippie intruders. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Oct 6, 2015 | post #8158)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

BYN: Even a cursory examination of Kathryn's points of emphasis reveals a blatant disregard for context. For example, she pulls a singular quote from Judge Fox (e.g., not knowing much about DNA) that had no tangible connection to the nuts and bolts of the IPA. His statement was in reference to the AFIP's DNA tests taking 7 years to complete. Judge Fox asked Christine Mumma if "new" DNA technology would speed up the process? She responded by insisting that "new" DNA testing methods would only take 6 months to complete. John Bruce, however, would have none of it. He pointed out that there were several variables to consider with the most pressing issue being whether this "new" DNA technology was actually "new" and/or an improvement over the technology used by the AFIP. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Oct 3, 2015 | post #8156)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

BUNNY: Thanks for the link. I like how the government pointed out that, unlike the defense, their request for an extension was not an attempt to delay the process. They simply want to present a coherent rebuttal to the hodge podge of talking points presented by Kathryn. The government will now get an extra 4 weeks to lay the hammer down on Kathryn's loose thought content. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Oct 1, 2015 | post #8153)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

When one takes a hard look at the "request " or "recommendati on" for additional DNA testing on 84 exhibits, it becomes quite apparent that the defense is faced with several daunting obstacles. - The weapons in this case were extensively handled to the point where even jurors were able to touch these exhibits - Some of the exhibits include blood spatter on ceilings and walls - Inmate never claimed he drew blood, much less cause an injury which would result in blood spatter - Several exhibits were fully consumed in DNA testing at the AFIP labs - Several exhibits were subjected to destructive DNA testing at the AFIP labs Interesting quote from the government's 2011 response to the request for additional DNA testing. "the instant IPA testing motion's 84 "recommendati ons" do not include the overwhelming number of bloodstains introduced as evidence at trial. This does not appear to be in recognition of the fact that almost all of the trial blood exhibits were attributed to the victims, however, and, therefore are not subject to DNA testing under the IPA merely to confirm these findings." http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Sep 24, 2015 | post #8150)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

SOURCE: 1999 DNA HEARING BRIAN MURTAGH: With respect to nuclear DNA exemplars, we don't have blood samples from the victims at this point. I mean, they were sent to the Third Army Toxicology Laboratory in 1970, and apparently consumed in analysis then. COMMENTARY: There you have it. Kathryn's hollow bluster about DNA tests on blood exhibits is at odds with simple logic. Hey, SMQ, you can't conduct DNA tests on non-existent exemplars. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Sep 16, 2015 | post #8149)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

BUNNY: Thanks for the update. Despite her own legal issues, Kathryn is brazen enough to distort and fabricate the government's position on DNA testing. In this so-called legal document, Kathryn claims that the government "refused " to DNA test blood evidence in this case, yet she seems to have lost her copy of the 1999 DNA hearing transcript. During that hearing, Brian Murtagh pointed out that since most of the blood exemplars in this case were used up at autopsy, little would be gleaned from DNA testing. The government didn't "refuse" to test blood exemplars nor did Barry Scheck insist that the limited number of blood exemplars be DNA tested. In their original IPA brief, the defense asked for 84 exhibits to be tested for Touch DNA. A number of those exhibits were blood exhibits and contained exhibits that had been consumed in prior tests. Some of the exhibits even involved blood that was spattered on ceilings and walls. MacDonald NEVER claimed that he drew blood on any of the mythical intruders nor cause an injury that would result in blood spatter on ceilings and walls. In addition, the defense is asking for Touch DNA testing on the weapons in this case, but ALL of the weapons have been extensively handled in the past 45 years. Kathryn also ignored the FACT that in prior IPA briefs, her husband's legal team flat-out admitted that the original IPA request was untimely. This is just another ruse led by a recycled lawyer, a misguided spouse, and a psychopath. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Sep 15, 2015 | post #8147)

JonBenet Ramsey

Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty

The following are examples of the relationship between the 2244 and 2255. 1) Commentary by the 2nd Circuit Court in 1997 In the absence of...specification , it is logical to assume that Congress intended to refer to all of the subsections of 2244, dealing with the authorization of second and successive motions. 2) Commentary by the 5th Circuit Court in 2001 Although the legislative history is silent as to the extent of 2244's incorporation into 2255, we...can find no intent to treat federal and state prisoners differently. 3) Commentary by the 7th Circuit Court in 2002 Although 2244 refers to 2254 rather than 2255, we have held that the cross-reference to 2244 in 2255, is equally applicable to 2255 motions. 4) 5th Edition of Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure 2005 Section 2255 appears to adopt the same procedure for Section 2255 cases as it applies to successive state-prisoner habeas corpus petitioners under 2244. What the defense did was rely upon a singular paragraph in the 2255 in order to argue that Judge Fox failed to review inmate's gatekeeping motion in light of "evidence as a whole." In 2009, the government argued that, "if those assumptions concerning the applicability of 2244 (b) 2 to gatekeeping motions filed under Section 2255 are correct, the preclusions against the entertainment of previously presented and dismissed claims contained in (b) 1 of the same subsection must also govern such petitions." Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit allowed inmate to play by his own rules (e.g., not filing a PFA, ignoring the 2244), and that led to the 2012 evidentiary hearing. The good news is that the government dominated the hearing to the point where the defense relied on 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay testimony. Gordie didn't call a single forensics expert to the stand, the totality of his rebuttal to the trial evidence fixated on crime scene contamination, and he was forced to use closing arguments as his lone means of presenting the DNA evidence. IMO, the 4th Circuit will do their best to find loopholes in Judge Fox's decision(s) to deny relief, but I believe his strategy of allowing EVERYTHING at the evidentiary hearing will keep inmate in prison. http://www.macdona ldcasefacts.com  (Aug 27, 2015 | post #8145)