Author Topic: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:  (Read 42689 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2016, 01:27:PM »
What people like you see as the truth and what people like me see as the truth are very different things Lookout.

I do not want people like Jeremy Bamber to win his freedom because of a technicality, even though he's guilty.

Jeremy Bamber will no doubt continue to win over the minds of others but he will never be released from prison!





There'll be no " technicality " as even JB himself won't wear that and certainly doesn't want that result which he stated quite some time ago.
The truth is all that matters to him and I can go along with that.It's not a case of winning over the minds of others. My mind is strong and I'm level-headed,sober and all the rest of it and not likely to allow any rogue to use their fluence on me near or far.

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2016, 01:36:PM »
What people like you see as the truth and what people like me see as the truth are very different things Lookout.

I do not want people like Jeremy Bamber to win his freedom because of a technicality, even though he's guilty.

Jeremy Bamber will no doubt continue to win over the minds of others and recruit like minded people, but he will never be released from prison!

I see Jeremy Bamber for what he is, as do many others and indeed the courts.

Jeremy Bamber has a distorted and inflated sense of himself. He also has a hard time seeing others points of view and he is unable to see the flaws in his own thinking.

And it is for these reasons he slips up time and time again.

Hi Steph.  The case is very divisive among general opinion.  If we take your view above, it's as if anybody suspecting a potential MOJ is dim, easily fooled, naive etc.  I think to be fair, that might be a little too simplistic a view to take. 

As well as presenting genuine evidence and facilitating genuine prosecutions, the police have also been known fool the public and juries, in the way some evidence is presented to achieve a certain desired result.

In taking on board your own experiences - how can you be sure that you are not in effect being fooled by 'Mick' Ainsley and others in this particular case?

You seem to be affording police a very elastic tolerance with regard to 'innocent' mistakes and administrative errors, faulty recording etc. 
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 01:38:PM by Roch »

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2016, 01:41:PM »
Dr MacDonell has recanted on his 1993 conclusions.

In 2011 MacDonell told Channel 4 News.

Dr MacDonell, who testified in the OJ Simpson murder case and was involved in the investigations into the assassinations of US Senator Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, told Channel 4 News:

“From the bloodstain patterns the victim’s arms must have been moved. Bloodstains on the floor showed that other objects were also moved. I concluded that it had to have been murder because of the two shots under her chin. (But) Some time later I learned that the pathologists concluded that she could have fired both shots so I now believe it could have been suicide as well.”



Dr MacDonell was also arrested in the third week of December 2012 (According to Hicks).

The New York state police say the 84 year old had inappropriate pictures of an 11 year old girl at his home.

In July of 2013, Dr MacDonnell pleaded guilty to reduced charges in order to avoid a trial and possible convictions for more serious offences.

The case involved apparent forensic fraud as Dr Macdonnell threatened to disseminate false information.

Hardly a reliable 'expert.'
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 01:45:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2016, 02:07:PM »
Hi Steph.  The case is very divisive among general opinion.  If we take your view above, it's as if anybody suspecting a potential MOJ is dim, easily fooled, naive etc.  I think to be fair, that might be a little too simplistic a view to take. 

As well as presenting genuine evidence and facilitating genuine prosecutions, the police have also been known fool the public and juries, in the way some evidence is presented to achieve a certain desired result.

Hi Roch. You say the case is very divisive among general opinion. I don't agree with this statement; especially since SH's confession.

With regards my views now regarding alleged MOJ's, yes they have changed considerably.

I did not have the knowledge then as I do now. I was naive, dim, easily fooled, however you wish to phrase it.

I was not aware of how deceptive, manipulative and convincing some people can be. I was not aware of pathology like I am now. When I refer to pathology I am not referring to just psychopaths, I am referring to disordered personalities in general.

Without hard, factual evidence, a prosecution case is a theory. Therefore many theories are created in order to sway, or it could be said 'fool' opinion.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2016, 02:49:PM »
In taking on board your own experiences - how can you be sure that you are not in effect being fooled by 'Mick' Ainsley and others in this particular case?

You seem to be affording police a very elastic tolerance with regard to 'innocent' mistakes and administrative errors, faulty recording etc.

Good point but in order to have been fooled by Mick Ainsley and all the others, would mean (as has been stated before) they would all need to be disordered.

I have looked at this case from differing angles; most recently from the angle of pathology. From the angle of pathology and by applying what I learned in the SH case, I may be able to see things others cannot?

Each case should be looked at on their own merits. And in cases such as the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4, they were very different to Bamber's and SH's cases.

However there was a time when I compared their cases with SH's; which was a mistake.

As an outsider looking in, I can see, for example, Trudi Benjamin, making the same mistakes I once made. She appears in ore of people like Paddy Hill, who I think is an inspirational man however his case and his persona are far different from that of Bamber's.

With regards the police and innocent mistakes. I probably get pee'd off just as much as the next person when it comes to their mistakes. For example; Why didn't Suffolk police stick to the murder having had a sexual element; as opposed to going with a burglary gone wrong - which it was not?

Following SH's death in custody it became apparent to me numerous mistakes were made in relation to his care in custody and his subsequent death. Proving it however was another matter.

I wanted to learn if the mistakes were made on purpose? Did those people who made the mistakes have an agenda or ulterior motive? Were the mistakes made on purpose in order to fool others?

During SH's Inquest it became apparent the legal team and myself had made a mistake. Following another overdose and another hospital stay (Nov 2013) SH had told a prison officer he had tried to hang himself from his prison bed. The prison officer had written this down in SH's records
This prison officer found SH dead in his prison cell in Feb 2014.

It turned out our mistake was not recognising the prison officer had a brother with the same surname as the other working in the same prison.

The prison officer who SH had told about his hanging attempts, was not the same prison officer who found him, it was his brother. Although the one brother had noted down in SH records he'd attempted to hang himself, he did nothing else with this information.

We wrongly presumed all prison officers caring for vulnerable prisoners would read prisoners records - they do not. Nor do they make their colleagues aware of any concerns they may have regarding a prisoners disclosure of unsuccessful suicide attempts.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 03:29:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2016, 02:51:PM »
Hi Roch. You say the case is very divisive among general opinion. I don't agree with this statement; especially since SH's confession.

With regards my views now regarding alleged MOJ's, yes they have changed considerably.

I did not have the knowledge then as I do now. I was naive, dim, easily fooled, however you wish to phrase it.

I was not aware of how deceptive, manipulative and convincing some people can be. I was not aware of pathology like I am now. When I refer to pathology I am not referring to just psychopaths, I am referring to disordered personalities in general.

Without hard, factual evidence, a prosecution case is a theory. Therefore many theories are created in order to sway, or it could be said 'fool' opinion.

I suppose you could say, without hard factual evidence... you have to introduce a sound moderator; scratch-marks; edit everyone's statements as 'composites' - taking care to omit anything that was in the original that could be helpful to the defence; misrepresent that window issue; take the main prosecution witness to the bank to clean them up...  sorry couldn't help it!  :))

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2016, 03:05:PM »
Hi Steph.  The case is very divisive among general opinion.  If we take your view above, it's as if anybody suspecting a potential MOJ is dim, easily fooled, naive etc.  I think to be fair, that might be a little too simplistic a view to take. 

My view is that supporters should also be looking at those people who are supporting alleged MOJ's.

In my opinion, people like Mike O'Brien and Michelle Diskin have their own agenda's.

Mike O'Brien clearly wants to share with everyone his experiences of the injustice he suffered. It most probably brings him some comfort and makes his suffering a little easier?

Michelle Diskin; maybe she enjoys meeting people who are suffering? Maybe she thinks by telling of her experiences and those of her brothers, she is helping the people who are suffering?

From my experience; being a patron to cases like Bamber's does not mean the patrons know the person they are publicly supporting is innocent; nor does it appear to matter in some instances?

Sandra Lean; Billy Middleton. They both had agendas imo. Billy's was obvious. Although 'not proven' I am of the firm opinion he knowingly started 2 fires which claimed the life of his baby daughter. Sandra Lean; well I think it is clear from her previous posts here. Sandra Lean has yet to publicly admit she was fooled by SH and it's unlikely she will; preferring to blame others.

Here are some of the other cases I believe to be guilty:

Luke Mitchell
Kevin Nunn
Nick Rose

In fact it's most probable all of the cases linked to Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean are not MOJ's.

What is known of the people who publicly support Bamber? One only has to look at some of the people who are no longer in the picture. What was the name of that solicitor?

« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 03:27:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2016, 03:08:PM »
I suppose you could say, without hard factual evidence... you have to introduce a sound moderator; scratch-marks; edit everyone's statements as 'composites' - taking care to omit anything that was in the original that could be helpful to the defence; misrepresent that window issue; take the main prosecution witness to the bank to clean them up...  sorry couldn't help it!  :))

No no, I kind of agree with you Roch. The SH case could be presented in a similar manner. Well, it was.  ::)  :-[ As indeed it has been in the Bamber case.

I recall when SH confessed and made disclosures regarding his guilt, some people appeared to convince themselves, and attempted to convince me, that SH was merely repeating the prosecutions theory. He wasn't. Some of the prosecutions theory was indeed correct, though like the motive, some of it wasn't.


« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 03:16:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2016, 03:18:PM »
I suppose you could say, without hard factual evidence... you have to introduce a sound moderator; scratch-marks; edit everyone's statements as 'composites' - taking care to omit anything that was in the original that could be helpful to the defence; misrepresent that window issue; take the main prosecution witness to the bank to clean them up...  sorry couldn't help it!  :))

But also what you have here can be described as the perfect alibi to hide behind for someone like Bamber who insists on maintaining innocence.

People like Bamber know how to play the criminal justice system at there own game and this is what he continues to do; with the help of suspecting and unsuspecting victims.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 03:20:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2016, 03:22:PM »
Good point but in order to have been fooled by Mick Ainsley and all the others, would mean (as has been stated before) they would all need to be disordered.

I have looked at this case from differing angles; most recently from the angle of pathology. From the angle of pathology and by applying what I learned in the SH case, I may be able to see things others cannot?

Each case should be looked at on their own merits. And in cases such as the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4, they were very different to Bamber's and SH's cases.

However there was a time when I compared their cases with SH's; which was a mistake.

As an outsider looking in, I can see, for example, Trudi Benjamin, making the same mistakes I once made. She appears in ore of people like Paddy Hill, who I think is an inspirational man however his case and his persona are far different from that of Bamber's.

With regards the police and innocent mistakes. I probably get pee'd off just as much as the next person when it comes to their mistakes. For example; Why didn't Suffolk police stick to the murder having had a sexual element; as opposed to going with a burglary gone wrong - which it was not?

Following SH's death in custody it became apparent to me numerous mistakes were made in relation to his care in custody and his subsequent death. Proving it however was another matter.

I wanted to learn if the mistakes were made on purpose? Did those people who made the mistakes have an agenda or ulterior motive? Were the mistakes made on purpose in order to fool others?

During SH's Inquest it became apparent the legal team and myself had made a mistake. Following another overdose and another hospital stay (Nov 2013) SH had told a prison officer he had tried to hang himself from his prison bed. The prison officer had written this down in SH's records
This prison officer found SH dead in his prison cell in Feb 2014.

It turned out our mistake was not recognising the prison officer had a brother with the same surname as the other working in the same prison.

The prison officer who SH had told about his hanging attempts, was not the same prison officer who found him, it was his brother. Although the one brother had noted down in SH records he'd attempted to hang himself, he did nothing else with this information.

We wrongly presumed all prison officers caring for vulnerable prisoners would read prisoners records - they do not. Nor do they make their colleagues aware of any concerns they may have regarding a prisoner.

Some good points there regarding misunderstanding and human error.

With regard to Ainsley and co.  We don't really know if all of the group of officers which prosecuted JB using the silencer & Mugford evidence had the same understanding as the TFG officers, regarding that morning's events inside the farmhouse.  Likewise, we don't know whether the TFG officers agreed with the prosecution of JB using the silencer & Mugford evidence.

What is known is that the Assistance Chief Constable sanctioned the go-ahead to prosecute Bamber and desired it to be the direction of the case, after having met Robert Boutflour; who had become a relentless pursuer and theorist regarding his own nephew. 

I wonder how much pressure Simpson was under - and how much this pressure filtered down to those under him?

Any officer who retained a sense of unease about prosecuting Bamber had to also weigh-up the fact that the top brass in their organisation desired the prosecution to take place.  I think in this environment, some officers were either 'not required' to give statements (as their evidence would not assist the prosecution) or may have themselves expressed a reluctance to provide statements.  Pensions and careers can be a strong motivating factor. Basically I think some officers kept quiet and/or were not required.

It's sad but some officers may have turned a blind eye.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2016, 03:44:PM »
 Money was the driving force all round.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2016, 03:48:PM »
Some good points there regarding misunderstanding and human error.

With regard to Ainsley and co.  We don't really know if all of the group of officers which prosecuted JB using the silencer & Mugford evidence had the same understanding as the TFG officers, regarding that morning's events inside the farmhouse.  Likewise, we don't know whether the TFG officers agreed with the prosecution of JB using the silencer & Mugford evidence.

What is known is that the Assistance Chief Constable sanctioned the go-ahead to prosecute Bamber and desired it to be the direction of the case, after having met Robert Boutflour; who had become a relentless pursuer and theorist regarding his own nephew. 

I wonder how much pressure Simpson was under - and how much this pressure filtered down to those under him?

Any officer who retained a sense of unease about prosecuting Bamber had to also weigh-up the fact that the top brass in their organisation desired the prosecution to take place.  I think in this environment, some officers were either 'not required' to give statements (as their evidence would not assist the prosecution) or may have themselves expressed a reluctance to provide statements.  Pensions and careers can be a strong motivating factor. Basically I think some officers kept quiet and/or were not required.

It's sad but some officers may have turned a blind eye.

I actually haven't explained it very well at all but without going into more detail, it's difficult to condense down into a couple of sentences.

I again kind of agree with what you suggest Roch but you may also wish to factor in things such as the monetary aspect of the case. I very much doubt the police had a bottomless pit in which to obtain funds. Then there is the fact crucial evidence was destroyed very early on. And the evidence shows that was of Jeremy's doing, not the relatives. There are many factors at play imo, not just the idea of police corruption, for example.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2016, 03:49:PM »
Money was the driving force all round.

No it wasn't!
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2016, 03:53:PM »
Herbert MacDonnell http://www.weny.com/news/All/herb-macdonell-more-charges-122112

https://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-will-set-me-free

And each time Bamber comes out with a new claim, its shows his inconsistencies. Even he can't keep up with own previous claims:

"• Photographs which his lawyers allege show that the gun was moved

• One police officer described having no memory of the gun being at the crime scene

• Inconsistencies in the blood-spatter evidence

• X-rays revealing bullets which were presented whole at trial had broken up on impact

Now its his alibi... as per letter to Trudi
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 04:04:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Online Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17586
Re: Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2016, 04:21:PM »
Herbert MacDonnell http://www.weny.com/news/All/herb-macdonell-more-charges-122112

https://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-will-set-me-free

And each time Bamber comes out with a new claim, its shows his inconsistencies. Even he can't keep up with own previous claims:

"• Photographs which his lawyers allege show that the gun was moved

• One police officer described having no memory of the gun being at the crime scene

• Inconsistencies in the blood-spatter evidence

• X-rays revealing bullets which were presented whole at trial had broken up on impact

Now its his alibi... as per letter to Trudi

Which of the claims are in question Steph?