|
Posts:
25
From:
New York City
Registered:
8/8/08
|
|
(104 of 104)
Aug 10, 2008 6:12 AM
|
<<<The circumstances surrounding the statement must be clearly trustworthy - not just the statement.>>>
And they aren't with Helena Stoeckley or any of her friends.
It's too bad she was so tragic, but being tragic doesn't make her any more credible. She's probably the worst witness anyone could have ever had.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,664
Registered:
4/5/05
|
|
(103 of 104)
Aug 9, 2008 11:16 PM
|
|
I have a realhard time reading these FRE Rules!!!!! It's like jibberish to me!
|
|
|
Posts:
66
From:
San Antonio, Tex
Registered:
6/16/06
|
|
(102 of 104)
Aug 9, 2008 11:15 PM
|
|
bump
|
|
|
Posts:
3,796
Registered:
12/14/04
|
|
(101 of 104)
Aug 1, 2008 8:19 AM
|
gman - your questions/concerns in re: confessions makes perfect sense. that is why FRE Rule 804 (b)(3) is of such an impact in this case. Basically that provision is noted as the "trustworthiness provision" and was the reason Judge Dupree ruled against the Stoeckley Witnesses testifying before the jury at the 1979 trial. It is not just the credibility of the witness but of the statement itself. The circumstances surrounding the statement must be clearly trustworthy - not just the statement.
I bumped a thread that covers several FREs and have added information on this particular rule fyi.
--
byn
|
|
|
Posts:
161
Registered:
3/31/06
|
|
(100 of 104)
Jul 31, 2008 9:52 PM
|
byn, jtf, one
thanks I guess this is what I was looking for. I have no clue how these "confessions" take place. Meaning, I would like to think that if one is asked if they heard someone else confess they are also questioned about the credibility or integrity of the person they heard confessing.
I get drunk at a party and start spouting off and I am known for embellishing when I get drunk, say my salary, incidents in the military, # women I have slept with ...whatever, then when one hears this confession it comes with a lower credibility - however, when I read these confessions(and it may be that the listener or person taking the statement is only interested in how it will help their client) it tends to sound a tad more credible, there are no offers that the person confessing has a history of lying, embellishing etc...it usually states that the person gets real weird, body language changes etc...this is why these confessions get my attention, it may be a staged event, I have no idea, but qualifying a confession in my opinion, which I think they try to do at the end is important, it just seems like if at the end, the person reporting the confession said, "hey, look this guy says he was a Navy seal, or met the president etc...then you take the statement(s) a little lighter - that was the point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,796
Registered:
12/14/04
|
|
(99 of 104)
Jul 30, 2008 10:41 AM
|
GMan - just FYI OneWhoCares is one who knew Greg M personally. She mentioned at chat last night that GM was a small man not physically imposing and somewhat given to bragging. GM and Helena DNA was made available for the testing process and neither of their DNA was found in any of the exhibits. Judge Fox told inmate that only the DNA of a known suspect would be of any help judicially. GM and HS were the last of the viable known suspects - everyone else has long been eliminated from the pool of possibles. The spin Doctors on the defense are working desperately to claim the DNA results were not devastating - WHY? because they were devastating (1) due to E5 matching jrm and (2) the last two KNOWN suspects were eliminated as possible perps. I don't see anything being more devastating to the defense.
--
byn
|
|
|
Posts:
161
Registered:
3/31/06
|
|
(98 of 104)
Jul 30, 2008 6:42 AM
|
JTF, One
Thanks, these facts do make a difference, and JTF, him volunteering to go to the FBI, no councel and none of this confession business, meaning friends coming out of the woodwork, didnt occur until later, I would agree is odd. This throws a lot more doubt on the situation for me. I also cannot see how if Mitchell did the killing and was struggling with individuals inside the house he didnt leave a print, or something else, but I guess anything is possible. It just seems a tad odd to me when these people hear these confessions. But regardless, the Mac story and his injuries and all the other info just doesnt add up to me regardless of confessions, but I do find them odd.
|
|
|
Posts:
109
From:
North Carolina
Registered:
4/21/08
|
|
(97 of 104)
Jul 30, 2008 5:40 AM
|
CJGman2, you said and I quote, "That's why I asked if anyone got the "why" or did he ever, and I mean ever say anything to anyone that suggested he knew a detail that only the killer(s) would know - my guess would be no. That would mean more to me than anything else. JMO "
Good point! To my personal knowledge, Greg NEVER gave ANY details that only the killer would know. Also he was very vague and usually drunk when "confessing". He did tell one person that they went there to teach MacDonald a lesson because he didn't want to help the drug addicts and was tough on them. Now if MacDonald were really the target of drug crazed hippies, WHY is he still alive? Interesting too is the fact that Greg never said who "they" were.
I think Greg may have done a lot of things he was
ashamed of BUT I don't think murder was one of them. At any rate Greg and Helena are both dead and are still being used by the Mac team as a smokescreen.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,767
Registered:
6/7/04
|
|
(96 of 104)
Jul 30, 2008 1:11 AM
|
Gman: Zodiac left some bloody prints on the outside of the taxi cab of his last known victim. San Francisco PD and the FBI are confident that those are Zodiac's prints, but they were not fortunate enough to come across the perp. In the MacDonald case, the CID compared print exemplars from Greg Mitchell, Bruce Fowler, Helena Stoeckley, and Cathy Perry to the prints found at 544 Castle Drive. Not a single unsourced print found at the crime scene matched a print exemplar from any of these individuals. In Mitchell's case, once you add the fact that his head hair exemplars didn't match any of the head hairs found at the crime scene, it's easy to understand why the CID believed him when he told them that he wasn't involved in the murders.
The FBI came to the same conclusion about Mitchell 10 years later and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology determined that his DNA was not present at the crime scene, so I'm wondering what the criteria is for removing all doubts about Mitchell's innocence? It's important to remember that Mitchell's interactions with the CID and FBI were VOLUNTARY. He never sought counsel. The same cannot be said for Jeffrey MacDonald. Mitchell was also quite ill when he made those vague statements in the early 80's. I don't think it is a coincidence that all of the Mitchell or someone who resembled Mitchell confession claims revolved around that particular time period and not during the 1970's.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/suspects.html
Justthefacts
|
|
|
Posts:
161
Registered:
3/31/06
|
|
(95 of 104)
Jul 29, 2008 9:27 PM
|
JTF - ok, hold a sec there buddy - I can see what you are saying about #1 to a degree, but I dont know forensics that well - I would agree it is probably impossible for Mitchell to have been there and not be able to be placed there. But like the Zodiac case, when there isnt any say evidence, people in the vicinity can not be actually placed in a 20 x 40 box(say a house, but were around and therefore COULD have been there - literally at the scene, maybe not but could have been there yes
#2 - very very true. The Ramseys while I would not have agreed made incredible claims but that may have turned out to be true, but I see what you are saying
#3 - is my biggest problem, if I had committed the crime, and felt guilty and struggled with it but didnt want to spend my life in jail or be executed, then I have what I see with these confessions, sorry, and I dont mean to be confrontational, but stating he said he didnt do it to the authorities is not a matter of fact to me. I am sure there have been plenty of murders and other human garbage who have confessed to other prisoners, friends etc...but continously deny those allegations to the authorities(susan Atkins at first maybe?? just guessing). To me, of course he told the FBI and CID that, he would probably only confess to others. It doesnt surprise me that he didnt sign anything or be allowed to be recorded, for me, and maybe only me, that in no way affects the statements I read, it is exactly what I would suspect if you see what I am saying. Thats why I asked if anyone got the "why" or did he ever, and I mean ever say anything to anyone that suggested he knew a detail that only the killer(s) would know - my guess would be no. That would mean more to me than anything else. JMO
|
|
|
Posts:
1,767
Registered:
6/7/04
|
|
(94 of 104)
Jul 29, 2008 7:56 PM
|
Gman: Consider the following.............................
1) There is not a high profile murder case in the history of American Law that does not have at least one bogus confessor. You can talk until the cows come home, but if you can't be placed at the crime scene, your confession is worthless.
2) There have been astronomers who claim that they've seen UFOs. There have been biologists who claim they've seen Bigfoot. There were numerous witnesses who provided dubious testimony in the JFK case. History demonstrates that credible people make incredible claims.
3) Greg Mitchell told the CID AND FBI that he was not involved in the MacDonald murders. In addition, Mitchell never signed a confession nor did he ever confess on audiotape. The fact of the matter is that Greg Mitchell NEVER confessed to being involved in the MacDonald murders. Period.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/
Justthefacts
|
|
|
Posts:
3,796
Registered:
12/14/04
|
|
(93 of 104)
Jul 29, 2008 4:28 PM
|
gman - hope to see ya at chat.
for what it is worth I am not at all convinced that Helena ever really BELIEVED she'd been at 544 Castle Drive. She was a very needy teenager who many many people said would do anything to make Prince Beasley praise her and act proud of her. Even Beasley himself said it at one time. That need for approbation made her vulnerable to the manipulation of Ted Gunderson with the help of Beasley. Once Beasley started showing signs of the inorganic brain disease that eventually killed him Gunderson could manipulate both PEB and HS. Reading the transcripts of the taped sessions, noting the significant differences caught by the prosecution/court, the affidavit of TG's one time assistant and other statements related to Helena leads me to believe as I do. She needed to be the star of the story and Bernie Segal helped make her the tiniest bit credible by showing her every single crime scene photo during the 1979 interview in the attempt to get her to admit to her presence. Thus she knew details that were pointed out by Bernie to add credence to her story. Doesn't make it any more true, but there it is in a nutshell as I see it.
--
byn
|
|
|
Posts:
161
Registered:
3/31/06
|
|
(92 of 104)
Jul 29, 2008 1:48 PM
|
|
byn - thats a good idea, I think I may do that. It just strikes me odd thats all. You may be right, it could be that but what strikes me different is that Helena's seem more rambling and others dont seem to take it serious as if a lot of what she said was questionable. I am not saying the same is not tur for Mitchell but it doesnt appear that way from what I have read, or others have discussed. It just strikes me odd - 2 people actually convincing themselves they were there - definitely possible though.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,796
Registered:
12/14/04
|
|
(91 of 104)
Jul 29, 2008 7:40 AM
|
GMan - one thing about the multiple confessions of Helena to take into consideration is that those provided to Ted Gunderson cannot be corroborated. It was proven at an appeal hearing that Ted Gunderson had cut and pasted several days of rambling question and answer sessions together in attempts to make Helena's story into one confession that fit the facts. However the audio tapes didn't even match the transcripts the defense provided of the tapes. There was also the note to TG's secretary about not transcribing anything else from a particular tape. The confessions make no sense because they are untrue, coached conversations made by manipulating a poor pathetic druggie.
As to the fact that Norma and Bryant Lane no longer believe inmate to be not guilty:
Their journey of discovery occured recently when inmate's website ignored an email requesting status/update on the case. This led to the discovery of tjmis and jtf's site. Norma participates in Tuesday night chats at jtf's site, if you can fit it into your schedule why not drop by and ask her the questions you have.
My personal belief is that towards the end Greg Mitchell had pickeled his brain almost as badly as he did his liver. Thus, hearing others say he'd confessed etc he started to believe it himself. It is not an unheard of phenomenon - I remember when Michelle Dorr went missing, they questioned her father and he at one time confessed but he did not have anything to do with her disappearance and death. Michelle was found years later after her murderer had killed again Haden Clark who murdered Laura Hoteling.
--
byn
|
|
|
Posts:
161
Registered:
3/31/06
|
|
(90 of 104)
Jul 29, 2008 6:34 AM
|
JTF or anyone - these multiple confessions seem to bother me for some reason and all of the people who hear them. I know plenty of disturbed people confess to things they dont do, although it still strikes me odd. I have read a lot on here about Helena and just cant make sense of it other than it doesnt. But reading the latest on the updates with Mitchell's co-worker and co-worker's wife, my question is this:
1) did he, Mitchell ever say "why" they were there?
the reason i ask most of the time it is I have done something terrible, and the Macdonald family is mentioned, I dont think.
2) did he ever mention anything specific that could remotely be taken as him being there? Color of walls, anything, something
I just find it odd because people who talk to these people appear to be convinced and see real behavior changes when the alleged killer talks about it - interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
