Phillip Marshall, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist, Apparent Suicide? Or What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Found this additional information if anyone is interested. Be advised it contains graphic images.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/25011942/1660865779/name/BLOOD+SPATTER+PATTERNS.pdf

Sally did you read this article on blood splatter? Based on what I read in the article it would be easy to tell if Marshall to had been holding the weapon from the blood splatter. If he was standing in front of the couch it might have even been possible that there is blood splatter that implicates him in the shooting of the children as well.
 
First of all, there's no evidence that there's any evidence. No photographic evidence was preserved, as far as we know.

I would point out that as far as you know no photographic evidence has been destroyed.

We know the shell casings reportedly match his gun, but in truth we don't even know if the shell casings still exist or if the casings have punched in primers. The sheriffs are not showing the evidence they say they have.

It is pretty clear that you think the police would destroy the evidence that they collected as soon as they reach a conclusion in a case and not even wait for all the evidence to be gathered, but that is not true. Just because you haven't seen the evidence you shouldn't leap to the conclusion that the evidence has been destroyed.

The sheriffs theory is apparently

1. he shot his kids while they were sleeping on a couch at 3 pm in the afternoon (official time of death).

2. went into the master bedroom and shot his dog.

3. returned to the livingroom and shot himself behind the couch the kids had been sleeping on.

4. on Feb 2.

You really need to let go of this obsession on the listed time of death. It doesn't mean anything and serves as a distraction to what you ever else you are trying to say. Do you think you can let go of this going forward?

DNA from the kids should have been present in the master bedroom or on the dog before the place was cleaned up if this is indeed the order in which events took place.

We don't know at what range the dog was shot, but if it was point-blank, DNA from the dog should have been present in the living room before the place was cleaned up.

We can talk about that when the DNA results are returned.
There would not have been any need to do DNA testing in the master bedroom unless there had been an unexplained blood stain. There is sufficient evidence to establish the sequence of events that would rule out the need to conduct DNA testing of the type you are indicating.
 
Sally did you read this article on blood splatter? Based on what I read in the article it would be easy to tell if Marshall to had been holding the weapon from the blood splatter. If he was standing in front of the couch it might have even been possible that there is blood splatter that implicates him in the shooting of the children as well.

Thanks. I've gotten some docs on this but until or unless the photos (if they exist) are released, we can't determine anything from the patterns. Also the bludgeonings and hackings are not the same as a point-blank shot, which all of these appear to have been.

But to your point, yes, I'm familiar with the terminology and methods.
 
I would point out that as far as you know no photographic evidence has been destroyed.

Well, yuh got me there, alright! :)


It is pretty clear that you think the police would destroy the evidence that they collected as soon as they reach a conclusion in a case and not even wait for all the evidence to be gathered, but that is not true. Just because you haven't seen the evidence you shouldn't leap to the conclusion that the evidence has been destroyed.

The problem is that they haven't even said what evidence they do have. Let's take one example, that keeps coming around and that needs to be determined in order to resolve other issues. The time of death.

Scan for "Callaway" on this page and notice that in her conversation with the sheriffs they apparently told her the deaths occurred on Thursday night. Why then did they tell the Union Democrat that the "official time of death" was Saturday afternoon?

This is the kind of crap that makes it so hard to take them seriously.

Add to this that the "time of death" was being evaluated since the first and second press releases and STILL not nailed down in the third release/update. This is freaking absurd.

They apparently DO know good and well that they died on Thursday night.

They apparently DO have the evidence, but are not releasing it to the public.

If they are so darned sure Phillip Marshall is the murderer, what the world would they have to gain by concealing details such as this?

Ans: None! Unless they really aren't sure. But if they really aren't sure, then why are law enforcement officers engaged in character assassination and slander?

That's not very professional of them, is it.

You really need to let go of this obsession on the listed time of death. It doesn't mean anything and serves as a distraction to what you ever else you are trying to say. Do you think you can let go of this going forward?

Time of death ties in with tons of things. It has to do with how 'loud' a gunshot might sound (relative to background noise). It has to do with how/why the kids were drinking alcohol, when Phillip Marshall stopped posting at his twitter page, whether the kids were home sick from school or whether they didn't attend school on Friday because they were dead. It has to do with the half life of the Welbutrin in Phillip's blood at room temperature, in order to get a more realistic estimate of how much of it he had taken (which would be MUCH more than the toxicology report stated if it's as unstable as the wikipedia article on it suggests).

No. Time of death is very important in these and possibly other issues that need to be determined.

There would not have been any need to do DNA testing in the master bedroom unless there had been an unexplained blood stain. There is sufficient evidence to establish the sequence of events that would rule out the need to conduct DNA testing of the type you are indicating.

Let's just wait and see on the DNA. The DoJ did a great job in the Trayvon Martin case. But of course they were given the right things to test!

Again, the sheriffs are playing their cards very close to their chest here, not even telling the public what evidence they do have. And they are apparently also leaking inaccurate information for some reason... which we can probably guess.

They seem to delight in confusion.
 
Here's the Callaway stuff with her statements extracted from the article so the paragraphs don't seem so shuffled together.

Also, one of the interviews the sheriffs conducted was very interesting. The interviewee was apparently guided from her initial feelings about the event to a new conclusion. The person to watch changing her mind is Merita Callaway here. She's a county supervisor who knew Phillip and the kids very well.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_71f9b8da-6e27-11e2-99e8-001a4bcf887a.html down about 15% of the page)

“The actions don’t match the person we know,” said Merita Callaway, a county supervisor who lives four doors up the street from Marshall. She considered him a good friend. “I can’t tell you how many times we’ve had conversations over a cup of coffee together.”

“When I heard what happened, I couldn’t believe it,” Callaway said. “He loved his children.”

She received a call from a sheriff’s captain asking her ‘Do you think this was a murder suicide,” to which she replied, “I had a hard time with it. I truly felt like somebody came in the house.”

“What happened on Thursday that triggered this, if this was a murder suicide?” she asked. “Did he hate his family that much?”

That being said, Callaway said, “I don’t know what happens behind closed doors.”

Were the sheriffs interested in getting her opinion or in shaping it?
 
Thanks. I've gotten some docs on this but until or unless the photos (if they exist) are released, we can't determine anything from the patterns. Also the bludgeonings and hackings are not the same as a point-blank shot, which all of these appear to have been.

But to your point, yes, I'm familiar with the terminology and methods.

Well the document that I was pointing you to had nothing to do at all with bludgeoning or hacking but instead had to do specifically with point-blank shots to the head. It is sort of why I felt it would be highly relevant and asked if you had a chance to read the article it wasn't about familiarizing you with the terminology.
 
I have tried Jonjson really. There is nothing that points to a struggle nor another person being present. No disturbances in the house and no sign of trauma other than the shots. Pretty confident that blood spatter and gun residue tests will make this open and shut.
 
Well the document that I was pointing you to had nothing to do at all with bludgeoning or hacking but instead had to do specifically with point-blank shots to the head. It is sort of why I felt it would be highly relevant and asked if you had a chance to read the article it wasn't about familiarizing you with the terminology.

I have downloaded it. It's on my hard drive. What in its contents do you say proves Phillip Marshall shot his kids?

The DNA tests aren't in yet. We don't know whose blood is where yet.

And the ballistics tests aren't in yet either. This has been a question from the beginning. Was it his gun that fired the rather unique ammunition that the sheriffs had such a hard time locating?

How Marshall located it so easily or why he decided on using such a rare ordnance would also be interesting to know since only days before the incident he said that he didn't have any bullets for the gun at all.

See "tarquin" on Feb. 5 here.
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_71f9b8da-6e27-11e2-99e8-001a4bcf887a.html

There's only about one or two days window in which he could have purchased these bullets. And what do you know. As the sheriffs discovered, that is exactly what he did.

And rare bullets to boot. So there can be no mistaking who shot them if it turns out the ballistics are inconclusive (not to get too far ahead of the game, but just sayin').

We have heard that the sheriffs have the video of Marshall buying the bullets and they found the receipt for them in his car.

This is good. And what would be even better if they post these things where the public and the press can see them.

Maybe they will post them after another two month delay. Or is the next delay going to be two years.
 
I have tried Jonjson really. There is nothing that points to a struggle nor another person being present. No disturbances in the house and no sign of trauma other than the shots. Pretty confident that blood spatter and gun residue tests will make this open and shut.

Where did you hear that the gun residue test is to be done. That should have been a no-brainer, but they apparenly have no brains. Or did you find that on the net somewhere?

It' not mentioned in their latest report.
 
The Coroner:

The Caleveras County coroner is having a toxicology report performed on the blood of Marshall and his children to determine if any drugs are present in their blood streams, which is standard procedure in cases like this. Reports from the county sheriff indicate the children were sleeping when shot. The coroner said Macaila Marshall, 14, and Alex Marshall, 17, were lying 6 feet from each other on separate parts of a large U-shaped sectional couch.

When asked whether it was possible the children were drugged, the coroner said he couldn’t say yet. “That’s a good question,” he said in published reports. “We will be checking tox on everybody. It did appear as though they were sleeping.” The toxicology results and pathologist’s report could be completed within three weeks.

“Cause of death is all going to be single gunshot wound to the head for everybody,” the coroner said. The family dog also was found dead from a gunshot in a bedroom.

Calaveras County officials said conspiracy theories about the deaths are growing on online comment forums below stories about the incident. Many of these stem from Marshall’s involvement with the CIA as a contract pilot in the 1980s and the books he wrote about 9/11.

The children’s mother, Sean Marshall, was traveling on business in Turkey at the time of the killings. The coroner said she is expected to arrive in the area soon to make funeral arrangements.

2008 crime reports indicate friction between Marshall and his spouse. Phillip Marshall was jailed briefly on suspicion of slapping Sean Marshall’s sister, but he was not prosecuted. Last year, Marshall told one of his book editors that he still was disputing custody of his children with his ex-wife, but gladly attended his son’s football games and was quite close with daughter.

Well, the coroner's "good question" has been answered. The children hadn't been drugged so how they appeared to have been sleeping is now answered. They (both) weren't sleeping. In fact it remains a question whether either of them were. Where's the 'evidence'? Photos would do.

[Note: It took 8 weeks for the sheriffs to report the results. -rs]

The Sheriffs:

And Phillip Marshall was arrested on "suspicion" of slapping Sean Marshall’s sister? Betcha that wasn't the Calaveras County sheriffs that arrested him on "suspicion" of slapping Sean Marshall’s sister. They would have told it like it was. No question about it. And they'd have proven it -- by any means necessary.
 
I have downloaded it. It's on my hard drive. What in its contents do you say proves Phillip Marshall shot his kids?

You remember how we said that with the blood splatter from Marshall's wound not having a void it is possible to rule out there being someone else holding the weapon when he was shot? Well the question becomes where was he standing when he shot the kids? If he was standing in front of the couch he creates a void himself from their blood splatter and the splatter pattern would be on his pants and even other articles of his clothing. From those splatter patterns it would be possible to analyze exactly how and where he was standing. The patterns would also not be in areas where the splatter pattern from his own wounds would be seen. You have said that it seemed that the implicating of Phillip as the shooter was rushed. This sort of analysis could be carried out in a matter of only an hour or so by a person trained in the techniques that are outlined in the paper.

The DNA tests aren't in yet. We don't know whose blood is where yet.

Are you familiar with the saying "When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras."?
They aren't using the DNA to determine who's blood is where but merely to confirm that it is their blood on the gun.

And the ballistics tests aren't in yet either.

The ballistics tests have not been reported yet is more accurate.

This has been a question from the beginning. Was it his gun that fired the rather unique ammunition that the sheriffs had such a hard time locating?

How Marshall located it so easily or why he decided on using such a rare ordnance would also be interesting to know since only days before the incident he said that he didn't have any bullets for the gun at all.

There's only about one or two days window in which he could have purchased these bullets. And what do you know. As the sheriffs discovered, that is exactly what he did.

And rare bullets to boot. So there can be no mistaking who shot them if it turns out the ballistics are inconclusive (not to get too far ahead of the game, but just sayin').

We have heard that the sheriffs have the video of Marshall buying the bullets and they found the receipt for them in his car.

Trivial detail not worth wasting any time over, as you have just stated he was seen on video purchasing the ammunition. Delving into his motivation for selecting this ammunition is a waste of time.

This is good. And what would be even better if they post these things where the public and the press can see them.

Maybe they will post them after another two month delay. Or is the next delay going to be two years.

They will not post the videos where the public and press can see them after the case is closed. The only way that they will release any of this evidence is if questions about the investigation rise to a level to warrant releasing additional information. The police just don't routinely post evidence from any investigations.
 
You remember how we said that with the blood splatter from Marshall's wound not having a void it is possible to rule out there being someone else holding the weapon when he was shot? Well the question becomes where was he standing when he shot the kids? If he was standing in front of the couch he creates a void himself from their blood splatter and the splatter pattern would be on his pants and even other articles of his clothing. From those splatter patterns it would be possible to analyze exactly how and where he was standing. The patterns would also not be in areas where the splatter pattern from his own wounds would be seen. You have said that it seemed that the implicating of Phillip as the shooter was rushed. This sort of analysis could be carried out in a matter of only an hour or so by a person trained in the techniques that are outlined in the paper.

This is a good point, but the sheriffs said that there were no "voids in the spatter" indicating anyone else was present. I think that's the point I argued was impossible to determine because anyone standing behind the gun would already be in a large "void". Shadows within shadows, if we think of the point of entry as being a light source. I think I implied that not only 1 but more than one could have been in these voids.

If that wasn't my original argument it is my argument now.

Are you familiar with the saying "When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras."?
They aren't using the DNA to determine who's blood is where but merely to confirm that it is their blood on the gun.

We'll get to that when the DNA test results are returned IF the sheriffs publish them.

The ballistics tests have not been reported yet is more accurate.

True.

Trivial detail not worth wasting any time over, as you have just stated he was seen on video purchasing the ammunition. Delving into his motivation for selecting this ammunition is a waste of time.

Not at all. It's predictable that the ballistics tests will be inconclusive and that's probably where the two missing rounds went. Testing to make sure they would be inconclusive. Then the best evidence that Marshall was the shooter will be only that the ammunition matches that found in the box.

[Addendum: The reason why it would be the "best evidence" is because the round is so rare. See page 5 of the third sheriffs report here: http://sheriff.co.calaveras.ca.us/Portals/sheriff/Press/2013/Update_Marshall_Investigation.pdf]

It's predictable, if this alleged investigation continues the way it has, at any rate.

For example, we are to believe that Phillip left the room where he shot his kids and went into the master bedroom to shoot his dog. It was winter. We are led to believe this happened at night. That far north it's very cold outside and the cat would have been inside at that time. Yet Phillip Marshall did not shoot the cat. He went back into the living room and having run out of time to locate the feline, or something, shot himself.

There are two missing rounds and one missing cat. It was seriously cold up there in Caleveras on Jan 31 (Thursday night).

People tend to just say, well Marshall was so crazy and wacked out on drugs that he forgot to kill his cat.

That's not a workable theory. A workable theory would have been that the dog was making too much noise and was shot to silence him before or (probably) after they were all three killed. Or something like that.

There ARE still questions. We NEED to be able to verify the "evidence".

Period.

They will not post the videos where the public and press can see them after the case is closed. The only way that they will release any of this evidence is if questions about the investigation rise to a level to warrant releasing additional information. The police just don't routinely post evidence from any investigations.

What level is it necessary to "rise" to? Is the Supreme Law of the Land high enough?

See "compulsory process", "witnesses in his favor", and "assistance of counsel" (which is me until someone with some knowledge of law shows up to do this).

US Constitution said:
Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Note: This is not to imply that the sheriffs murdered them all, but it is definitely to say that if someone other than Phillip killed them all, the sheriffs are enabling them, aiding them, abetting them, obstructing justice, by their incompetent, selective and poor interpretations of their 'alleged' evidence. Evidence nobody has seen and is therefore nothing but "hearsay" at this point. Echoed as fact, when in fact some parts of it are certainly FICTION, such as the purported "diagnosis" of Phillip Marshall being treated for a bipolar disorder with Welbutrin (aka hydroxybupropion from an unnamed "local clinic" when no local clinics exist in Murphys) whose medical records "suggested" that Phillip Marshall had "some kind of mental illness". (It could be true but we'd never know it from the "fictionalizing" of the evidence.)

PS. I'm not very good at this. Somehow I came to the conclusion that Phillip Marshall was taking oxycontin when it was actually hydrocodone (aka vicodin). So he was taking Webutrin, vicodin and morphine, all apparently legally prescribed for his chronic back pain.

I'm incompetent too, I guess. Anyone out there want to take over Phillip Marshall's constitutionally guaranteed defense? Someone with a law degree and some resources would be best.
 
Somehow I came to the conclusion that Phillip Marshall was taking oxycontin when it was actually hydrocodone (aka vicodin). So he was taking Webutrin, vicodin and morphine, all apparently legally prescribed for his chronic back pain.

You are well aware that he was not taking the Welbutrin for his back pain, Welbutrin is just another name for Bupropion, we have already been over this point.

There are two missing rounds and one missing cat. It was seriously cold up there in Caleveras on Jan 31 (Thursday night).

People tend to just say, well Marshall was so crazy and wacked out on drugs that he forgot to kill his cat.

That's not a workable theory. A workable theory would have been that the dog was making too much noise and was shot to silence him before or (probably) after they were all three killed. Or something like that.

Here is a workable theory the first shots caused the cat to run and hide and he was unable to locate where the cat was hiding and so the cat survived.
 
You are well aware that he was not taking the Welbutrin for his back pain, Welbutrin is just another name for Bupropion, we have already been over this point.

It's a subtle point but addresses the word "additional" in the sheriffs' report.

Here is a workable theory the first shots caused the cat to run and hide and he was unable to locate where the cat was hiding and so the cat survived.

The family would know where the cat hides. I'm kind of hoping a neighbor started feeding it or one of the kids' friends adopted it. But there's nothing on the net about it.
Did they have a dog/cat door in one of the doors? (It was a small dog too.)

I'd also like to know where exactly in the laundry room the bullet was found. Was it in plain view or had it rolled under something.

This is the kind of stuff we need "photos" for.
 
It's a subtle point but addresses the word "additional" in the sheriffs' report.



The family would know where the cat hides. I'm kind of hoping a neighbor started feeding it or one of the kids' friends adopted it. But there's nothing on the net about it.
Did they have a dog/cat door in one of the doors? (It was a small dog too.)

I'd also like to know where exactly in the laundry room the bullet was found. Was it in plain view or had it rolled under something.

This is the kind of stuff we need "photos" for.

Subtle point? What exactly are you talking about?

Cat door? You are getting lost in the weeds again.

Try to tie this up into one unified theory for me, and skip the minor inconsistencies.
 
Subtle point? What exactly are you talking about?

Cat door? You are getting lost in the weeds again.

Try to tie this up into one unified theory for me, and skip the minor inconsistencies.

1. re. Subtle point

The wording of the sheriffs' report. (re. "additional drugs".)

2. Cat door/am I lost in weeds again?

Probably. I should stick with debunking the report so these posts are "on topic", I guess. But if there was a cat door, or if someone left a door open that was usually closed so the cat could get out, that could be significant in more ways than one. But don't ask me what ways or we'll both get lost in the weeds. ;-)

3. one unified theory, skip the minor inconsistencies

That's ludicrous. A unified theory that skips the inconsistencies isn't "unified".

Do you guys still think Phillip Marshall was a drug crazed madman? Or have we overcome that hurdle by now?
 
Newcomers.

See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/34856

I misreported the pain reliever as oxycodone and oxycontin. It was vicodin (hydrocodone). I am not a lawyer. I just want to see the Constitution be honored. Everyone is guaranteed a right to a defense. And counsel for that defense. And until someone more qualified shows up, I guess that's me.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The wording of the sheriffs' report. (re. "additional drugs".)

Which report?

3. one unified theory, skip the minor inconsistencies

That's ludicrous. A unified theory that skips the inconsistencies isn't "unified".

Do you guys still think Phillip Marshall was a drug crazed madman? Or have we overcome that hurdle by now?

I never thought Marshall was a drug crazed madman. The cat being alive or dead has absolutely no baring in who you think might be responsible for this shooting does it? This is what I am referring to as a minor inconsistency.
 
I also think above meant a unified theory as in what is the alternate story. Who did this and where and when and why and how. Even if not all of that is answered at least get the ball rolling. That is what will supplant the "official" story. A new story versus just poking small holes in what has been presented.
 
Which report?

The third report, on page 5 says

"He was prescribed anti-depression medications for his mental health. During mid-year 2012 through January 2013 he frequented the medical clinic seeking additional pain medications."​

They had not (and have not) established what his mental illness was if in fact he was mentally ill at all. The "additional medication" implied that the so called "contract" he had to sign the unnamed "local clinic" (there are no clinics in Murphys) was special rather than routine.

I never thought Marshall was a drug crazed madman. The cat being alive or dead has absolutely no baring in who you think might be responsible for this shooting does it? This is what I am referring to as a minor inconsistency.

It has no bearing on the case if you aren't interested in the possible motives for the killings. What is the theory of Marshall's motive for killing his kids? For killing his dog? For NOT killing his cat?

The conspiracy theorists have better theories for an outside party or parties having shot them all and if someone from outside had a motive for killing Phillip, the motive for killing the kids could be "eliminate witnesses" and the motive for killing the dog could be "eliminate the noise", and the motive for not killing the cat could be... the cat wasn't a threat.

That isn't to say that the above is what happened, but the sheriffs came to their conclusion without ever considering such a possibility and the evidence they say they have may seem to eliminate a mob-style hit or something like that but in fact we honestly don't know if they even have any evidence. The public is being kept in the dark and nobody is providing the checks and balances to assure the investigation is being conducted properly, evidence is being preserved, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Not just on the sheriffs say-so, but on solid evidence, photos of the crime scene (such as provided in the spatter docs you found), and so forth.

And the door that was ajar that was usually locked might have something to do with the cat. Depending on when it was opened, it could have been to let the cat out.

That the door was left ajar was reported by Wayne Madsen.

That the doors were all closed was reported by the sheriffs.

That Marshall was shot in the left temple was reported by Madsen.

That Marshall was shot in the right temple was reported by sheriffs.

That the times of death was Saturday a 3 pm was reported by the union democrat.

That the times of death was Thursday night was reported by the caleveras enterprise.

The problem here is that any and all of these reports have equal credibility and that should not be the case. But only the sheriffs have the ability, if they were only willing, to end the confusion.

So... they must ENJOY the confusion. What other motive could the sheriffs have for playing keep away with the evidence they allege they have?

So as to the cat. All the evidence is important, because we don't know what is significant until ALL the pieces fit together. And right now the conspiracy to keep the public in the dark is one theory that needs not additional evidence. The inconsistent reports and lack of proof is solid and remains solid until they get of their high horses and treat the public like partners instead of "the enemy".

Question to you now.

Did the docs you found suggest that GSR tests were "standard"?

Here's what you requested I read.
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/25011942/1660865779/name/BLOOD+SPATTER+PATTERNS.pdf

I read it.

Did you?

Note the procedure for assuring the tests were done. Why would the standards for a regular suicide and for a murder-suicide be different and if they were different, which one requires the "accused" be presumed innocent until proven guilty. PROVEN not just decided.
 
I also think above meant a unified theory as in what is the alternate story. Who did this and where and when and why and how. Even if not all of that is answered at least get the ball rolling. That is what will supplant the "official" story. A new story versus just poking small holes in what has been presented.

In algebra we learn to solve equations without specific values. These non-specific values are called variables.

The alternate theory would be "someone came into the home" (either invited or uninvited) and killed Marshall and the kids and the dog.

That theory is at least consistent with the Barry Seal 'hit'.

So far there is no consistent theory to explain why Marshall would have all of a sudden, at this time in history, with no indication of a NEW special crisis other than a blockbuster book in the works, would have killed his kids or his dog.

As Dr. Phil says, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

And while the Welbutrin wild-card could play a role in this, it seems the sheriffs entire theory hinges on that and the evidence supporting that theory is weak, non-existent, or being kept from being verified for reasons that SEEM to support the "alternate theory".

There is no excuse for their caginess. We have a right to know and a need to know what evidence they have (that is to be able to SEE it ourselves or through an independent representative body in order to protect the family from additional trauma -- WHERE APPROPRIATE ONLY) because the sheriffs apparently can't interpret it correctly.

For example, if the "official time of death" was Saturday, this does not bode well for their interpretive skills. If doors were left unlocked, "no sign of forced entry" as evidence that the dad killed his kids is so blatantly immaterial that it raises questions about who's on drugs here. And there are many other points such as these that suggest the sheriffs either didn't take this murder seriously, or they preferred to spin it into a "conspiracy theorist" roast rather than endeavoring to pursue truth and justice, living up to the standards and expectations of the US Constitution.

And to the republic for which it stands.

Phillip Marshall has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And the sheriffs haven't proven his guilt. They've only proven they wish he was guilty. And this wish could be allowing a hit man or a hit team to literally get away with murder. That is aiding, abetting murder. Serious stuff.

See post # 312 in this forum. (Note: I misreported the pain reliever as oxycontin, it was hydrocodone aka "vicodin". My apologies for the inaccuracies. I can't edit this stuff once it's up for a while.)

Here's a link to msg 312
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/34856
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A philosophical point:

Unlike God, as temporal beings, we see time sequentially. As a result CAUSE invariably precedes EFFECT. When we see a reported EFFECT coming before the CAUSE, we suspect the report has been manipulated to give a false impression of events.

It's interesting to think what time might look like to an eternal being. What would happen, for example if a time line were rotated so that it pointed toward the viewer instead of left to right? In this case, cause and effect would overlap. There'd be no displacement because 'time' would be irrelevant, all of eternity would be seen all at once.

So this makes me wonder about the "purpose of life". My life. My purpose. And the purpose of others.

If we here stuck on the temporal plane, or time line (as it were), we have a unique ability to discern events as causes and effects, then maybe our "job" in the grand scheme of things is to be witnesses. (In Greek this word is, interestingly, "martyron")

And that's what I am. I'm also acting as counsel for Phillip Marshall's constitutionally guaranteed defense (since nobody else is doing it) but the main thing that got me interested in this thing is that the conclusion (effect) that Phillip killed his kids (while they slept on a couch) and his dog (in some bedroom or other, as the initial reports suggested, giving the impression that the kids may not have even had their own bedrooms) preceded the 'investigation'.

For the first two months, we only knew that the sheriffs had "ruled out" anyone from outside having come into the home.

How they ruled it out was apparently none of our business. They did not say! For TWO FULL MONTHS!

How they determined that the kids were sleeping was also not specified. Was there bedding on the couch? (Bedding can be used as a make-shift silencer, by the way.) To this day we don't know if there were blankets present. How did they determine that the kids were "sleeping" there rather than being coerced or forced to lie there while being executed by someone, whether the dad or someone else? (See "the coroner" on this forum page, or "good question" [whether or not the kids were asleep when they were killed].)

We are told there were no signs of a struggle. No signs of struggle, yet no estimated time of death?? How the hell are we supposed to believe that! And a coroner that thinks the kids were sound asleep when they were shot. Not much to be confident about here, that's for sure! (See "coroner" on this page, and see below as we look at the "quantum" effect on a time line.)

So the "investigation" continues, but Marshall was determined to have been the murderer from day-one, though the bodies were found on Saturday at 3 pm. And that same day, the sheriffs had already posted their "media release" stating with absolute certainty...

Title: "Man Shoots Children, then Himself in a Murder-Suicide"

The title was not "Man and children found dead in apparent murder-suicide". That would have been the right thing to say. But they didn't.

Why.

How were they so sure. Or didn't they care, as long as they got rid of another pesky "truther" and rewarded any vigilantes who may have done the deed if Marshall turns out not to have done it.

And if they DID know the time of death (find "Callaway" on this page) why do they pretend they don't.

(Time Line: Go to the original article to see when Merita Callaway knew when the kids were killed. And the sheriffs pretend they don't... two months and counting...)

In fact, since the kids were posting on the internet until around 11 o-clock at night, the time of death might be known right down to the HOUR when it happened. (Dear Hewitt. Maybe you do have the video, and maybe the "conspiracy theorists" would believe it if you showed it.)

Did the sheriffs screw up? Did the "sheriffs captain" accidentally say too much to Callaway? Kinda looks like it from the interview. (You might want to download it. Some of the docs are already "disappeared" from the net, such as the comments at Santa Barbara View and the kids twitter pages.)

The sheriffs may know a hell of a lot more than they are saying.

Now back to time lines.

The sheriffs apparently knew that the deaths occurred on Thursday night. We can't prove it, but circumstantially the evidence is very very strong that they did -- right from the start!

If the deaths had occurred at night, when the children were sleeping, this is not a smooth continuum. It's a quantum value.

Defining "night" here as being when people go to sleep, it was either Thursday NIGHT or Friday NIGHT that they were killed.

That gives the sheriffs two 8-hour windows in which the murders could have occurred, separated by 24 hours. That is if their half-assed theory that the kids were sleeping when shot is even accurate, which they seem to be quite certain it is. They are as certain of that as they are that the dad is the murderer.

Time lines. It's all about time.

If we take the middle of a normal sleep cycle to be around 2 or 3 o-clock am, so that the person is asleep four hours before and after this time, then...

The two possible times of death (if the sheriffs' half-assed theory is correct) would be approximately 12 hours before the bodies were found or (12 + 24) 36 hours before the bodies were found.

What kind of lame-brained idiots could not tell the difference between a 12 hour old corpse and a 36 hour old corps?

Well, I'll tell you what kind.

It's the kind that determined with absolute certainty that Phillip Marshall shot his own kids in the living room and then went into his own bedroom where the safe was to kill the dog and then came back into the living room to kill himself; before even doing a thorough "investigation".
 
The Economic Analogy

wikipedia article on the Principle-Agent problem said:
In political science and economics, the principal–agent problem or agency dilemma concerns the difficulties in motivating one party (the "agent"), to act in the best interests of another (the "principal") rather than in his or her own interests.

Common examples of this relationship include corporate management (agent) and shareholders (principal), or politicians (agent) and voters (principal).[1] For another example, consider a dental patient (the principal) wondering whether his dentist (the agent) is recommending expensive treatment because it is truly necessary for the patient's dental health, or because it will generate income for the dentist. In fact the problem potentially arises in almost any context where one party is being paid by another to do something, whether in formal employment or a negotiated deal such as paying for household jobs or car repairs.

The problem arises where the two parties have different interests and asymmetric information (the agent having more information), such that the principal cannot directly ensure that the agent is always acting in its (the principal's) best interests,[2] particularly when activities that are useful to the principal are costly to the agent, and where elements of what the agent does are costly for the principal to observe. Moral hazard and conflict of interest may arise. Indeed, the principal may be sufficiently concerned at the possibility of being exploited by the agent that he chooses not to enter into a transaction at all, when that deal would have actually been in both parties' best interests: a suboptimal outcome that lowers welfare overall. The deviation from the principal's interest by the agent is called 'agency costs.'[2]

Various mechanisms may be used to align the interests of the agent with those of the principal. In employment, employers (principal) may use piece rates/commissions, profit sharing, efficiency wages, performance measurement (including financial statements), the agent posting a bond, or the threat of termination of employment.

We've got enough for the analogy, but there's more here if you want to see it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem

In the case of Phillip Marshall vs. the sheriffs OR We The People vs. the sheriffs, the sheriffs are the "agent". They are the corporate management, or the dentist,

It has been clear from the start that the sheriffs had control of the information, had control of what evidence was kept, what was discarded, and what was to be tested. (The testing apparently has not included a GSR test to see if Marshall had even fired a gun -- any gun that night, if it even happened at night).

The analogy is is accurate to the point of "assymetric information".

It is apparently accurate to the point of unwillingness to share this information (which could be considered obfuscation or caginess because not even one photo has been released, no photocopies of any documents, nothing to validate their statements).

It is even apparently accurate to the point of the agent and the principle (which is We the People and/or Phillip Marshall) having different interests!

The bizarre conclusions re. the medications Phillip Marshall was taking and incomplete reporting on sources of their "diagnosis", etc. (see msg 312) lead to the distinct possibility that their interests are only to support their initially flawed assumption that nobody could have been in the house or have entered the house to murder all three people and the dog.

So the analogy is accurate to the point of having different interests.

And that brings us to the analogy for correcting this problem.

The analogy for "profit sharing" is INFORMATION SHARING!

Failing that, the analogy for threat of termination of employment is...

Termination of employment.

And that is my recommendation. Fire them. All of them. And get some law enforcement folk in there that are willing to honor their duties to the public and to the US Constitution. Folks that are willing to do an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar, who are willing to behave honorably for the honor they are due, as responsible public servants that we rely on for "establishment of justice" and "domestic tranquility".

If the evidence hasn't already been destroyed, there's no reason new people couldn't step in and take over right now -- and do a much better job.

Here's a link to msg 312. (Note I misreported "oxycontin". It was hydrocodone, aka vicodin).
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/34856
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advancing A Testable Theory

From what we've seen of the sheriffs and their investigation so far we can theorize that their future performance will be similar to their past performance. As a result we can look to another economic analogy (see previous post) and predict that one or more of these "seven deadly diseases" identified by of management Edward Demming (management/statistician) will be present in their future work as well.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Key_principles
Seven Deadly Diseases

The "Seven Deadly Diseases" include:

1. Lack of constancy of purpose
2. Emphasis on short-term profits ***
3. Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance
4. Mobility of management
5. Running a company on visible figures alone ***
6. Excessive medical costs
7. Excessive costs of warranty, fueled by lawyers who work for contingency fees (*future - watch)

"A Lesser Category of Obstacles" includes:

1. Neglecting long-range planning ***
2. Relying on technology to solve problems ***
3. Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions ***
4. Excuses, such as "our problems are different" (*only implied so far)
5. Obsolescence in school that management skill can be taught in classes
6. Reliance on quality control departments rather than management, supervisors, managers of purchasing, and production workers (*implied: coroner can blame sheriffs sheriffs can blame coroner)
7. Placing blame on workforces who are only responsible for 15% of mistakes where the system designed by management is responsible for 85% of the unintended consequences
8. Relying on quality inspection rather than improving product quality (* conspiracy theorists are qa?)

Deming's advocacy of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, his 14 Points and Seven Deadly Diseases have had tremendous influence outside manufacturing and have been applied in other arenas, such as in the relatively new field of sales process engineering.

And this influence now extends to "law enforcement" and "forensics".

I have placed an asterisk next to the items we have already noticed, though these are analogies and I may explain the relationships later, in case they aren't immediately obvious.

An interesting one to look out for is "costs" of doing a reasonable investigation. If they play that card, I'll let Socrates (Plato's Republic, not even necessary to cite the USA Republic) respond to that argument. (re. when money and virtue are in the balance.)

[Some of Bill Black's work on how to identify corporate fraud might also be useful, but I won't post those at this time. -rs]

Now we have a "coherent theory". A method of testing the theory is now also possible. Now all we need is the media interviews dated after this post and/or reports and we can see if the theory matches continued reality, and if it does it becomes a tested theory with the added credibility of having PREDICTED what comes next.

What come next. Like...

Like the more concrete prediction that the ballistics tests very likely won't be conclusive as to whether or not the bullets were fired from Marshall's pistol. Then, of course, it will be Marshall that must have shot the bullets because they are so rare that even the sheriffs had a hard time locating a box of them for their testing.

BTW, if that prediction ends up being accurate, we also know where the two missing bullets went. But I'm again getting ahead of the game. I just wanted to mention this so that when/if the big surprise is revealed (i.e. the ballistics results), it won't be too surprising.

It will be par for the course.

[And if ballistics results are not revealed, that too will be par for the course. See the "Economic Analogy" above.]
 
The third report, on page 5 says
"He was prescribed anti-depression medications for his mental health. During mid-year 2012 through January 2013 he frequented the medical clinic seeking additional pain medications."​

They had not (and have not) established what his mental illness was if in fact he was mentally ill at all. The "additional medication" implied that the so called "contract" he had to sign the unnamed "local clinic" (there are no clinics in Murphys) was special rather than routine.

The item on page 5 is a continued from page 4. Here is the whole thing. While it is clear that the person writing these press releases is not a proficient or well organized writer it is also clear that there is no claim in this that the Bupropion was prescribed for his back pain.

A search warrant was served at a local clinic for Phillip Marshall's medical records. The medical records noted that he suffered from chronic back pain, and was prescribed prescription narcotic pain medications for this condition. His medical records suggested that he also suffered from some sort of mental illness, drug dependency, anxiety, and depression. He was prescribed anti-depression medications for his mental health. During mid-year 2012 through January 2013 he frequented the medical clinic seeking additional pain medications. Clinic physicians had him sign a pain medication contract, which directed him to takes his medications as prescribed, and to not seek medications from other physicians. The medical record indicated that he was to schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist. It is unknown if he ever attended this appointment.


It has no bearing on the case if you aren't interested in the possible motives for the killings. What is the theory of Marshall's motive for killing his kids? For killing his dog? For NOT killing his cat?

I am missing entirely how the cat surviving is tied into any claims of motive for the official report or even some alternate theory.

The conspiracy theorists have better theories for an outside party or parties having shot them all and if someone from outside had a motive for killing Phillip, the motive for killing the kids could be "eliminate witnesses" and the motive for killing the dog could be "eliminate the noise", and the motive for not killing the cat could be... the cat wasn't a threat.

Well the official report excludes any outside parties being involved so it is only conspiracy theorists who have any theories for an outside party.

That isn't to say that the above is what happened, but the sheriffs came to their conclusion without ever considering such a possibility and the evidence they say they have may seem to eliminate a mob-style hit or something like that but in fact we honestly don't know if they even have any evidence. The public is being kept in the dark and nobody is providing the checks and balances to assure the investigation is being conducted properly, evidence is being preserved, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Not just on the sheriffs say-so, but on solid evidence, photos of the crime scene (such as provided in the spatter docs you found), and so forth.

Aren't you guilty of the same sort of thing? What evidence do you offer that the Sheriff didn't consider the involvement of an outside party? Or did you simply reach that conclusion without considering that the Sheriff had investigated that line of inquiry and found no supporting evidence.

And the door that was ajar that was usually locked might have something to do with the cat. Depending on when it was opened, it could have been to let the cat out.

That the door was left ajar was reported by Wayne Madsen.

That the doors were all closed was reported by the sheriffs.

That Marshall was shot in the left temple was reported by Madsen.

That Marshall was shot in the right temple was reported by sheriffs.

That the times of death was Saturday a 3 pm was reported by the union democrat.

That the times of death was Thursday night was reported by the caleveras enterprise.

The problem here is that any and all of these reports have equal credibility and that should not be the case. But only the sheriffs have the ability, if they were only willing, to end the confusion.

That last statement is wrong the reports don't carry equal credibility, stating that they do have equal credibility is just false. I don't belong to Madsen's site so I am not sure where he got his information from, does he say who his source is for the information? Discrepancies between the papers reported time of death are not significant and carry absolutely no bearing on the events.

So... they must ENJOY the confusion. What other motive could the sheriffs have for playing keep away with the evidence they allege they have?

At this point there is no confusion on my part or the on the part of the vast majority of individuals at this site. As far as I can tell you are the only one who remains confused here. Can you tell me specifically what in the report released by the Sheriff you remain confused about?

So as to the cat. All the evidence is important, because we don't know what is significant until ALL the pieces fit together. And right now the conspiracy to keep the public in the dark is one theory that needs not additional evidence. The inconsistent reports and lack of proof is solid and remains solid until they get of their high horses and treat the public like partners instead of "the enemy".

The cat is not important! The cat is insignificant! There has been nothing inconsistent in the reports. There is no conspiracy to keep the public in the dark the first press release was issued 1 day after the bodies were discovered. The reports have never said that an outside party was involved, they have consistently maintained that Phillip Marshall committed the shootings. Where is the inconsistency in what was reported by the Sheriff?

Question to you now.

Did the docs you found suggest that GSR tests were "standard"?

Here's what you requested I read.
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/25011942/1660865779/name/BLOOD+SPATTER+PATTERNS.pdf

I read it.

Did you?

Note the procedure for assuring the tests were done. Why would the standards for a regular suicide and for a murder-suicide be different and if they were different, which one requires the "accused" be presumed innocent until proven guilty. PROVEN not just decided.

Yes I read the report. It was a report on the analysis of blood splatter evidence specifically and steps taken to preserve this evidence. There was no discussion on GSR tests being "standard". It wasn't written to outline standard procedures.

From the second paragraph of the abstract.

The goal of this study was to deduce the position and
orientation of the hands, and therefore the firearm, according to the
bloodstain patterns on the hands of the deceased. For this purpose
blood-spatter stains on the hands were examined on site in 5 suicides
caused by gunshot.
 
BTW, if that prediction ends up being accurate, we also know where the two missing bullets went. But I'm again getting ahead of the game. I just wanted to mention this so that when/if the big surprise is revealed (i.e. the ballistics results), it won't be too surprising.

It will be par for the course.

[And if ballistics results are not revealed, that too will be par for the course. See the "Economic Analogy" above.]

Not that it is a big deal in your scenario but I just want to correct you on this one point, there is only one missing bullet.

43 bullets in the box
1 bullet found in the laundry room
1 bullet killed the dog
1 bullet killed Phillip
1 bullet killed Macaila
1 bullet killed Alex
1 bullet in the chamber of the gun
1 bullet not found
50 bullets total
 
The item on page 5 is a continued from page 4. Here is the whole thing. While it is clear that the person writing these press releases is not a proficient or well organized writer it is also clear that there is no claim in this that the Bupropion was prescribed for his back pain.

Let's let this drop or I'll end up explaining why I was explaining instead of what I was explaining.

However, re. not proficient or well organized.

I hadn't anticipated this one. This is from the Seven Deadly Diseases (re. management and fraud from the wikipedia article)

7. Placing blame on workforces who are only responsible for 15% of mistakes where the system designed by management is responsible for 85% of the unintended consequences​

Ladies and gentlemen. It is already happening, and this AFTER I posted the prediction. I hadn't placed an asterisk on that one. It's a "new" one.

I am missing entirely how the cat surviving is tied into any claims of motive for the official report or even some alternate theory.

Cat = Category: Pets.
Dog = Category: Pets.

It raises questions about why he'd have killed one and not the other.

Well the official report excludes any outside parties being involved so it is only conspiracy theorists who have any theories for an outside party.

Why do you think it would only be conspiracy theorists? Does it require a conspiracy theory to merely question the competence, honesty, integrity, the proficiency or the skills in organizing a report?

No. The conspriracy theory is about the CIA having done the hit.

Why do the sheriffs deliberatly play into those theories by issuing conflicting reports? That too is interesting, but it's not a conspiracy theory. It's simply noticing an unpleasant FACT.

Aren't you guilty of the same sort of thing? What evidence do you offer that the Sheriff didn't consider the involvement of an outside party? Or did you simply reach that conclusion without considering that the Sheriff had investigated that line of inquiry and found no supporting evidence.

Initially it was that they offered no supporting evidence. Now it's the quality of that so called supporting evidence. See msg 312 in this forum.

Yes I read the report. It was a report on the analysis of blood splatter evidence specifically and steps taken to preserve this evidence. There was no discussion on GSR tests being "standard". It wasn't written to outline standard procedures.

From the second paragraph of the abstract.

Well, here's what I saw that you apparently missed.


In the literature, the use of a magnifying glass is recommended in order not to miss the small marks11,16; sufficient lighting and magnification is of course a requirement. Because the hands and fingers need barely be touched, there is little danger of disturbing other clues. Only afterward are the hands wrapped for transport; the forensic team of the police will later perform the testing for gunpowder residue and finally take the fingerprints. If procedures are performed in this order, none of the forensically important clues on the hands risk being lost.

Question: Which is done first? Fingerprint or GSR testing?

In those obvious suicides (your docs) why did they call those "forensically important clues"? Wasn't it already OBVIOUS they had all committed suicide? Yet they did their due diligence? It was "forensically important"?

The excerpt above is from the very last page in the pdf docs posted which I was requested to read. I read it as was requested and I saw that little tid bit which suggests that the the sheriffs and the coroner are incompetent and did a "hack job" of an investigation.

Thank you for the docs.

But I already knew that.

Here's a link to msg 312. Correction: I wrote "oxycontin" but it was hydrocodone (aka vicodin).
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/34856
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that it is a big deal in your scenario but I just want to correct you on this one point, there is only one missing bullet.

43 bullets in the box
1 bullet found in the laundry room
1 bullet killed the dog
1 bullet killed Phillip
1 bullet killed Macaila
1 bullet killed Alex
1 bullet in the chamber of the gun
1 bullet not found
50 bullets total

Point goes to JonJson

Thanks for the correction.
 
Let's let this drop or I'll end up explaining why I was explaining instead of what I was explaining.

However, re. not proficient or well organized.

I hadn't anticipated this one. This is from the Seven Deadly Diseases (re. management and fraud from the wikipedia article)
7. Placing blame on workforces who are only responsible for 15% of mistakes where the system designed by management is responsible for 85% of the unintended consequences​

Ladies and gentlemen. It is already happening, and this AFTER I posted the prediction. I hadn't placed an asterisk on that one. It's a "new" one.

Sorry, I spent five years writing and editing technical reports of other people. I still sometimes can't help being an editor and critiquing other people's writing style. I do a better job of restraining my comments where the other members of the site's writing styles are concerned.

Cat = Category: Pets.
Dog = Category: Pets.

It raises questions about why he'd have killed one and not the other.

Still doesn't tie into motive. Unless we want to say the whole thing was the cat's idea.


Why do you think it would only be conspiracy theorists? Does it require a conspiracy theory to merely question the competence, honesty, integrity, the proficiency or the skills in organizing a report?

No. The conspriracy theory is about the CIA having done the hit.

Why do the sheriffs deliberatly play into those theories by issuing conflicting reports? That too is interesting, but it's not a conspiracy theory. It's simply noticing an unpleasant FACT.

You aren't merely questioning. Even in this section you allege that it is done deliberately. Sounds like you are advancing a conspiracy when you say it was done deliberately. Also still waiting on what items in the reports you consider to be conflicting.

Well, here's what I saw that you apparently missed.

In the literature, the use of a magnifying glass is recommended in order not to miss the small marks11,16; sufficient lighting and magnification is of course a requirement. Because the hands and fingers need barely be touched, there is little danger of disturbing other clues. Only afterward are the hands wrapped for transport; the forensic team of the police will later perform the testing for gunpowder residue and finally take the fingerprints. If procedures are performed in this order, none of the forensically important clues on the hands risk being lost.

Question: Which is done first? Fingerprint or GSR testing?

In those obvious suicides (your docs) why did they call those "forensically important clues"? Wasn't it already OBVIOUS they had all committed suicide? Yet they did their due diligence? It was "forensically important"?

The excerpt above is from the very last page in the pdf docs posted which I was requested to read. I read it as was requested and I saw that little tid bit which suggests that the the sheriffs and the coroner are incompetent and did a "hack job" of an investigation.

I saw it but the way I read that entire paragraph the "forensically important clues" referred to are the blood splatter clues, which was the focus of the article. You interpret the paragraph differently because you are coming from a different prospective I suppose.

Oh and by the way back to writing styles I want to say that I find it irritating when people use the rhetorical question in their writing.
 
Sorry, I spent five years writing and editing technical reports of other people. I still sometimes can't help being an editor and critiquing other people's writing style. I do a better job of restraining my comments where the other members of the site's writing styles are concerned.

Then I guess we can trust your evaluation of the report:
it is clear that the person writing these press releases is not a proficient or well organized writer​

But are you sure that's the only problem with the sheriffs investigation?

You can't write about information you don't have, so I am disinclined to agree.

Still doesn't tie into motive. Unless we want to say the whole thing was the cat's idea.

:)

You aren't merely questioning. Even in this section you allege that it is done deliberately. Sounds like you are advancing a conspiracy when you say it was done deliberately. Also still waiting on what items in the reports you consider to be conflicting.

Times of death is one conflicting report (Thursday in caleverasenterprise, Saturday in uniondemocrat). Another is that they wouldn't reveal results of their investigation of the dad's "mental illness". Report 2 vs. report 3. Another, depending on where Madsen got his info would be the left temple vs. right temple shot, but on this we're still waiting on Madsen to explain how he thought the fatal shot to Phillip Marshall was to his left temple.

[Edit: Madsen either cooked it up himself or someone who saw the bodies fed him disinfo. Those are the only two possibilities unless the sheriffs' report itself is the disinfo, which may become more clear in time.]

There are other anomalous reports as well, that are borderline conflicting in that the details and implications are non sequiturs, even in terms of their own reports. But why not just take a peek at msg 312, where I have already gone over these, or see the 2nd post on pag 8 of this forum and look at the analysis of their report point by point.

I saw it but the way I read that entire paragraph the "forensically important clues" referred to are the blood splatter clues, which was the focus of the article. You interpret the paragraph differently because you are coming from a different prospective I suppose.

You did notice the part about using a magnifying glass then. And from this and the implication that a fine mist of blood pervaded the room to a distance of 30 ft (the April 1st interview at the union democrat that you suggested I read) that would reveal if anyone else was in the room, suggests, but does not assure anyone, that a magnifying glass was used to find these "voids" that would reveal if anyone else was present.

Oh and by the way back to writing styles I want to say that I find it irritating when people use the rhetorical question in their writing.

I don't do it to irritate you. I do it to make a point. If you find my having made a point irritating, perhaps it's because you are debunking the wrong side of the argument.

Now where do we stand with the "conspiracy theory"? Am I accusing you of being a co-conspirator? No, I'm thinking more like you are attempting to rework the disorganized amaturish investigation report that took them 2 months to produce into something it should have been -- if in fact it means what we are expected to think it means.

How might we interpret the writer's lack of proficiency to mean Phillip Marshall had a "bi-polar disorder", for example?

I can't see how anyone could have hashed that so badly to have missed an explicit reference in a "medical record" and have had to say that

1. the medical records merely SUGGESTED he had x,y, and a bipolar disorder and

2, that the subpoenaed record from the non-existent "local clinic" where he was prescribed antidepressants was for "SOME KIND OF MENTAL ILLNESS".

And that was the clinic that was prescribing that drug?

Explain that one.

If you can.

And you may have noticed that Hewett did not address that particular brain fart either. He rather picked on the "silencer" issue that was the bedrock of the "conspiracy theorists" argument, according to his understanding of the arguments.

Maybe he will now. You could recommend it at any rate, and we can see how his next interview sizes up in the Seven Deadly Diseases categories of fraud in corporate management.
 
[Edit: Madsen either cooked it up himself or someone who saw the bodies fed him disinfo. Those are the only two possibilities unless the sheriffs' report itself is the disinfo, which may become more clear in time.]

Could just have been a case of mistaken identity. Alex was shot in the left temple.
 
Could just have been a case of mistaken identity. Alex was shot in the left temple.

Maybe. But we're still waiting on Madsen for his explanation and in the meantime...

1. Do you agree that if the sheriffs did this kind of investigation and Phillip Marshall wasn't dead, and could defend himself, that the sheriffs' case is so poorly made that Marshall would walk?

2. Do you agree that the sheriffs should have made their case just as though Phillip Marshall was alive and could defend himself?

3. Do you agree that the public has a right to KNOW that the real killer has been identified, and that if the killer is or killers are still at large they should be caught so they don't do this kind of thing EVER again?

This is a republic. Where are the checks and balances in this case?

4. Do you agree that the public has a right to see what the sheriffs based their conclusions on, so they can be confident that the sheriffs are on the side of the people rather than on the perpetrator(s)?

That's four simple questions to you. Each only requires an opinion. Let's get on the same side here. And if the sheriffs cough up the "evidence" we can THEN honor them as we would like to honor those who enforce our laws and ensure that justice has been done.

Until then, it smells like a cover up. And the longer they keep this nonsense up, the worse it stinks.
 
Retraction And Apology To Writer Of Sheriffs' Investigation Report

I had agreed with jonjson's characterization of the report as
t is clear that the person writing these press releases is not a proficient or well organized writer


But not having secured even that one agreement with him, which was the reason for throwing the innocent under the bus, I hereby retract an apologize.

Is it fair to blame the writer for not being able to produce data they are not given? How can you import photo evidence if it is not given? Can the writer quote documents that are not given them to quote? Can names, dates, and places be reported if the writer is not privy to those details? (The report was "hearsay".)

That's not a problem of proficiency. It's a problem of "openness" of those who allegedly collected the information.

Furthermore, the mischaracterization and blame thrust down to the writer is a predictable ploy used by higher ups AND is one of the evidences of The Seven Deadly Diseases in fraudulent/corrupt corporate management.

The fact that Welbutrin (hydroxybupropion) can cause psychosis and dangerous behavior was cited as "evidence" that Phillip Marshall killed his kids (and himself and his dog).

If that were a valid interpretation of statistics ("profiling"), its even more valid in determining the problem with the caleveras sheriffs. Let's look at numbers.

For Welbutrin causing psychosis it's only about 5,000 in 27 million. (Please divide to see the true figure the pharmeceuticals don't want you to see.)

For blaming the workforce (the report writer in this case) for management misdeeds it's about 6 in 7 (85%).

This is in the "additional obstacles" sub list for the Seven Deadly Diseases symptoms of corruption and fraud.
7. Placing blame on workforces who are only responsible for 15% of mistakes where the system designed by management is responsible for 85% of the unintended consequences

For the whole list see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming#Seven_Deadly_Diseases

or find "Seven Deadly Diseases" on page 9 of this forum.

I do hereby formally apologize to the writer of the sheriffs' report for agreeing to misplace blame on those who have no ability and no authority to do better than what they are directed to do. [Remember Gen. Janis Karpinski]
 
1. Do you agree that if the sheriffs did this kind of investigation and Phillip Marshall wasn't dead, and could defend himself, that the sheriffs' case is so poorly made that Marshall would walk?

No, I don't agree with that assessment. The Sheriff's office doesn't prosecute the defendant they collect and analyze evidence.

2. Do you agree that the sheriffs should have made their case just as though Phillip Marshall was alive and could defend himself?

The Sheriff does not make their case that is done by the District Attorney. If Marshall were alive all of the evidence that you have seen would not have been released until the trial. So no I don't think it could or should be handled the same. The investigation should be handled in a similar manner to other suicides and I have seen no indication that it hasn't been.

3. Do you agree that the public has a right to KNOW that the real killer has been identified, and that if the killer is or killers are still at large they should be caught so they don't do this kind of thing EVER again?

The killer has been identified it is Phillip Marshall, he was found at the scene and apprehended, as it were. The public has been kept informed on the events of the case. Their right to KNOW has been satisfied.

This is a republic. Where are the checks and balances in this case?

There will be no calling of a grand jury in this matter, which is the checks and balances I believe you are calling for with that question. There will be no trial because the guilty party is deceased.

4. Do you agree that the public has a right to see what the sheriffs based their conclusions on, so they can be confident that the sheriffs are on the side of the people rather than on the perpetrator(s)?

This is an interesting idea where suicide is concerned. I am not sure how you would conduct a review of the evidence because it is fairly technical and would exceed the level of evidence used in a grand jury. Then you get in to the rights of the victims and the victims families. Do the rights of society supplant the rights of the individual?

That's four simple questions to you. Each only requires an opinion. Let's get on the same side here. And if the sheriffs cough up the "evidence" we can THEN honor them as we would like to honor those who enforce our laws and ensure that justice has been done.

Until then, it smells like a cover up. And the longer they keep this nonsense up, the worse it stinks.

I am not smelling cover up personally.
 
No, I don't agree with that assessment. The Sheriff's office doesn't prosecute the defendant they collect and analyze evidence.

Like they analyzed the "medical reports"?

The killer has been identified it is Phillip Marshall, he was found at the scene and apprehended, as it were. The public has been kept informed on the events of the case. Their right to KNOW has been satisfied.

When was the public's right to know satisfied? Feb 2, when the first report came out? Feb 4 when the update/correction came out? Or two months later.

Newcomers:

It was two months later when we hear that his medical records "suggested" he had "some kind of mental illness" which the sheriffs were able to figure out was a "bipolar disorder" though neither wife mentioned that in their interviews and apparently neither did any actual medical records. We don't know WHAT kind of record mentioned the bipolar disorder theory, but in the six years since then there is no connection between the WELBUTRIN he was prescribed and the bipolar disorder DIAGNOSIS the sheriffs apparently decided Phillip Marshall had.

What kind of medical record would say that Phillip Marshall was being prescribed an antidepressant for "some kind of mental illness"?

WE NEED TO VERIFY THE EVIDENCE.

This is an interesting idea where suicide is concerned. I am not sure how you would conduct a review of the evidence because it is fairly technical and would exceed the level of evidence used in a grand jury. Then you get in to the rights of the victims and the victims families. Do the rights of society supplant the rights of the individual?

I may not have been clear. We need proof that the evidence even exists! Who has seen it? It's not even clear from the reports that the person writing those reports has seen any of it. THAT would explain the poor quality of the reports, but I don't want to advance a theory here and I don't care what the details and difficulties are in defending Phillip Marshall.

The Constitution guarantees every citizen a defense, and even dead guys deserve a defense.

The kids are due justice too, even though they too are dead, whether that justice is to fix blame on their dad or someone else.

The lack of "cooperation" with the public that the sheriffs are exhibiting, making fun of conspiracy theories while seemingly fueling them deliberately smacks of arrogance or worse.

Are they complicit?

I don't think so. But I do think they need to seek employment elsewhere because they aren't doing a bang-up job. We don't even know for sure Phillip Marshall actually did it.

Medical reports???

And if the medical reports are hog-wild imaginings of the sheriffs, where's Marshall's motive? Someone else has a motive. But where's Marshall's? He didn't kill his cat.

SO ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THAT THE EVIDENCE BE SHOWN, PROVEN TO EXIST, NOT JUST PRIVATELY INTERPRETED BY FOLKS WHO AFTER THEIR INITIAL BRAIN-FART HAVE TO ATTEMPT TO SAVE FACE. Which would never have been necessary if they had left the judging up to the judges. These guys are called "suspects" until the investigations are complete.

The sheriffs don't deserve their jobs and the public doesn't deserve sheriffs who are so arrogant they think their impressions and imaginings are reality.

[edited: in the six "years" since then; not "months".]

See msg 312 for details.
 
Newcomers. See msg 312
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/35801
and this.

Was it a gut feeling or indigestion?

If the sheriffs do have evidence that they are not reporting, what could their motive be for doing that?

1. Because it's exculpatory to Phillip Marshal.

2. Anything else? Hands? Anyone? (They certainly aren't concealing it so that only the bad guy(s) will know it and tip their hand if interviewed, because the sheriffs already know whodunnit. Or so we are led to believe.)

Marshall has been their one and only suspect whom they decided was the villain before their investigation was done, as reported in their very first media release dated the same day the bodies were found at 3:10 on Saturday afternoon. Two hours before 5 pm. What time was the report thus finalized and posted?

The pdf file itself was last edited at this time.
Created: 2/3/2013 10:22:57 AM

Here's what it said.
Contact: Sgt Chris Hewitt Main: 209-754-6683 / Cell: 209-728-4909
Release Date: 02/02/13
Release Number: 1 Man Shoots Children, then Himself in a Murder-Suicide

(Murphys, CA) A Murphys man identified as Phillip Marshall (54) took the life of his two juvenile children before taking his own life in an apparent murder-suicide. On February 2, 2013 at 3:10 pm Calaveras Sheriff’s deputies were called to a residence on the 1200 block of Sandalwood Drive in the Forest Meadows subdivision, Murphys, for a suspicious circumstance/welfare check. The reporting parties, who are friends of the two victims, told investigators that they had not heard from the victims since Thursday, January 31, 2013. On February 2nd they went to the Marshall’s family residence looking for the victims. While at the front door of the house they were able to see inside and saw Phillip Marshall lying on the floor in a pool of blood. They called the sheriff’s office to report what they saw.

Upon arrival of the initial responding deputies they observed the man described by the reporting parties. The deputies entered the home and found the two deceased victims lying on a couch with apparent gunshot wounds. They also discovered the family dog deceased in a bedroom. The two victims were identified as 17 year old Alex Marshall and 14 year old Macaila Marshall. A preliminary examination of the deceased showed that all three suffered from single gunshot wounds to the head, the weapon being a handgun. The dog had also been shot. A post-mortem examination will be conducted at a later date to determine the actual cause of death of the victims and of Phillip Marshall.

The mother of the two victims and estranged wife of Phillip Marshall, Sean Marshall, was out of the country at the time of the incident. She was located and notified of the deaths.

Both victims were students at Bret Harte High School in Angels Camp. Additional details in the investigation will be provided as they develop. The reason for the murder-suicide is unknown at this time.

Note the "release date" is not the same as the file creation date.

Note: A post-mortem examination will be conducted at a later date to determine the actual cause of death of the victims and of Phillip Marshall.

The sheriffs were quite cautious about the cause of death, as you can see. It might have seemed obvious to someone less cautious and thorough that the cause of death was the gunshots to the head.

How incredibly obvious it must have been, then, that Marshall was the shooter in light of such careful investigation work.

6 weeks of the delay between the start and latest update of the investigation was caused by a backlog in Sacremento, we were told. The additional two weeks delay was apparently spent debunking "conspiracy theories", decibel tests, and so forth.

But now the finger print results are in, according to the sheriffs latest report and they are inconclusive.

With two additional weeks and 8 weeks later (6 weeks longer than usual for a ballistics and gun shot residue (GSR) tests) there is no suggestion that the GSR tests were even done.

But what if the standard GSR test was done as "the literature" suggests is standard, even for a obvious suicide. (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/25011942/1660865779/name/BLOOD+SPATTER+PATTERNS.pdf find "literature" near the bottom.)

This is the problem with this game of keep-away the sheriffs are playing with the evidence. Only they know what they have. Only they know the results of the GSR test.

And if they aren't releasing that GSR test data, there can only be one reason for that that I can think of.

It's because Phillip Marshall never fired a gun. ANY gun that night.

Has anyone seen the video of Marshall buying the bullets? It's not so unusual to share those things with the media. It's done all the time, in fact. it's unfortunately reasonable to wonder: IS THERE EVEN A VIDEO.

The sheriffs say they found a receipt for the exceedingly rare bullets in his car. Why don't they show a photocopy of that receipt? If Marshall bought any bullets at all, it would have been between the time he said he had no bullets and the date on the receipt.

Find 'tarquin' here (feb 5, 2013).
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_71f9b8da-6e27-11e2-99e8-001a4bcf887a.html
Phil was NOT depressed. He did NOT take his life. He did NOT murder his kids. Only a few days ago he said that "I have a gun, but it would be useless if I needed it because I got no bullets for it", (then he laughed!). I knew Phil, and he had everything to live for and he doted over his two beautiful kids.

So between "a few days ago" as of Feb 5 and the still indeterminate and/or bifurcated times (almost certainly Thursday night) we discover that on January 27,2013, two days before they all died, Phillip Marshall purchased a distinctive type of Fiocchi brand 9 millimeter handgun ammunition from Big 5 Sporting Goods store in Sonora.

Who has seen that video? And perhaps more importantly, how "distinctive" was the ammunition?

Does it sound like Phillip Marshall who had bought the gun a year before he got the ammo was a great appreciator of "distinctive" ammunition?

From the sheriffs' report:
In October 20 11Marshall purchased the Glock 9mm handgun from a gun store in Turlock, CA. The gun was registered to him.

So we are to believe that for a year he hangs onto the gun but has no bullets. And when he runs out to a store in Sonora, he gets some "distinctive" ammo that will help identify him as the shooter in case the ballistics tests are inconclusive.

How distinctive?

From the sheriffs' report:
On a Saturday, beginning at approximately 9:30 AM Detectives conducted a decibel meter sound experiment at the Marshall house. In advance of the experiment, due to the extremely low availability of the type of ammunition that Marshal had purchased, the Fiocchi Ammunition Company, for the purpose of this experiment, donated a box of the exact same type of ammunition that Marshall had purchased at Big 5 Sporting Goods (92 grain EMB-Expansion Mono-Block). The detectives were also able to locate a second box through the Big 5 Sporting Goods corporate office.

Extremely low availability? Ladies and gentlemen there was only one other box at any Big 5 store in the entire United States after Phillip Marshall's purchase.

And which Saturday morning did they do the testing on? And why on a Saturday. The sheriffs apparently know it was a Thursday that the kids died on. (The "official" and absurd "time of death" was to listed as Saturday at 3 pm according to an article at http://uniondemocrat.com. Is that why they tested on a Saturday?)

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_71f9b8da-6e27-11e2-99e8-001a4bcf887a.html find "Thursday".

http://www.uniondemocrat.com/News/Local-News/More-murder-suicide-details
find "Saturday"

To figure out which Saturday they tested on (could have been Spring by then) do we need to find out when the SHERIFFS purchased an identical gun to test with?

And why in the morning? Didn't they all die at night, in JANUARY, when it's cold and nobody is out there mowing their lawns to interfere with the perception of noise?

Ladies and gentlemen of the media jury, WHY don't they show the evidence? Why do they selectively exclude any mention of evidence they DO have? Why do they twist what they apparently do have into an unbelievable fable about Phillip Marshall having a bipolar disorder?

There can be only one reason.

To protect themselves.

And what do liars fear the most? The truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ladies and gentlemen of the media jury, WHY don't they show the evidence? Why do they selectively exclude any mention of evidence they DO have?

There can be only one reason.

The only reason has to be it is not part of their procedure to publish or make available to any member of the general public the evidence that they gather during the investigation of a crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top