Jeffrey MacDonald - Forget The Evidence, I Know He's Guilty
terryh...@my-deja.com
will not have fingerprints match. All we know is that none ever have.
Those who insist on the guilt of Dr. MacDonald deny all probability
while insisting on blind prejudice that ignores the evidence.
andrewsmom <lmar...@bellsouth.net writes:
>>A few pieces of Brady material the prosecution forgot to disclose:
>>- Blood spots where Dr. MacDonald fought with intruders. In fact they
>>claimed there were no blood spots and that the lack of any blood spots
>>proved that Dr. MacDonald was guilty.
>>- A pile of pajama fibers where Dr. MacDonald fought with intruders.
>We go through this & through this Terry. The blood spot (only one
>spot is specifically mentioned, although there may well have been
>more)
[More were witnessed. We can't even be sure how many were collected.]
>and fibers were up the two steps & in the hall. MacDonald fought with
>them by the sofa.
And in the hallway. That is where Dr. MacDonald said he awoke beaten
and stabbed. His wounds are proven as are the blood and fibers. The
fibers BTW were at the bottom of the steps.
Consider that Dr. MacDonald awoke to the screams of his wife and
daughter. Would you think he would not have tried to go to their aid?
Why exactly would you think not?
>No blood or fibers were found there.
Considering what has happened we don't even know that now do we? But
the primary fight would most likely have taken part in the hallway.
>None were found on the sofa, right in the area where the top was torn &
>icepicked.
How do you know? The prosecution has hidden a great deal of evidence.
>Of course, that being said, the evidence still should have been
>disclosed.
>>- Wool fibers on the club and the body of Colette MacDonald that could
>>be matched to nothing in the apartment. In fact the lead prosecutor
>>claimed that the wool fibers on the club were cotton from the pajamas
>>of Jeffrey MacDonald and it was the most important evidence of Dr.
>>MacDonald's guilt. Jigsaw and his buddies probably had a good laugh
>>at that one.
>I still think this was household debris.
A thoughtful consideration or just prejudice? The wool was only in that
one spot and no place else in the apartment.
And didn't you come to believe in Dr. MacDonald's guilt because of the
prosection lies that convicted him?
>Since Colette had been rolled face down onto the carpet, I have trouble
>trusting that any evidence found on her face "came from the murder
>weapon" or from an intruder, for that matter. It may have, but it also
>may not have.
Notice you said "you think." What sort of odds make you think that? Is
it not what you wish to think rather than what any sort of odds would
dictate.
When the only two places that the wool was found was on Colette and on
the club that bludgeoned Colette the probability seems obvious to me.
>I also have not figured out how those two fibers turned from purple
>cotton (initial CID finding) to black wool (FBI finding).
There was no such finding by the CID. It was invention by
prosecutors. The FBI did reclassify 120 pieces of evidence according to
"Tainting Justice." The FBI lab is supposed to be in the vanguard of
laboratories.
>>- A bloody palmprint on the headboard in the master bedroom that could
>>be matched to no one in the MacDonald household nor anyone known to
>>have been in the apartment.
>I still have my doubts about that palmprint.
That is known by psychologists as denial.
>The rest of the evidence I haven't gotten to yet.
While you're working on it try to explain the polygraph. I mean besides
the fiction that those with personality defects, imaginary or otherwise,
are known to pass.
Best, Terry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
andrewsmom
Okay Terry.
1) Polygraphs are always correct in their conclusions.
2) Unidentified debris, fingerprints & palmprints found at the scene of a
crime are always from intruders.
3) Psychological reports that state a man is normal always guarantee that
person is not guilty of the crime.
4) Neighbors who say a person is friendly, likeable & didn't fight with his
wife always know the whole truth.
5) A person that the police sees standing on the corner a couple of blocks
from the crime scene is always the true guilty party.
6) Young women who are hooked on heroin, use mescaline, drink & smoke joints
& have frequent black outs & memory lapses are always to be trusted &
believed by the police because they have been used as informants in the
past.
7) The evidence you like is untainted. The evidence you don't like has
been lost, misclassified & screwed up by the CID.
8) People's memories are made up bits of drivel when they recall something
used by the prosecution. Memories are fact when they recall something used
by the defense.
These are facts.
Lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
Nope. Every statement is untrue. What is true is that we have to use
simple logic. There is no way of knowing that two fingerprints of two
different people will not match. It is only experience that tells us
that. It is the opposite with flipping a coin. Analysis says that half
the time we will get heads. Even experience does not change that
(assuming a perfectly weighted coin and ignoring the possibility of
landing on the edge).
There is no way, through empirical data or analysis, that you can show
that Dr. MacDonald is guilty. Yet you believe it. Why, Lori?
When all the evidence points one way, reasonable people should be able
to accept the truth.
Ronald Helm
<lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>These are facts.
>Lori
Go Lori...sounds like you are becoming less convinced of Jeffrey's
innocence every minute LOL. Ron
andrewsmom
>simple logic. There is no way of knowing that two fingerprints of two
>different people will not match. It is only experience that tells us
>that. It is the opposite with flipping a coin. Analysis says that half
>the time we will get heads. Even experience does not change that
>(assuming a perfectly weighted coin and ignoring the possibility of
>landing on the edge).
>
>There is no way, through empirical data or analysis, that you can show
>that Dr. MacDonald is guilty. Yet you believe it. Why, Lori?
>
>When all the evidence points one way, reasonable people should be able
>to accept the truth.
>
Shouldn't take it so seriously *sigh*.
I disagree with your statement that all the evidence points one way.
Lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
-
> I disagree with your statement that all the evidence points one way.
> Lori
Fine. I await the mysterious evidence that proves guilt. I stand by
fingerprints, a bloody palmprint, hairs in the hands of victims,
polygraphed confessions of Helena Stoeckly and cofesssions of two of her
friends, numerous sightings of the drug cult, etc.
I don't take Tammy's psychic readings or Dr. Helm's knowledge
based on pique seriously. Sorry.
andrewsmom
>attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
>Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
>hands?
>
You know, I've been thinking about this a lot.
There is evidence which puzzles me. A little bit of it.
But not nearly enough.
There were five - seven intruders in that house, and they only left,
possibly, a few fibers, a few fingerprints, a few drops of candle wax & one
bloody palmprint.
It almost sounds like just enough evidence for one intruder, just one.
Did anybody ever consider the possibility that MacDonald had one person come
& help him kill his family?
Lori
t__c...@hotmail.com
>Nope. Every statement is untrue. What is true is that we have to use
>simple logic.
I can't believe that I'm responding to one of Terry Hallinan's posts.
But, I just can't resist responding to the above. OK using "simple
logic," I find Jeffrey MacDonald's story about a group of drug crazed
hippies slaughtering his family in an overkill manner, yet leaving
their biggest threat, MacDonald himself, in reasonably good shape, and
not leaving any physical evidence of their presence, illogical, to say
the least. Add to that, the presence of the magazine with the "Manson
killings" article, and the "Acid is groovy" and "Kill the pigs," and I
then wonder what kind of fools MacDonald thinks we mortals be, to buy
that crock. You'd probably counter with, YES THERE WAS PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE. A blond wig hair, and bits wax, which might have been in
that transient housing since Jesus was a boy, is simply not convincing
evidence, that anyone other than MacDonald was there at the time of
the murders. We're talking "drug crazed" hippies, on a rampage. There
should have been bloody shoe prints up the walls, or at least some
muddy ones. As for Stoeckley, she wasn't credible. So, using
simple logic, it would be easy for one to conclude that Jeffrey
MacDonald's conviction was justifiable...
T.C.
terryh...@my-deja.com
Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
hands?
When you finish with those we got lots more.
WWWoLadyA
> As for Stoeckley, she wasn't credible.
You can't deny this, Terry.
You mentioned the "blind eyewitness" against Bruno Hauptmann in another thread.
You would be apoplectic now, if Helena Stoeckley had been the prosecution's
star witness against Jeffrey MacDonald.
Lady A
terryh...@my-deja.com
wwwo...@aol.com (WWWoLadyA) wrote:
> t__c...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > As for Stoeckley, she wasn't credible.
>
> You can't deny this, Terry.
Stoeckley was a government informant. The government relied on her
word. She took numerous polygraphs. She had knowledge of the apartment
and murders. She was seen by numerous people besides Dr. MacDonald.
Her boyfriend confessed. Her friend confessed.
You have to take witnesses as they come.
> You mentioned the "blind eyewitness" against Bruno Hauptmann in
another thread.
>
> You would be apoplectic now, if Helena Stoeckley had been the
prosecution's
> star witness against Jeffrey MacDonald.
>
> Lady A
I take the witnesses as they come. When there is evidence to back up
their stories as is the case with Stoeckley and Greg Mitchell and Dr.
MacDonald and others they make much better witnesses than unsupported
word.
I don't believe much in blind eyewitnesses as some do. See Fisher's
book on the Lindbergh kidnapping (or should I say imaginary kidnapping).
terryh...@my-deja.com
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
> >attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
> >Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
> >hands?
> >
> There is evidence which puzzles me. A little bit of it.
> But not nearly enough.
> There were five - seven intruders in that house, and they only left,
> possibly, a few fibers, a few fingerprints, a few drops of candle wax
& one
> bloody palmprint.
> It almost sounds like just enough evidence for one intruder, just one.
> Did anybody ever consider the possibility that MacDonald had one
person come
> & help him kill his family?
> Lori
And 125 visitors left nothing, Lori? Exactly how do you explain that?
Lord yes people who want to still believe in MacDonald's guilt without
evidence often come up with such stuff. The hairs at least under the
girls' fingernails were from two different people, probably women.
Think it was those two amazons that bludgeoned and stabbed Colette?
Think there were lots of women who would like to help in such a
massacre? Know of the slightest evidence Dr. MacDonald hung around with
such people? Did one of these women or some other person decide to do
MacDonald in? For what reason? Love?
t__c...@hotmail.com
>Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
>attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
>Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
>hands?
>
>
>Best, Terry
Terry, Terry, Terry, I knew that you'd rise to the occasion. If
anything, you're predictable, and persistent. You're probably
thinking the same about me. I can't help but wonder if you're also a
Pame Smart advocate...
T.C.
BRogers115
>Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
>attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
>Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
>hands?
My personal opinion is that the palmprint is Colette's.
Is there any particular reason that you think the blood on Colette's hand would
come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter who bled
all over the place. Somehow I think your use of type O blood to point to
Mitchell rather than Kristen is the sickest thing you're doing. (In case anyone
doesn't know, Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so naturally
the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
Brenda
BRogers115
>& help him kill his family?
>Lori
>
I have considered it Lori, but I thought that if it happened, he would have
called someone after the murders to help him cover it up. But I have changed my
mind because it seems to me that MacDonald's story wouldn't have been so
obviously lies if he had a cooler head advising him what to say. Also, another
person could have put a wound on him on his back in a place where he couldn't
have reached and clinched it.
Brenda
andrewsmom
>
>Lord yes people who want to still believe in MacDonald's guilt without
>evidence often come up with such stuff. The hairs at least under the
>girls' fingernails were from two different people, probably women.
>Think it was those two amazons that bludgeoned and stabbed Colette?
>Think there were lots of women who would like to help in such a
>massacre? Know of the slightest evidence Dr. MacDonald hung around with
>such people? Did one of these women or some other person decide to do
>MacDonald in? For what reason? Love?
>
The theory is that someone helped him, not that someone decided to "do him
in".
I just threw it out there to see what you all thought of it.
Saying he didn't hang out "with those kind of people" is pretty ridiculous.
Living where he lived, if he wanted to find someone to kill his family it
probably wouldn't have been to hard.
Lori
Tammy P
>
>My personal opinion is that the palmprint is Colette's.
>Is there any particular reason that you think the blood on Colette's hand would
>come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter who bled
>all over the place. Somehow I think your use of type O blood to point to
>Mitchell rather than Kristen is the sickest thing you're doing. (In case anyone
>doesn't know, Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so naturally
>the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
>Brenda
And since there was a large direct-bleeding stain on
Kristen's bed in Colette's Type A blood, which indicates that Colette
bled in Kristen's room, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
out that the Type O blood on Colette's hand could be Kristen's.
Tammy
terryh...@my-deja.com
I hung with some of those soldiers on Army bases when I was in the Army
and even some of us baby-killers in Vietnam. I wouldn't have
known any that I would have asked to kill my kids with me if I had had
any and was of such a mind. As an enlisted man I suspect I knew a few
grubbier types than a doctor is likely to know.
Hey, there is a crowd you hang with. It would not have been hard to
locate MacDonald's friends.
terryh...@my-deja.com
broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
> >
> >Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
> >attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
> >Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
> >hands?
>
The FBI says she was eliminated from "inked impressions." Were they
just kidding, Brenda? Why were they joshing you?
> Is there any particular reason that you think the blood on Colette's
hand would
> come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter
who bled
> all over the place.
Because she had the hair of someone that matched no one in the apartment
in her hand. Because she had a chunk of skin that did not come from Dr.
MacDonald. He had no fingernail scratches and no obvious chunk of skin
missing.
>Somehow I think your use of type O blood to point
to
> Mitchell rather than Kristen is the sickest thing you're doing. (In
case anyone
> doesn't know, Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so
naturally
> the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
> Brenda
The choice is based on simple logic. Maybe you should take something
for your illness.
terryh...@my-deja.com
t...@cgocable.net (Tammy P) wrote:
> On 16 Jul 1999 13:57:22 GMT, broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
>
> >
hand would
> >come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter
who bled
to
> >Mitchell rather than Kristen is the sickest thing you're doing. (In
case anyone
> >doesn't know, Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so
naturally
> >the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
> >Brenda
>
> Kristen's bed in Colette's Type A blood, which indicates that Colette
> bled in Kristen's room, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> out that the Type O blood on Colette's hand could be Kristen's.
>
> Tammy
How come this large "direct-bleeding stain" did not get through the
sheet?
Don't try to be a rocket scientist, Tammy. Trust me.
bry...@my-deja.com
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
> >attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
> >Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
> >hands?
> You know, I've been thinking about this a lot.
> There is evidence which puzzles me. A little bit of it.
> But not nearly enough.
> There were five - seven intruders in that house, and they only left,
> possibly, a few fibers, a few fingerprints, a few drops of candle wax
> & one bloody palmprint.
and even that evidence is dubious, as the fingerprints of colette and
the children were never taken. no one imposed any kind of control on
the crime scene for at least an hour or two, so there is no verifiable
record of how many people entered the premises. and, given that it was
a rainy winter night, no one to date has said one word about finding
muddy footprints in that small apartment - the muddy footprints of
between 5 and 7 people.
> It almost sounds like just enough evidence for one intruder, just one.
> Did anybody ever consider the possibility that MacDonald had one
> person come & help him kill his family?
i've repeatedly asked if anyone questioned macdonald's good friend ron
harris (or is that harrison?). he was a green beret with actual combat
experience. he was supposed to be at the macdonald residence on the
night of the murders, according to an entry in colette's appointment
book.
one scenario i can envision is that colette and macdonald had an
argument and he lashed out at her without meaning to, but hit her harder
than he thought. then he called his good friend and asked for help. but
neither the children nor colette were dead, as yet, and that's where
they got the skin and hair under their fingernails.
it's just a thought.
lbugb...@my-deja.com
t__c...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 02:53:18 GMT, terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Nope. Every statement is untrue. What is true is that we have to
use
> >simple logic.
>
> I can't believe that I'm responding to one of Terry Hallinan's posts.
> But, I just can't resist responding to the above. OK using "simple
> logic," I find Jeffrey MacDonald's story about a group of drug crazed
> hippies slaughtering his family in an overkill manner, yet leaving
> their biggest threat, MacDonald himself, in reasonably good shape,
The fact that he was not killed doesn't prove he murdered his family.
So i guess somebody who breaks into someones home knocks the husband
unconscious then murders the wife or maybe the children will never get
caught because since the husband wasn't killed that proves the husband
did it.
and
> not leaving any physical evidence of their presence,
You need to read somemore of these posts. They left a reasonable amount
of physical of their presence.
illogical, to say
> the least.
If you got your facts straight it wouldn't be "illogical".
Add to that, the presence of the magazine with the "Manson
> killings" article, and the
Millions and Millions of people owned that magezine. Everybody in the
U.S. were aware of the Manson murders. So i guess that because
MacDonald had that magezine it was impossible for drugged intruders to
enter his home? Manson would have loved to have you on his jury.
"Acid is groovy" and "Kill the pigs," and I
> then wonder what kind of fools MacDonald thinks we mortals be, to buy
> that crock.
So you are saying that it was impossible for the woman to speak those
words? Helena admitted to saying that in videotaped confessions.
You'd probably counter with, YES THERE WAS PHYSICAL
> EVIDENCE. A blond wig hair, and bits wax,
bloody palmprint, fingerprint on glass, hair in Colette's hand and skin
under her fingernail, hairs under the childrens fingernails, black wool
fibers on Colette and on the club, multiple bloody gloves, etc.
which might have been in
> that transient housing since Jesus was a boy, is simply not convincing
> evidence,
The candle wax was in key locations and was FRESH. The blond wig hairs
were in a brush on top of funiture near the kitchen.
Could the adult bloody palmprint on the footboard of the bed in the
masterbedroom have been their since "Jesus was a boy"? In your mind
maybe so.
Could the children have had hairs under their fingernails since "Jesus
was a boy"?
that anyone other than MacDonald was there at the time of
> the murders.
Evidence, witnesses, and confessions prove that others were in the
house. By the way MacDonald shouldn't have to prove they were in his
home the government should have to prove he murdered his family which
we no know they never even came close to proving.
We're talking "drug crazed" hippies, on a rampage. There
> should have been bloody shoe prints up the walls,
Who would be walking on the walls?
or at least some
> muddy ones.
What mudd? Where are the muddy footprints of all the MP's, medics,
investigators, nieghbors, ranking officers, strangers, etc. who were in
the home after the murders? Did they take their shoes off at the door?
As for Stoeckley, she wasn't credible.
Her word alone shouldn't be enough but when you add the physical
evidence ,witnesses, other confessions, her description of the crime
scene, etc.
Why was her word credible to work for the CID as an informant?
So, using
> simple logic, it would be easy for one to conclude that Jeffrey
> MacDonald's conviction was justifiable...
>
> T.C.
>
Maybe if you have no problem with prosecutors presenting false
evidence, witholding exculpatory evidence, and lieing to a jury.
Logan
terryh...@my-deja.com
Which one got to tattoo the large "S" on baby Kristen?
Best, Terry
Ronald Helm
>You can't deny this, Terry.
Terry can deny anything he wants and often does. I have watched him
expound at length that "confessions don't mean anything"...it seems
that the rules just don't apply when it comes to "evidence" that would
exonerate his buddy. Same goes for eye witnesses...any other case and
he would be the first two doubt that Stoeckley was a credible
eyewitness to anything. Same for Mica mentioning that some woman with
a floppy hat and a raincoat was standing on a corner three blocks away
at 3:30 AM...possibly true, probably unrelated, and certainly
superfluous information
>
>You mentioned the "blind eyewitness" against Bruno Hauptmann in another thread.
>
>You would be apoplectic now, if Helena Stoeckley had been the prosecution's
>star witness against Jeffrey MacDonald.
He would have been apoplectic if he thought Jeffrey guilty (as he once
did he claims), but elated now that Jeffrey is innocent :-) Terry
throws out all of his firmest held beliefs when it comes to
Jeffrey...the rules just don't seem to apply.
>Lady A
Ron
Ronald Helm
>Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
>attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
>Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
>hands?
>
>When you finish with those we got lots more.
>
>Best, Terry
Still awaiting the results of your "lots more". Who is the "we"...do
you fancy yourself to be a member of the defense team now? Ron
Ronald Helm
<lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Did anybody ever consider the possibility that MacDonald had one person come
>& help him kill his family?
>Lori
I would certainly like to know more about this Ron Harrison guy,
Jeffreys good buddy, seemed to have the run of the house, even to
ordering Colette to get him a brew. Ah, heck just McGinniss lies. Ron
Ronald Helm
>And 125 visitors left nothing, Lori? Exactly how do you explain that?
THAT is EXACTLY what you want us to believe, Terry. A few black wool
fibers, a blue acrylic fiber , a blond saran fiber...just could not
have been from anyone but an intruder! You are losing your
credibility with this group, Terry.
Ronald Helm
> Also, another
>person could have put a wound on him on his back in a place where he couldn't
>have reached and clinched it.
>Brenda
Well, if you believe anything that Terry says, MacDonald had a lump on
the back of his noggin that would support an accomplice theory. Ron
andrewsmom
>
>
>THAT is EXACTLY what you want us to believe, Terry. A few black wool
>fibers, a blue acrylic fiber , a blond saran fiber...just could not
>have been from anyone but an intruder! You are losing your
>credibility with this group, Terry.
>
Also, Logan & Terry repeatedly ask what evidence do I have that MacDonald is
guilty.
If I take the available evidence, and systematically eliminate the
possibility of intruders as the source of each piece, then there is nobody
left BUT MacDonald.
If there is no credible evidence pointing to anyone else, then JM is all
I've got left.
I see it this way
1) The jurors were given conflicting "expert" opinions on several pieces of
evidence, or experts were somewhat discredited by the attorneys involved
(Segal did a good job with Stombaugh, apparently)
2) Evidence itself was somewhat confusing to understand
3) There was no "hard core this is the real grabber" evidence for either
side - nothing that really spoke out to the jurors and said, well that's it,
he must be innocent/guilty.
If the jurors were not convinced of innocence or guilt by the evidence
alone, all they had left to work with was MacDonald - their impressions of
him as a person & their impressions as to the truthfulness of his story.
From what I understand, when he testified he was rather sullen, perhaps
abrasive towards Blackburn. Whether or not this is fair, we are human
beings. We are impressed by what we see & hear, no matter how hard we try
to remain perfectly objective.
In the jury room I can imagine several of the jurors saying they were
confused by all of the evidence & expert testimony.
Okay, to MacDonald. His story seemed somewhat unlikely and his demeanor was
antagonistic.
What would a juror do?
Lori
Tammy P
>. By the way MacDonald shouldn't have to prove they were in his
>home the government should have to prove he murdered his family which
>we no know they never even came close to proving.
The government *did* prove he killed his family. And
yes, since MacDonald has named Stoeckley and Mitchell as being in his
home and being the killers of his family, he *does* have to prove it.
Sorry.
Tammy
lbugb...@my-deja.com
> mind because it seems to me that MacDonald's story wouldn't have been
so
> obviously lies if he had a cooler head advising him what to say.
Name one thing about his story that is an "obvious lie".
Logan
andrewsmom
>Which one got to tattoo the large "S" on baby Kristen?
>
>Best, Terry
It doesn't matter which one did that, Terry.
Lori
andrewsmom
>hand.
>
>Logan
No one has ever indicated that Mitchell had any wounds at this time.
Lori
lbugb...@my-deja.com
broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
> >
> >Who made the bloody palmprint? Who planted bloody hairs with roots
> >attached under the little girls fingernails? Who left skin under
> >Colette's fingernails, blood on her hands, and a brown hair in her
> >hands?
>
I don't know how many times i have to tell you that the print was
tested against Colette and it was no her's.
> Is there any particular reason that you think the blood on Colette's
hand would
> come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter
who bled
> all over the place. Somehow I think your use of type O blood to point
to
> Mitchell rather than Kristen is the sickest thing you're doing.
How do you know it wasn't Mitchell's?
(In case anyone
> doesn't know, Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so
naturally
> the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
> Brenda
>
and naturally the preferred choice would be Kristen for you.
lbugb...@my-deja.com
t...@cgocable.net (Tammy P) wrote:
> On 16 Jul 1999 13:57:22 GMT, broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
>
> >
hand would
> >come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter
who bled
> >all over the place. Somehow I think your use of type O blood to
point to
case anyone
> >doesn't know, Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so
naturally
> >the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
> >Brenda
>
> Kristen's bed in Colette's Type A blood, which indicates that Colette
> bled in Kristen's room, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> out that the Type O blood on Colette's hand could be Kristen's.
>
> Tammy
>
It also could be Mitchell's. I wonder whose brown hair was in Colette's
hand.
Logan
terryh...@my-deja.com
You forget, Lori, the jurors were not offered those choices.
Segal was not allowed to question the credentials of Paul Stombaugh.
The jurors were told the fibers on the club were from Dr. MacDonald's
pajamas. The defense had no way of knowing that it was not true. The
jurors were told that there was no blood or fibers where Dr. MacDonald
was attacked. The defense did not know it was untrue. The prosecution
presented the entwined hair and pajama fiber. The defense had no way of
knowing that it was fabricated. The defense did not know about the
palmprint, the fingerprint on the glass, the hairs under the girls'
fingernails. None of this has ever been presented in any court.
Dr. MacDonald's lawyers were unable to present a defense because
evidence was fabricated and suppressed.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
I don't think normal sane people do such things. Maybe you see it
different.
terryh...@my-deja.com
The government couldn't prove it. They had to suppress and fabricate
evidence. Sorry.
terryh...@my-deja.com
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >It also could be Mitchell's. I wonder whose brown hair was in
Colette's
> >hand.
> >
> >Logan
>
> Lori
Somebody's skin was removed by Colette and it wasn't Dr. MacDonald's.
We don't know it was Mitchell but he fits the profile of the killer.
Doctor Helm says he does too. Wonder if he has any scars?
Ma...@nospamlongview.net
>The candle wax was in key locations and was FRESH. The blond wig hairs
>were in a brush on top of funiture near the kitchen.
If JM were the murderer, once he had come up with his "scenerio" about
candle carrying hippies, it would have been smart to drip candle wax
in different places. Don't bother repeating "the candles didn't match
any in the house" mantra; experience tells most of us that the candles
in our house don't match, and that most of us have various candle
stubs around.
>Why was her word credible to work for the CID as an informant?
Because it gave them a "lead". Unlikely anyone was ever convicted on
Stoekly's word alone.
The brush with the wig fibers I can't explain. But, I haven't made up
my mind yet on JM's guilt, the evidence in the house, etc. I'm still
weighing what I read and haven't made a definite decision yet.
I can't for the life of me explain why hippies would bring rubber
gloves to a house where they "didn't intend to kill anyone". Or even
if they did ..... Just doesn't fit for me. JM had surgeon's gloves in
the house. You say there were pieces of rubber gloves that didn't
match those in the house. So what? Who is more likely to have rubber
gloves? A doctor or hippies? JM could have shoved a pair in his
pocket, absentmindedly, while at the hospital, emptied his pockets at
home, and placed them with the others, without packaging.
Marcy
Ronald Helm
>Mitchell and Kristen both have the same blood type, so naturally
>the preferred choice would be Mitchell for the promacs.
>Brenda
And why would Greg Mitchell have bled all over Colette? Ron
BRogers115
>Well, if you believe anything that Terry says, MacDonald had a lump on
>the back of his noggin that would support an accomplice theory. Ron
>
have just banged it on something. I was thinking more along the lines of a
knife in the back. Maybe even deep enough to bleed a little. A helper would be
more inclined to punch a little harder don't you think?
Brenda
terryh...@my-deja.com
Ma...@nospamLongview.net wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:35:08 GMT, lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The candle wax was in key locations and was FRESH. The blond wig
hairs
> >were in a brush on top of funiture near the kitchen.
>
OK, Marcy, then you think MacDonald was a deliberate murderer who
systematically went about murdering his whole family? There was no
rage. This was just a normal guy, as declared by all psychiatrists who
examined him including those hired by the prosecution, who butchers his
family and mutilates the corpses, then carefully plants hairs, skin,
fibers, fingerprints, stabs himself som 20 times, bludgeons himself with
a baseball bat or something - well maybe he bludgeons himself first. I
did not include Dr. Brussels, a forerunner of our self-promoting
profilers who had been campaigning for years for prosecution of Dr.
MacDonald and was used by prosecutors mainly to find psychological
weaknesses in MacDonald's testimony, among the psychiatrists. He said
MacDonald was a maniac before he met him and then decided he was right
all along.
Now this theory is sure consistent but a bit goofy to this biased
observer. What do you think? I know you said you haven't decided.
OTOH if we picture the enraged, maniacal killer doing in the whole
family and then pleasuring himself with the further mutilation of the
corpses it's even more impossible to account for the bloody palmprint,
the foreign hairs in the hands of each of the victims, the piece of
skin, etc.
So then we get the enraged, maniacal killer who recovers his lucidity,
before or after wiping out the kiddies depending on the fabulist, and
somehow arranges bloody palmprints, foreign hairs, a piece of skin (did
he go shopping after the murders?).
I tell you, Marcy, I am having a lot of trouble picturing any of these
scenarios and none of the MacDonald haters will help me out. Can you?
andrewsmom
Actually, even according to Fatal Justice, Segal did a pretty good job
making Stombaugh seem, well, somewhat farfetched. I only take this directly
from FJ. Argue it if you will.
>
>The jurors were told the fibers on the club were from Dr. MacDonald's
>pajamas. The defense had no way of knowing that it was not true. The
>jurors were told that there was no blood or fibers where Dr. MacDonald
>was attacked. The defense did not know it was untrue. The prosecution
>presented the entwined hair and pajama fiber. The defense had no way of
>knowing that it was fabricated. The defense did not know about the
>palmprint, the fingerprint on the glass, the hairs under the girls'
>fingernails. None of this has ever been presented in any court.
>
>Dr. MacDonald's lawyers were unable to present a defense because
>evidence was fabricated and suppressed.
>
>Best, Terry
>
I already stated that the evidence presented was contradictory & confusing.
I think if you look at the original civil trial, and the transcripts quoted
by both McGinniss & FJ are pretty close so I won't bother to trot them out,
that this is the case.
I told you I was referring to what the jurors had to look at, not what was
suppressed.
Even Janet Malcolm states in her book that the jurors were primarily
influenced by MacDonald's actual testimony. Terry, like it or not, the
jurors did not like or believe MacDonald. All evidence aside, that's just
what they thought. This is positively what I stated above. And this is what
I believe most of it boils down to.
A lot of people do not find Jeffrey, or his story, credible. You tell me
why. Myself, I don't know - I've never seen him in person nor met him. But
obviously the jurors were not as impressed with him as you were.
And when evidence is contradictory or confusing, as it is in this case, that
is what you are left with.
Lori
andrewsmom
>> >
>> >Best, Terry
>>
>> It doesn't matter which one did that, Terry.
>> Lori
>
>I don't think normal sane people do such things. Maybe you see it
>different.
>
>Best, Terry
I don't think that you can prove, in any given moment in time, who is sane &
who isn't.
Before & after the fact, maybe.
During the time of the crime, I don't think so.
Lori
andrewsmom
>> Lori
>
>Somebody's skin was removed by Colette and it wasn't Dr. MacDonald's.
>
>We don't know it was Mitchell but he fits the profile of the killer.
>Doctor Helm says he does too. Wonder if he has any scars?
>
>Best, Terry
Dig him up & find out. Pluck out some hairs while you're at it. I
personally would like to know.
lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
> >You forget, Lori, the jurors were not offered those choices.
> >
> >Segal was not allowed to question the credentials of Paul Stombaugh.
>
> Actually, even according to Fatal Justice, Segal did a pretty good job
> making Stombaugh seem, well, somewhat farfetched. I only take this
directly
> from FJ. Argue it if you will.
I will cite the page if you insist where Segal was warned by Judge
Dupree about questioning Stombaugh's qualifications. They were actually
non-existent.
> >The jurors were told the fibers on the club were from Dr. MacDonald's
> >pajamas. The defense had no way of knowing that it was not true.
The
> >jurors were told that there was no blood or fibers where Dr.
MacDonald
> >was attacked. The defense did not know it was untrue. The
prosecution
> >presented the entwined hair and pajama fiber. The defense had no way
of
> >knowing that it was fabricated. The defense did not know about the
> >palmprint, the fingerprint on the glass, the hairs under the girls'
> >fingernails. None of this has ever been presented in any court.
> >
> >Dr. MacDonald's lawyers were unable to present a defense because
> >evidence was fabricated and suppressed.
> >
> >Best, Terry
> >
> I already stated that the evidence presented was contradictory &
confusing.
It was a total lie. The exculpatory evidence was banished from the
courtroom. It is hard to imagine how the jury could not have convicted
under the circumstances with the exception possibly of those intelligent
enough to understand what a fraud was being perpetrated by the folding
pajama demonstration and upset enough by it.
> I think if you look at the original civil trial, and the transcripts
quoted
> by both McGinniss & FJ are pretty close so I won't bother to trot them
out,
> that this is the case.
> I told you I was referring to what the jurors had to look at, not what
was
> suppressed.
I disagree. But I really don't understand your point.
> Even Janet Malcolm states in her book that the jurors were primarily
> influenced by MacDonald's actual testimony.
Janet Malcolm only wrote about the civil trial. What does that have to
do with the criminal trial.
>Terry, like it or not, the
> jurors did not like or believe MacDonald.
Of course not. They thought he had to be a man who murdered his entire
family from the evidence. I wouldn't much like that either. The bloody
palmprint, the hairs, the fingerprint, the confessions, the sightings
and almost all the evidence, even Dr. MacDonald's medical records, were
kept from them. Think an honest trial would have turned out the same?
>All evidence aside, that's
just
> what they thought. This is positively what I stated above. And this
is what
> I believe most of it boils down to.
Some people do care about the evidence rather than gossip though I will
admit it is a minority.
> A lot of people do not find Jeffrey, or his story, credible.
You think it mades no difference whether it is unmatched wool fibers on
the club rather than cotton from Jeffrey's pajamas on the club that
bludgeoned Colette? Why would you ignore such things?
You tell
me
> why. Myself, I don't know - I've never seen him in person nor met
him. But
> obviously the jurors were not as impressed with him as you were.
>
> And when evidence is contradictory or confusing, as it is in this
case, that
> is what you are left with.
> Lori
I look at the evidence. I am neither a mindreader nor a psychic like
you folks. Sorry.
terryh...@my-deja.com
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Which one got to tattoo the large "S" on baby Kristen?
> >> It doesn't matter which one did that, Terry.
> >> Lori
> >
> >I don't think normal sane people do such things. Maybe you see it
> >different.
> I don't think that you can prove, in any given moment in time, who is
sane &
> who isn't.
> Before & after the fact, maybe.
> During the time of the crime, I don't think so.
> Lori
Just evasion. You make accusations but then you are unable to back them
up. Where is your evidence of insanity, Lori? What is your counter
to the psychiatric evaluations. Why those guys don't know everything.
That is true but you have nothing at all.
In fact you have produced no evidence of any kind. And then you deny
solid evidence like a bloody palmprint and hair under the little girls's
fingernatils calling it confusing. It is only confusing because you are
in denial.
Frankly that beats the hell out of Ron and Mirse who just want to
exercise their bile and shout their hate.
terryh...@my-deja.com
Don't need to. The defense has Mitchell's and Stoeckley's DNA. Now if
they get enough evidence that hasn't been tampered with they have a
great chance of matching one of these two. But IAC the DNA will show
that there were strangers that attacked the family.
I would like to hear the defense has DNA from some of the others of
Helena's cult. Apparently they have at least some of their addresses.
Tammy P
wrote:
Good question. There's no evidence that any of the
"intruders" were injured. The only thing "linking" Mitchell to Colette
is the microscopic piece of skin under her fingernail. Hardly enough
to cause Mitchell to bleed.
Tammy
MIRSE
>From: terryh...@my-deja.com
>Date: Sat, 17 July 1999 03:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7mpc2v$77j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com
Frankly that beats the hell out of Ron and Mirse who just want to
exercise their bile and shout their hate.
Best, Terry
*************
HATE, HATE, HATE! Man, it hurts when I shout so loud. "ACID IS
GROOVY....KILL THE PIGS!" Mi...@aol.com
terryh...@my-deja.com
> >And why would Greg Mitchell have bled all over Colette? Ron
>
> Good question. There's no evidence that any of the
> "intruders" were injured. The only thing "linking" Mitchell to Colette
> is the microscopic piece of skin under her fingernail. Hardly enough
> to cause Mitchell to bleed.
>
> Tammy
It was hardly microscopic. It was noticed by a number of people at some
distance including CID lead investigator William Ivory who spotted it in
a vial and had to take a better look before it was lost.
Reality is not sized by desire as the MacDonald haters seem to think.
terryh...@my-deja.com
> Frankly that beats the hell out of Ron and Mirse who just want to
> exercise their bile and shout their hate.
>
> Best, Terry
>
> *************
> HATE, HATE, HATE! Man, it hurts when I shout so loud. "ACID IS
> GROOVY....KILL THE PIGS!" Mi...@aol.com
Want to discuss the evidence such as the blood spots suppressed where
Dr. MacDonald fought with intruders or would you rather just shout as
always?
Ronald Helm
>The candle wax was in key locations and was FRESH. The blond wig hairs
>were in a brush on top of funiture near the kitchen.
That is very condemning of your boy Jeffrey. Key Locations....was the
FRESH (wear dated) wax found in any "unkey locations" like where
Stoeckley apparently stood watching the titanic struggle on the couch?
Jeffrey burnt those candles and dripped them where he wished. Ron
>Could the adult bloody palmprint on the footboard of the bed in the
>masterbedroom have been their since "Jesus was a boy"? In your mind
>maybe so.
No, but that unbloody palmprint could have been on that footboard
since the bed was manufactured, and only developed when a large volume
of blood came in contact with the area. Ron
Ronald Helm
>Which one got to tattoo the large "S" on baby Kristen?
>
>Best, Terry
SOME have hypothesized that just maybe the wounds on Kristen formed
the letter "S". That might just be signs of Satanists. Are you
reaching, Terry. Like reading inkblots...you see what you want to
see, Terry. Ron
Ronald Helm
>I don't know how many times i have to tell you that the print was
>tested against Colette and it was no her's.
>
Whose was it, Logan. Until you tell me that answer, it could have
been there since Jesus was a boy and is thus another worthless
incidental finding.
>> Is there any particular reason that you think the blood on Colette's
>hand would
>> come from a drug-crazed stranger rather than from her baby daughter
>who bled
>> all over the place. Somehow I think your use of type O blood to point
>to
>> Mitchell rather than Kristen is the sickest thing you're doing.
>
>How do you know it wasn't Mitchell's?
Think, Logan. Do you think for a minute that any of the intruders
were injured so badly by a this woman and her tow children that they
bled profusely during this crime. They were apparently fully clothed,
gloved :-) and not very exposed to a "cat attack" from Colette. Were
her fingernails badly torn? Ron
Ronald Helm
<lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>No one has ever indicated that Mitchell had any wounds at this time.
>Lori
Let alone profusely bleeding in Kristen's bedroom and the master
bedroom. Ron
Ronald Helm
>Somebody's skin was removed by Colette and it wasn't Dr. MacDonald's.
Good thing that huge "chunk" of skin is missing :-)
>
>We don't know it was Mitchell but he fits the profile of the killer.
>Doctor Helm says he does too. Wonder if he has any scars?
Speaking of scars, Terry. You never did answer my question about the
presence of scars, 21 of them that Jeffrey should carry today if his
multiple life threatening wounds were of any significant severity. I
know, all that aloe vera does wonders in preventing scar formation.
Ron
>
>Best, Terry
Ronald Helm
>Dr. MacDonald's lawyers were unable to present a defense because
>evidence was fabricated and suppressed.
>
>Best, Terry
This does not restore your credibility, Terry, but antique dealers
never were a credible lot anyway. Do you go to garage sales? Ron
Ma...@nospamlongview.net
>OK, Marcy, then you think MacDonald was a deliberate murderer who
>systematically went about murdering his whole family?
No. Terry. I've told you before I never thought this was premeditated
(if JM did it).
There was no
>rage. This was just a normal guy, as declared by all psychiatrists who
>examined him including those hired by the prosecution, who butchers his
>family and mutilates the corpses, then carefully plants hairs, skin,
>fibers, fingerprints, stabs himself som 20 times, bludgeons himself with
>a baseball bat or something - well maybe he bludgeons himself first.
"Normal" guys commit murders every day. Psychiatrists are wrong every
day. Unless you were there you don't *know* there was no rage. People
beieve that Patsy Ramsey killed and then mutilated her daughter, even
though most people say she was a devoted mother.
I don't think the skin was "planted". We don't know whose skin it is,
as far as I know. I don't think he bludgeoned himself.
I have been speculating. I think its possible Collette may have found
the hairbrush in the car, which would have precipitated an argument.
Women who are cheating with someone else's husband have been known to
deliberately leave things behind in order to tip off the wife in the
hopes it would cause a breakup. I have also thought Jeffery might have
taken a swing at her and Collette, in retaliation, might have gotten
the "club", first striking from behind, startling JM so much that
Collette could have gotten some pretty good swings in before JM got it
away from her.
Now, go ahead and call me an idiot and a For Flusher. But keep in
mind, my time is limited. I'm going one step at a time. I have been to
JM's website, read all that's on there, been to the attorney's
website, read all that's on there, and as soon as I have the time I
will download the Short version and read every word.
If you are trying to convince us that JM is innocent (and boy, are
you!) then you'll have to allow us to examine all the evidence we have
available and come to our own conclusions. And if in the end we
disagree ..... well, that's why we get hung juries.
Marcy
I
>did not include Dr. Brussels, a forerunner of our self-promoting
>profilers who had been campaigning for years for prosecution of Dr.
>MacDonald and was used by prosecutors mainly to find psychological
>weaknesses in MacDonald's testimony, among the psychiatrists. He said
>MacDonald was a maniac before he met him and then decided he was right
>all along.
>
>Now this theory is sure consistent but a bit goofy to this biased
>observer. What do you think? I know you said you haven't decided.
>
>OTOH if we picture the enraged, maniacal killer doing in the whole
>family and then pleasuring himself with the further mutilation of the
>corpses it's even more impossible to account for the bloody palmprint,
>the foreign hairs in the hands of each of the victims, the piece of
>skin, etc.
>
>So then we get the enraged, maniacal killer who recovers his lucidity,
>before or after wiping out the kiddies depending on the fabulist, and
>somehow arranges bloody palmprints, foreign hairs, a piece of skin (did
>he go shopping after the murders?).
>
>I tell you, Marcy, I am having a lot of trouble picturing any of these
>scenarios and none of the MacDonald haters will help me out. Can you?
>
andrewsmom
>they get enough evidence that hasn't been tampered with they have a
>great chance of matching one of these two. But IAC the DNA will show
>that there were strangers that attacked the family.
>
>I would like to hear the defense has DNA from some of the others of
>Helena's cult. Apparently they have at least some of their addresses.
>
>Best, Terry
>
Lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
> "Normal" guys commit murders every day.
A Ted Bundy is far different from some guy that shoots or stabs another
in a fight. Murder is not just murder. The mass murder that we have is
no more normal than the rage-filled murder of a Ted Bundy and Bundy was
not normal. Dr. MacDonald is.
>Psychiatrists are wrong every day.
Doubtless true and sometimes you wonder if they are ever right. But
nothing has come to light ever to show that Dr. MacDonald was anything
other than what he seemed despite the lies of Joe McGinniss which are
echoed in these threads. We had to have people saying he was abnormal
because he was just too damn normal. I kid you not. And I promise you
normalcy is not average, it is quite exceptional.
>Unless you were there you don't *know* there was no rage. People
> beieve that Patsy Ramsey killed and then mutilated her daughter, even
> though most people say she was a devoted mother.
And you can make the same claim for Susan Smith and a hundred others if
you are building strawmen - or strawwomen.
Patsy is an obvious psycho. I don't believe I am the only one chilled
by the little kids' beauty pageants and momma was obsessed with them.
-
> If you are trying to convince us that JM is innocent (and boy, are
> you!) then you'll have to allow us to examine all the evidence we have
> available and come to our own conclusions. And if in the end we
> disagree ..... well, that's why we get hung juries.
>
> Marcy
You will have to decide things for yourself. I won't cater to you,
Marcy. I don't choose to try to sell things to you despite what you
claim. I am not a salesman despite being an antique dealer. Our
business is based mostly on trust and the great majority of our sales
are repeat sales.
You want a snow job you will have to go elsewhere. I will be honest
with you and if you find that hard to take there are others who need
your business more than I do.
Tammy P
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:34:23 GMT, terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>OK, Marcy, then you think MacDonald was a deliberate murderer who
>>systematically went about murdering his whole family?
>
>No. Terry. I've told you before I never thought this was premeditated
>(if JM did it).
Nor do I. In no way do I think these murders were
premeditated.
>
>"Normal" guys commit murders every day. Psychiatrists are wrong every
>day. Unless you were there you don't *know* there was no rage. People
>beieve that Patsy Ramsey killed and then mutilated her daughter, even
>though most people say she was a devoted mother.
And don't forget Susan Smith. According to family, friends
and co-workers, Susan was a devoted, loving mother who never so much
as spanked her kids. Then one day she drowned them.
Tammy
terryh...@my-deja.com
Everyone hopes for that, Lori, except for some like Ron. Ron is already
preparing for the worst and hoping against hope the DNA will not
confound him.
Absolute certainty is for the afterlife but it has been a long, long
trip. Sometimes faith and decency get rewarded. I am glad that there
are so many that have supported Dr. MacDonald through all the years of
horror and lies. One retired NYC detective, Raymond Shedlick, spent the
last remaining months of his life, aided by his daughter, Ellen Dannely,
when Shedlick needed help because of his illness, searching the aging
and nearly indecipherable government files for clues to Dr. MacDonald's
innocence. The detective was dying of lung cancer. Some people think
New Yorkers will do nothing for anybody.
I am sure you will wholeheartedly agree that the horror of MacDonald's
incarceration if he is innocent is an unmitigated horror. Doc Ron exults
in the belief he will not get his medical license back. That has a
special poignancy too. I am sure it will add to Ron's glee despite the
anxiety caused by the DNA to know that Dr. MacDonald is concerned about
that too. He still studies after all these years in the hopes of being
able to pass his medical boards.
terryh...@my-deja.com
If you think Susan Smith was normal, you haven't read much about her.
Joe McGinniss had to lie outrageously about Dr. MacDonald in order to
make his story at all believable. Tammy took the hook, of course, and
still hangs on.
Ronald Helm
>Want to discuss the evidence such as the blood spots suppressed where
>Dr. MacDonald fought with intruders or would you rather just shout as
>always?
>
>Best, Terry
Terry: Let me remind you for about the umpteenth millionth time, that
MacDonald claims to have fought the intruders on the couch, not in the
hallway. Where is the blood and fibers near the couch and if you once
more mention the hallway????? Ron
Ronald Helm
> Now if
>they get enough evidence that hasn't been tampered with they have a
>great chance of matching one of these two
Mighty big IF...I can see it coming...don't go into the light! Ron
Ronald Helm
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:34:23 GMT, terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>>OK, Marcy, then you think MacDonald was a deliberate murderer who
>>>systematically went about murdering his whole family?
>>
>>No. Terry. I've told you before I never thought this was premeditated
>>(if JM did it).
>
> Nor do I. In no way do I think these murders were
>premeditated.
Serious question, Terry. If I remember right, Jeffrey was convicted
of First degree murder of Colette and Second Degree murder of the
girls. Is that right or wrong? At any rate why the discrepancy in
the level of the convictions? Ron
andrewsmom
>I am sure you will wholeheartedly agree that the horror of MacDonald's
>incarceration if he is innocent is an unmitigated horror. Doc Ron exults
>in the belief he will not get his medical license back. That has a
>special poignancy too. I am sure it will add to Ron's glee despite the
>anxiety caused by the DNA to know that Dr. MacDonald is concerned about
>that too. He still studies after all these years in the hopes of being
>able to pass his medical boards.
>
>Best, Terry
>
found to be innocent that he is able to rebuild his life & practice medicine
again.
I would also hope that some sort of retribution would come his way and that
those responsible for fabricating or suppressing evidence get their
punishment.
Lori
andrewsmom
>Serious question, Terry. If I remember right, Jeffrey was convicted
>of First degree murder of Colette and Second Degree murder of the
>girls. Is that right or wrong? At any rate why the discrepancy in
>the level of the convictions? Ron
it was the other way around, Ron. He was convicted of first degree murder
in Kristen's death as the jury believed he killed her as part of his cover
up story.
Lori
Ronald Helm
>I am sure you will wholeheartedly agree that the horror of MacDonald's
>incarceration if he is innocent is an unmitigated horror.
Definitely an unmitigated horror
Doc Ron exults
>in the belief he will not get his medical license back.
Not exulting at all. He must be acquitted of his felony conviction,
then he must pass some medical board exam and state licensure exams.
Then he must find a hospital that will credential him. Every hospital
that I know of requires that an applicant for hospital privileges
submit a CV accounting for every minute of their life since graduation
from medical school. Bet they will be impressed with the notation
1979-1999 various and sundry Federal Prisons.
That has a
>special poignancy too. I am sure it will add to Ron's glee despite the
>anxiety caused by the DNA to know that Dr. MacDonald is concerned about
>that too. He still studies after all these years in the hopes of being
>able to pass his medical boards.
Not anxious at all over the DNA results personally. It would be nice
to get this all over with and move on to other things in my life :-)
Actually, he is only qualified to be a GP (in some states) since he
would need to take a Residency before having to take any Boards.
Those Medical Boards are taken in order to practice a specialty, and
are only taken after completing a Residency. Jeffrey may want to first
apply for an accredited Residency...been a long time since he did his
last thoracotomy incision :-) Ron
>
>Best, Terry
Ronald Helm
<lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>it was the other way around, Ron. He was convicted of first degree murder
>in Kristen's death as the jury believed he killed her as part of his cover
>up story.
>Lori
>
Premeditated for Kristen, what about for Kimberly? Ron
Tammy P
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:53:29 -0400, "andrewsmom"
Nope. Second degree for Colette and Kimberly because he
killed them while in an enraged state.....no evidence of
premeditation. Then first degree for Kristen because the jury believed
he killed her in order to support his story.
Tammy
andrewsmom
>>in Kristen's death as the jury believed he killed her as part of his cover
>>up story.
>>Lori
>>
>
>Premeditated for Kristen, what about for Kimberly? Ron
No. The thinking, at the time, was that he accidentally injured Kimberly -
at least initially - during the attack on Colette.
Kristen was killed to support his theory of drug crazed intruders,
therefore, premeditated.
Lori
lbugb...@my-deja.com
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >Serious question, Terry. If I remember right, Jeffrey was convicted
> >of First degree murder of Colette and Second Degree murder of the
> >girls. Is that right or wrong? At any rate why the discrepancy in
> >the level of the convictions? Ron
Ron, you should do more research (if you did any at all) on this case.
Colette and Kimberly were 2nd degree and Kristen was 1st degree. I
guess the jury believed the prosecution theory that he killed Colette
and Kimberly out of rage and that he all of a sudden comes to his
senses and murders Kristen on purpose.
Since you believe the skin was lost you probably believe this too.
Logan
Ronald Helm
>Since you believe the skin was lost you probably believe this too.
>
>Logan
>
Do you have any other explanation for the skin's disappearance? Maybe
it was consumed by "flesh eating" bacteria :-) Ron
>>
>>
Nancy Rudins
> Serious question, Terry. If I remember right, Jeffrey was convicted
> of First degree murder of Colette and Second Degree murder of the
> girls. Is that right or wrong? At any rate why the discrepancy in
> the level of the convictions? Ron
I thought it was First degree for Kristen and Second degree
for Collette and Kimberly. The reasons were that Collette
and Kimberly probably occurred during a heated argument,
but Kristen was a deliberate attempt to stage his story.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
I'm taking the time for a number of things that weren't important yesterday.
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Charles Weinstein
post, "candle wax hardens rather quickly." Indeed it does, and there
is no scientific means of dating it. So how does anyone--Potter and
Bost, Terry or anyone else--know that this wax was "fresh"?
2. Re "blood spots." Potter and Bost refer to ONE spot in the hallway
that may have been of MacDonald's blood type, and they concede that it
was "small." (FJ, 47, 240). When did this single "spot" suddenly
replicate itself and become "spots?" And why is the existence of this
admittedly "small" spot thought to support MacDonald's story? He was
supposedly stabbed in the chest while fighting wildly with three armed
intruders, fell face-down and came to lying on his naked torso. And the
only blood evidence his supporters can muster for this story of a
hallway struggle followed by a face-down fall and a prone, bare-chested
blackout is a "small spot?" No wonder the man has been in jail for
seventeen years.
Ronald Helm
Great to have you back Charles! Maybe Terry will now tell us where
the blood and fibers on and near the couch are where the titanic
struggle allegedly occurred. Ron
terryh...@my-deja.com
> 1. Re "fresh" candlewax. As Terry incautiously stated in an earlier
> post, "candle wax hardens rather quickly." Indeed it does, and there
> is no scientific means of dating it. So how does anyone--Potter and
> Bost, Terry or anyone else--know that this wax was "fresh"?
In fact the hardness is the test along with color. Uncolored candlewax
yellows as it ages.
> 2. Re "blood spots." Potter and Bost refer to ONE spot in the
hallway
> that may have been of MacDonald's blood type, and they concede that it
> was "small." (FJ, 47, 240). When did this single "spot" suddenly
> replicate itself and become "spots?"
Why do you ignore the "bloody footprint of a child or small woman" noted
by CID Lt. Paulk in some unspecified part of the hallway before a herd
went through the same hallway?
> And why is the existence of this
> admittedly "small" spot thought to support MacDonald's story?
It puts the lie to your defense of the prosecution which claimed there
was no, none, zip, nada blood in the hallway. There was both blood and
a "pile of fibers" in the spot where Dr. MacDonald said he fought with
intruders. The FBI forgot when they made their chart that the jurors
relied on.
> He was
> supposedly stabbed in the chest while fighting wildly with three armed
> intruders, fell face-down and came to lying on his naked torso.
I doubt Dr. MacDonald knows how he fell. Why would you think he could
remember?
>And the
> only blood evidence his supporters can muster for this story of a
> hallway struggle followed by a face-down fall and a prone,
bare-chested
> blackout is a "small spot?" No wonder the man has been in jail for
> seventeen years.
You forgot a few things as usual.
MacDonald has been in prison for nearly 20 years as the result of
fabricated and suppressed evidence. The lead prosecutor went to prison
later for such activities in another case. Three of five of the
prosecutors have been disbarred.
Best, Terry
Ronald Helm
>In fact the hardness is the test along with color. Uncolored candlewax
>yellows as it ages.
WOW...I bet your candlewax experts can date this yellowing process
within about two years, not to the day, let alone the hour.
>It puts the lie to your defense of the prosecution which claimed there
>was no, none, zip, nada blood in the hallway. There was both blood and
>a "pile of fibers" in the spot where Dr. MacDonald said he fought with
>intruders. The FBI forgot when they made their chart that the jurors
>relied on.
Please cite when and where MacDonald ever told anyone that he fought
with the intruders in the hallway. I have not found that one.
>> He was
>> supposedly stabbed in the chest while fighting wildly with three armed
>> intruders, fell face-down and came to lying on his naked torso.
>
>I doubt Dr. MacDonald knows how he fell. Why would you think he could
>remember?
You choose to discount this part of his tale, but buy the rest of it?
You pick and choose what parts of his story to believe by backing into
the "evidence".
>MacDonald has been in prison for nearly 20 years as the result of
>fabricated and suppressed evidence. The lead prosecutor went to prison
>later for such activities in another case. Three of five of the
>prosecutors have been disbarred.
>
How many times have we heard this song and dance about prosecutors
being disbarred. He did not go to prison for activities in THIS case.
More irrelevant bullshit, Terry.
Ron
terryh...@my-deja.com
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 00:18:36 GMT, terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In fact the hardness is the test along with color. Uncolored
candlewax
> >yellows as it ages.
>
> WOW...I bet your candlewax experts can date this yellowing process
> within about two years, not to the day, let alone the hour.
The process is quite distinctive. It was the prosecution's experts, of
course, that found the wax was fresh.
> >It puts the lie to your defense of the prosecution which claimed
there
> >was no, none, zip, nada blood in the hallway. There was both blood
and
> >a "pile of fibers" in the spot where Dr. MacDonald said he fought
with
> >intruders. The FBI forgot when they made their chart that the jurors
> >relied on.
>
> Please cite when and where MacDonald ever told anyone that he fought
> with the intruders in the hallway. I have not found that one.
Now it wouldn't matter what he said would it? What matters is what the
evidence shows. Fibers and blood were found in the hallway adjacent to
the couch. They corroborate his story.
> >> He was
> >> supposedly stabbed in the chest while fighting wildly with three
armed
> >> intruders, fell face-down and came to lying on his naked torso.
> >
> >I doubt Dr. MacDonald knows how he fell. Why would you think he
could
> >remember?
>
> You choose to discount this part of his tale, but buy the rest of it?
> You pick and choose what parts of his story to believe by backing into
> the "evidence".
I always look to the evidence. Wish you would.
> >MacDonald has been in prison for nearly 20 years as the result of
> >fabricated and suppressed evidence. The lead prosecutor went to
prison
> >later for such activities in another case. Three of five of the
> >prosecutors have been disbarred.
> >
> How many times have we heard this song and dance about prosecutors
> being disbarred. He did not go to prison for activities in THIS case.
> More irrelevant bullshit, Terry.
>
> Ron
Hardly. The prosecutors were particularly dishonest even by the
standards of lawyers.
lbugb...@my-deja.com
William Ivory destroying the most important evidence in the entire
case.
How could he have "lost" it? After looking at it thru a microscope it
is then placed in a vial and into the possession of William Ivory.
Don't you think he would have taken every precaution to hold on to this
evidence? How do you just lose a vial containing skin?
Logan
Ronald Helm
>How could he have "lost" it? After looking at it thru a microscope it
>is then placed in a vial and into the possession of William Ivory.
>Don't you think he would have taken every precaution to hold on to this
>evidence? How do you just lose a vial containing skin?
>
>Logan
It really doesn't matter, Logan. The only people losing flesh in that
master bedroom were Colette and the kids. I betcha skin was flying in
every direction with all that stabbing going on. Ron
andrewsmom
>is then placed in a vial and into the possession of William Ivory.
>Don't you think he would have taken every precaution to hold on to this
>evidence? How do you just lose a vial containing skin?
>
>Logan
>
MacDonald's it would have been pretty powerful evidence.
Lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
Could he have been like the For Flushers (who think the most important
evidence was flushed down the toilet) and not have wanted to know the
answer? What we do know is that MacDonald's main first and primary
accuser was the last person known to see the skin? Why don't you
address that, Lori, instead of attacking?
I have not heard where the bloody palmprint came from, the hairs with
roots in the hands of the victims, the fingerprint on the glass anymore
than the piece of skin that our medical experts think came without
blood.
Instead I hear a steady drumbeat of phony attacks. Why is that, Lori?
Sorry, Logan, I don't think those who hide from the truth deserve
respect.
Best, Terry
andrewsmom
>been
>> MacDonald's it would have been pretty powerful evidence.
>> Lori
>
>Could he have been like the For Flushers (who think the most important
>evidence was flushed down the toilet) and not have wanted to know the
>answer? What we do know is that MacDonald's main first and primary
>accuser was the last person known to see the skin? Why don't you
>address that, Lori, instead of attacking?
>
want to know why evidence which could be so potentially damaging to
MacDonald would be lost before it could be tested. Other evidence was not
lost, or was lost later. If I were Ivory, I would have tested the evidence
first. If it implicated MacDonald, keep it. If not, lose it then (I am
assuming at this point that it was willingly destroyed. I don't know that I
believe that.)
>I have not heard where the bloody palmprint came from, the hairs with
>roots in the hands of the victims, the fingerprint on the glass anymore
>than the piece of skin that our medical experts think came without
>blood.
>
I have already addressed the fingerprint on the glass & the palmprint. I
have not come to the hair evidence yet. I have not been reading FJ this
weekend as I had other things to do.
>Instead I hear a steady drumbeat of phony attacks. Why is that, Lori?
>
Tell me who I was attacking by asking why Ivory didn't test the skin before
he lost it? Tell me who.
Lori
bry...@my-deja.com
lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
in reply to someone whom he snipped from the headers:
> > But I have changed my mind because it seems to me that MacDonald's
> > story wouldn't have been so obviously lies if he had a cooler head
> > advising him what to say.
> Name one thing about his story that is an "obvious lie".
1. despite the fact that he was not wearing his glasses and the lights
were off, he identified in great detail the four "intruders" who
attacked him;
2. he was going to russia with the boxing team (they had *never* planned
a trip to russia);
i've just finished reading Potter&Bost's short study. regrettably, it
does nothing to show that macdonald did not commit the murders. all it
shows is that the government (via the CID and the FBI) mishandled the
evidence. i'm not even sure how much malign intent to assign to them.
it seems more like incompetence than malignance, considering that they
needn't have retested the "purple cotton" fibers and admitted they were
black wool.
dr. ron, you've read fatal justice (which i just got my hands on). yet
you appear convinced of macdonald's guilt. would you mind telling me
what impression the book made upon you?
thanks,
b.
bry...@my-deja.com
terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7mo0j7$odi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> bry...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > one scenario i can envision is that colette and macdonald had an
> > argument and he lashed out at her without meaning to, but hit her
> > harder than he thought. then he called his good friend and asked
> > for help. but neither the children nor colette were dead, as yet,
> > and that's where they got the skin and hair under their fingernails.
> Which one got to tattoo the large "S" on baby Kristen?
irrelevant. what's your cite for evidence of this tattoo? it isn't
mentioned in FV, Malcolm's book, or the P&B short i just read. i should
be done with FJ in a day or two (assuming a regular workload). i have
put a hold on "Tainting Evidence" and will begin on that next.
i will say, though, that having read the short, i see no evidence that
exculpates macdonald. 5-7 people in a household that small cannot
possibly leave only 3-4 unidentified fibers and a single fingerprint.
so far, i've read nearly every report on the case. i'm still not
finding what i *want*, which is exculpatory evidence.
bry...@my-deja.com
terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <xbQj3.10361$xK4....@news3.atl>,
> "andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >Which one got to tattoo the large "S" on baby Kristen?
> > It doesn't matter which one did that, Terry.
> I don't think normal sane people do such things. Maybe you see it
> different.
as some other poster, possibly lori, pointed out, psychiatric tests can
uncover psychotic breaks, and they can show if someone has a *tendency*
to engage in certain types of acts. they cannot show that a person
*would never* commit a certain type of crime. if they could, we could
dispense with parole board hearings. just test the criminal, if they
pass, we release them with a clear conscience.
also, a lot of serial killers and mass murderers pass for perfectly
normal people for years. gacy was a member in good standing of his
community while he was torturing, raping, murdering, and hiding the
bodies of, 22 young men.
i'm not saying macdonald is a serial killer. in fact, i don't think
macdonald is a killer at all. i think something happened that night
that no one will ever know about, and all our post facto analyses fall
short because there is *no* clear and convincing *proof* of who
committed the crime.
but so far, i see no evidence that absolutely exculpates macdonald.
bry...@my-deja.com
terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <4cUj3.10895$xK4....@news3.atl>,
> "andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Where is your evidence of insanity, Lori?
why is evidence of insanity required? a person need not be insane to
take drastic action to cover up a tragic accident. was bundy insane?
was gacy? was dahmer? not by the existing legal definition. did they
commit crimes at least as dreadful? yes they did, and worse.
> What is your counter
> to the psychiatric evaluations. Why those guys don't know everything.
> That is true but you have nothing at all.
nothing at all but a story so flawed and full of holes as to excite
great suspicion.
> In fact you have produced no evidence of any kind.
except that five to seven drugged intruders left only three strange
fibers at the crime scene.
> And then you deny solid evidence like a bloody palmprint
nothing to deny. colette's palmprints were never taken. she has not
been eliminated as the source of that "solid" evidence.
> and hair under the little girls's fingernatils calling it confusing.
as brenda has pointed out, the little girls could well have picked up
their mother's eyebrow hairs (complete with roots because these are
*plucked*, not cut or shaved) playing in the apartment. were samples of
colette's eyebrows taken?
> It is only confusing because you are in denial.
*i'm* not, though i can't speak for lori, and i can tell you now i've
sacrificed over a month in searching for exculpatory evidence i find
convincing.
[incendiarectomy]
bry...@my-deja.com
lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <378f4645...@news.cgo.wave.ca>,
> t...@cgocable.net (Tammy P) wrote:
> > On 16 Jul 1999 13:57:22 GMT, broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
> > >My personal opinion is that the palmprint is Colette's.
> > And since there was a large direct-bleeding stain on
> > Kristen's bed in Colette's Type A blood, which indicates that
> > Colette bled in Kristen's room, it doesn't take a rocket scientist
> > to figure out that the Type O blood on Colette's hand could be
> > Kristen's.
> It also could be Mitchell's. I wonder whose brown hair was in
> Colette's hand.
let's start with the blood evidence. the existence of type O blood on
colette's hand could indicate that mitchell was wounded. who wounded
him? macdonald never even described mitchell (at least reading the
description and trying to match it to mitchell's picture indicates
macdonald described two white men other than mitchell). besides,
macdonald passed out without seriously hurting any of his assailants.
that leaves colette and the two children. we can eliminate the children
as the source of any injury that would make mitchell bleed.
you're telling me that colette, 5 months pregnant, a frail, petite
unarmed woman with two broken arms, managed to find some hitherto
undisclosed weapon with which she successfully injured mitchell?
terry mocks those who would assert colette and her husband the green
beret had a physical altercation. yet that same colette who would be
physically incapable of attacking her green beret husband nevertheless
summoned up the strength to wound a drug-crazed attacker?
moreover, mitchell apparently only bled on kristen's bed. no trail of
type O blood is seen going through the rooms, which is what one
would expect of a drug-crazed hippie in a killing orgy. this means
mitchell either washed off any blood (dubious, as the only blood spots
found around the kitchen and bathroom sinks are identified as
macdonald's) or managed to staunch the bleeding with some unidentified
piece of household apparatus and promptly exited the premises.
pretty fishy-sounding.
as for the "brown" hair in colette's hand, it could well have come from
either her husband or one of her children, as they were ash-blond, and
the hair was described as a light brown.
bry...@my-deja.com
terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <19990716095722...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
> > My personal opinion is that the palmprint is Colette's.
> The FBI says she was eliminated from "inked impressions." Were they
> just kidding, Brenda? Why were they joshing you?
is this the same FBI that lied, manufactured evidence, destroyed
evidence, and suppressed evidence?
why are they any more credible in this instance than in the instance of
the "entwined bloody hair"?
or do we only believe people when they say something that supports a
theory of ours?
terryh...@my-deja.com
> > Name one thing about his story that is an "obvious lie".
>
> 1. despite the fact that he was not wearing his glasses and the lights
> were off, he identified in great detail the four "intruders" who
> attacked him;
Describe this disability, Brysly. Many people who wear glasses could
describe attackers without them. You forget that besides ambient light
there was a candle.
> 2. he was going to russia with the boxing team (they had *never*
planned
> a trip to russia);
Coach Morgan confirmed the trip.
Shouldn't you be a bit more careful about your charges?
Best, Terry
>
> i've just finished reading Potter&Bost's short study. regrettably, it
> does nothing to show that macdonald did not commit the murders. all
it
> shows is that the government (via the CID and the FBI) mishandled the
> evidence. i'm not even sure how much malign intent to assign to them.
> it seems more like incompetence than malignance, considering that they
> needn't have retested the "purple cotton" fibers and admitted they
were
> black wool.
>
> dr. ron, you've read fatal justice (which i just got my hands on).
yet
> you appear convinced of macdonald's guilt. would you mind telling me
> what impression the book made upon you?
>
> thanks,
>
> b.
>
terryh...@my-deja.com
> > Where is your evidence of insanity, Lori?
>
> why is evidence of insanity required? a person need not be insane to
> take drastic action to cover up a tragic accident. was bundy insane?
> was gacy? was dahmer? not by the existing legal definition.
Legal definitions, I suspect you might agree, are mostly worthless.
Psychopaths have personality defects described in DSM-IV. These people
certainly fit this category. Dr. MacDonald does not.
Usually "insanity" refers to psychosis or schizophrenia, a hallucinatory
condition that divorces one from reality. Psychopaths are not divorced
from reality but are most certainly not normal.
did
they
> commit crimes at least as dreadful? yes they did, and worse.
>
> > What is your counter
> > to the psychiatric evaluations. Why those guys don't know
everything.
> > That is true but you have nothing at all.
>
> nothing at all but a story so flawed and full of holes as to excite
> great suspicion.
Point out these flaws.
> > In fact you have produced no evidence of any kind.
>
> except that five to seven drugged intruders left only three strange
> fibers at the crime scene.
They left hairs, skin, probably blood, numerous fibers, a bloody
palmprint, a fingerprint on a glass, bloody gloves, weapons.
> > And then you deny solid evidence like a bloody palmprint
>
> nothing to deny. colette's palmprints were never taken.
The FBI lied when they said they tried to match Colette's fingerprints?
Please explain.
>she has not
> been eliminated as the source of that "solid" evidence.
She was indeed.
> > and hair under the little girls's fingernatils calling it confusing.
>
> as brenda has pointed out, the little girls could well have picked up
> their mother's eyebrow hairs (complete with roots because these are
> *plucked*, not cut or shaved) playing in the apartment. were samples
of
> colette's eyebrows taken?
Samples of the MacDonald's hair was taken. The hairs under the girls'
fingernails were dissimilar, i.e. from two different women. The hairs
BTW were arm or body hair.
> > It is only confusing because you are in denial.
>
> *i'm* not, though i can't speak for lori, and i can tell you now i've
> sacrificed over a month in searching for exculpatory evidence i find
> convincing.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
bry...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7momtp$h0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
You will not find that one piece of evidence that absolutely eliminates
Dr. MacDonald. You will find a mass of evidence that proves intruders.
You have shown that you are still blinded by McGinniss' myths in a
number of respects. The most obvious is allowing yourself to swallow
the claim that the Army boxing team was not planning to go to Russia.
It was.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
bry...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7moi6u$v1f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <378f4645...@news.cgo.wave.ca>,
> > t...@cgocable.net (Tammy P) wrote:
wrote:
>
> > > >My personal opinion is that the palmprint is Colette's.
>
> > > Kristen's bed in Colette's Type A blood,
What sort of "large direct-bleeding stain" does not make it to the other
side of the sheet?
> > > which indicates that
> > > Colette bled in Kristen's room, it doesn't take a rocket scientist
> > > to figure out that the Type O blood on Colette's hand could be
> > > Kristen's.
>
> > It also could be Mitchell's. I wonder whose brown hair was in
> > Colette's hand.
>
> let's start with the blood evidence. the existence of type O blood on
> colette's hand could indicate that mitchell was wounded.
Let's take some care, Brysly. Three weapons were used on Colette.
Mitchell is a logical source for blood and hair but only one.
> who wounded
> him? macdonald never even described mitchell (at least reading the
> description and trying to match it to mitchell's picture indicates
> macdonald described two white men other than mitchell). besides,
> macdonald passed out without seriously hurting any of his assailants.
> that leaves colette and the two children. we can eliminate the
children
> as the source of any injury that would make mitchell bleed.
>
> you're telling me that colette, 5 months pregnant, a frail, petite
> unarmed woman with two broken arms, managed to find some hitherto
> undisclosed weapon with which she successfully injured mitchell?
>
> terry mocks those who would assert colette and her husband the green
> beret had a physical altercation. yet that same colette who would be
> physically incapable of attacking her green beret husband nevertheless
> summoned up the strength to wound a drug-crazed attacker?
Ever notice that women have fingernails? Why would you ignore that,
especially considering that Colette had a sizable piece of skin on her
fingernail?
When attackers have sharp objects they are quite capable of stabbing
themselves and others as well.
> moreover, mitchell apparently only bled on kristen's bed. no trail of
> type O blood is seen going through the rooms, which is what one
> would expect of a drug-crazed hippie in a killing orgy. this means
> mitchell either washed off any blood (dubious, as the only blood spots
> found around the kitchen and bathroom sinks are identified as
> macdonald's) or managed to staunch the bleeding with some unidentified
> piece of household apparatus and promptly exited the premises.
>
> pretty fishy-sounding.
>
> as for the "brown" hair in colette's hand, it could well have come
from
> either her husband or one of her children, as they were ash-blond, and
> the hair was described as a light brown.
No it couldn't. They were eliminated as sources though you keep
repeating it. Hairs are matched by taper and dispersion of pigmentation
among other things. Speaking of color alone is ludicrous.
The color does not match according to the testing.
terryh...@my-deja.com
bry...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7mnmpc$k13$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <19990716095722...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > broge...@aol.com (BRogers115) wrote:
>
> > > My personal opinion is that the palmprint is Colette's.
>
> > just kidding, Brenda? Why were they joshing you?
>
> is this the same FBI that lied, manufactured evidence, destroyed
> evidence, and suppressed evidence?
Yes.
> why are they any more credible in this instance than in the instance
of
> the "entwined bloody hair"?
Because they were not in the business of trying to cover up for
MacDonald. They succeeded in convicting him later only through the
manufacture and suppression of evidence. "They" means specific
individuals, in particular Paul Stombaugh and Michael Malone.
> or do we only believe people when they say something that supports a
> theory of ours?
One might look at the reasoning and evidence. Wouldn't you take damning
evidence against Dr. MacDonald as having more meaning if it came from
his defense lawyer than from a prosecutor?
If the FBI made up everything why bother with any forensic evidence
whatever?
Best, Terry
andrewsmom
>*i'm* not, though i can't speak for lori, and i can tell you now i've
>sacrificed over a month in searching for exculpatory evidence i find
>convincing.
>
fun to attack me in an extremely personal fashion. I fail to understand
this & hope that he is extremely satisfied as he has made me cry.
I'll no longer converse with him as I find his personal attacks petty & mean
spirited.
Lori
Ronald Helm
>
>*i'm* not, though i can't speak for lori, and i can tell you now i've
>sacrificed over a month in searching for exculpatory evidence i find
>convincing.
You asked about my opinion of P&B' Fatal Justice and mention that you
have sacrificed over a month in searching for exculpatory evidence
that is convincing...if you time is more valuable than mine, I would
tell you not to waste your time on this book if you wish to find
exculpatory evidence. This book spends far too much time talking
about Stoeckley, who should have been tossed out as incredible from
the get go. I too, find the most condemning factor to be the wild
story concocted by Jeffrey, then the defense, led by P&B set out to
find trace evidence, from a grossly contaminated crime scene, that is
selectively chosen to "corroborate Jeffrey's story". So what if the
defense proves that "someone was in that house besides the
MacDonalds". Of course, there were many people in and out of that
house from the time the MacDonalds moved in until the investigation
was complete. I would love for the defense to put a time frame on any
of the evidence that establishes that it was left there after midnite
on February 17th...that ain't gonna happen. All this said, if I had
my way, I would give JM his evidentiary hearing and ask the defense to
prove who was there. Ron