Posted on 03/23/2010 12:36:04 PM PDT by sodpoodle
If this is not true, do we have a source to confirm it is not true?
but what story does it tell?
was there the same "stranger" dna all over the place?....his/her blood?....his or her hair?.....I don't think so
it was a tiny little apartment with paper thin walls.....8 people in that apartment 3 of them being stabbed to death and a 4th superficially stabbed and NO ONE heard anything behind that paper thin wall?......incredulous
sure, it would be nice if every crime scene was pristine....but that is a rarity...
Even years ago, preservation of the crime scene was imporrtant. Take fingerprinting. That had been done for years. When you have so many people roaming around a crime scene, you could wind up with a bazillion fingerprints. How much harder it would make an investigation to have to sift through all prints. Pristine, no...you can’t have that, but letting all sorts of people stomp around the scene was rather sloppy and irresponsible, and it still would have been even back in the days before DNA.
You are right — what evidence there was did convict MacDonald. But the initial military investigation made a mess of things. Had MacDonald’s stepfather-in-law not become suspicious and push to reopen the case (and have it reviewed by civil authorities), MacDonald would have gotten away with the murders. He actually sunk it himself with his behavior. Certainly wasn’t the behavior of a grieving widower.
The book was excellent. If you have never read it, I suggest you do so. Or see if you can find the made-for-tv movie somewhere. Fascinating.
*ping*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.